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
/
A developmental evaluation of action research as a process for organizational change
(USC Thesis Other)
A developmental evaluation of action research as a process for organizational change
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A DEVELOPMENTAL EVALUATION OF ACTION RESEARCH AS A PROCESS
FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
by
Thamizhchelvi Subramaniam
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2012
Copyright 2012 Thamizhchelvi Subramaniam
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Subramaniam and Parvathi, my husband,
Mohan, my daughters, Kavita and Aishvina, and to my brothers, Thamiz and Thiru for
inspiring me to fulfill my dreams and supporting me through every endeavor that I have
undertaken.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My journey that has spanned two continents has been memorable. This journey
thus far could not have happened without the love and support that I have received from
so many people. First of all, the gratitude I owe my parents, Subramaniam and Parvathi,
can never be repaid. They have made so many sacrifices over the years to provide for me
so I could better myself. They have imparted in me the love for learning, and it is
through their love and guidance that I am who I am today.
I thank my husband, Mohan who has supported me all these years. Even during
my recent endeavor, you have demonstrated so much patience. Just so I could have more
time to study while holding down a fulltime job, you took on additional responsibilities
like taking on most of the household choirs, which included cooking meals for the family.
No words can describe how appreciative I am of you for putting up with my up’s and
down’s.
And to my daughters, Kavita and Aishvina, I appreciate the time and energy you
have provided me by picking up behind me when I have been overwhelmed with school
and work. You have both been considerate when I am shut up in the study working on my
dissertation.
Most importantly, I want to thank my dissertation chair and advisor, Dr. Alicia
Dowd, for always being available for me, even on weekends. You have provided me
advice, guidance and support, especially during the last few months. You have worked
with each one of your thematic doctoral students and never once have you given up on
us. Thank you! Additionally, I want to acknowledge my dissertation committee member,
Dr. Sylvia Rousseau whom I credit for inspiring me to study issues related to
iv
achievement gaps that exist in minority students. Also, I send a big thank you to Dr.
Barbara Jaffe who has become my role model at El Camino College. I appreciate your
encouragement and the time you have taken out of your schedule to guide me through my
studies.
And to my dearest thematic group member, Peggy Smith, who has been my
confidant, my one-woman cheer team, my let-me-bounce-this-of-you person, and my
weekly study buddy, I am so very grateful to have met you, and I have enjoyed working
with you. I do not think I could have done it without you! Also I would like to thank
Carla Beam, Maruth Figueroa, Christiane Woerner and Peggy Smith for the time we
spent at the OC campus when I began writing my first three chapters. I could not have
asked for a better group to study with. And to the rest of my thematic group members,
Svetlana, Rashitta, Lee Anne, Erin, Tomas, and Lorena, I have enjoyed working with all
of you. What a journey this has been for all of us!
To my colleagues at El Camino College Compton Center, who have always been
supportive of my decision to pursue my doctoral studies, you have made this possible.
You have been my support system. And finally to all my other friends and family
members who have not bothered me for the past three years. I appreciate your
understanding and for always being available whenever I needed to get away. You have
also contributed to my success. Thank you!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODCUTION 1
Call to Address Inequities 1
Introduction of the Problem 7
Culturally Inclusive Practices & Pedagogy 10
Accountability Pressures 11
Accountability in California 13
Institutional Change 16
National & State Strategies for Change in Higher Education 18
Purpose of the Study 24
Significance of the Study 25
Organization of the Dissertation 26
CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 27
The Call for Equity Pedagogy 32
Challenging Deficit Notions 36
Reordering Relationship between Dominant & Nondominant
Communities 38
The Roles of Institutional Agents 40
Institutional Agents of Empowerment 42
Bringing About New Organizational Behavior 43
Action Research as an Organizational Change Strategy 46
Practitioner as Co-researchers of Change 47
Cultural Artifacts as the Media of Change 50
Bridging Institutional Theory with CHAT 52
CUE’s Research Involving Activity Theory 54
CUE’s Action Research Agenda 57
Summary 58
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 60
Developmental Evaluation in Organizational Change 60
Developmental Evaluation Research at DCC 62
Action Research Promoting Inquiry 64
Addressing Accountability and Assessment Measures 66
Major Research and Action Research Initiatives 69
vi
Action Research at Dynamic Community College 72
Data Collection Procedures 73
Data Collection Method 74
Document Analysis 76
Phase One: Action Research Activities and Data Collection 79
Planning Workshop One: BESST 79
Planning Workshop Two: Syllabus Review
Planning Workshop 82
Debriefing and Cognitive Interviews 83
Phase Two: Action Research Activities and
Data Collection 86
Data Analysis Procedures 88
Ethical Concerns 93
Standards of Review 94
Credibility 94
Transferability 99
Dependability and Confirmability 101
Limitations 102
Reporting Results 104
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 106
Overview 106
Institutional Context & Setting: A Campus that Values Professional
Development 108
CUE’s Action Research Tools Used at DCC 110
Syllabus Review Project: Inquiry to Improve Classroom Practice 121
Summary of Coded Data and Nature of the Inquiry 123
Comparison of DCC’s Results to Collective Study 125
Emergent Themes Related to the Institution’s Culture 127
Agency: In the Classroom and Institutionally 131
Uncertainty about How to Include Culturally Responsive Pedagogy 133
Wishing for Broader Institutional Involvement and Buy-In 138
Conformity versus Academic Freedom 143
Application of Past Beliefs and Experiences to Current Context 145
Promoting Institutional Change through the Syllabus Review Project 147
Discussion 151
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS 156
Summary of findings 162
Recommendations to DCC to Improve Practitioner Involvement for
Change 168
Mentorship 169
Co-Mentorship 170
Recommendation to DCC to Construct & Co-construct New Knowledge 175
Recommendation to DCC for Unified Institutional Efforts 178
Recommendation to DCC for Renewed Professional Development 179
vii
Recommendations for CUE 180
Recommendations for Community Colleges and Institutions of Higher
Education 185
Recommendations for Future Research 188
Conclusion 190
BIBLIOGRAPHY 195
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Introduction to the Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool™ (BESST) 208
APPENDIX B: DCC Syllabus Review Reflection Evaluation
Questionnaire: August 16
th
, 2011 214
APPENDIX C: Syllabus Review Reflection Cognitive Interview
Protocol(DCC) 216
APPENDIX D: Syllabus Review Reflection Protocol 227
APPENDIX E: Observational Data Collection Template 247
APPENDIX F: Syllabus Content and Organizational Checklist 249
APPENDIX G: Dear Colleague Letter
(Recruitment Text and Ethical Commitments for
Interactions with Human Subjects) 252
viii
LIST O F TABLES
Table 3.1: Research Questions and Sub Questions 67
Table 3.2: CUE’s Developmental Evaluation Study Field Sites 71
Table 3.3: Summary of Data Collection Methods 75
Table 3.4: Deductive Data Analysis Codes 90
Table 4.1: DCC - Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data
Analysis (Frequency Counts) 124
Table 4.2: MSU - Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data
Analysis (Frequency counts) 125
Table 4.3: Confirming and Disconfirming Data 128
Table 4.4: Sample Quotes Illustrating Data Coded as Confirming or
Disconfirming 129
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Engeström’s Cycle of Expansive Learning 31
Figure 3.1: Developmental Evaluation Research Design at DCC 64
Figure 3.2: Reflective Practices (Inquiry) as Driver of Racial-Ethnic In
Postsecondary Outcomes-CUE’s Equity Model 66
Figure 3.3: Data Collection & Timeline at DCC 78
Figure 4.1: Activity Triangle Reflecting Changes 107
Figure 4.2: The Cycle of Inquiry at DCC 111
Figure 4.3: Math Pipeline in BESST Tool 112
Figure 4.2A: Segment 1-Social Interaction Leads to Reflection and Change in
Beliefs 112
Figure 4.2B: Segment 2-From Problem Identification to Experimentation
and Action 115
Figure 4.2C: Segment 3-Adaptive Expertise Leads to New Knowledge 122
Figure 5.1: The Cycle of Inquiry 163
x
ABSTRACT
This study investigates whether practitioners’ involvement in an action inquiry
project promotes changes in their beliefs, assumptions, and values. The study involved
the use of CUE’s action research tools at an urban community college to study the
beliefs, assumptions and values that practitioners bring to their institution which may
affect or facilitate organizational change. The tool that was involved in the action inquiry
process was the Syllabus Review Protocol. The inquiry project represented an
experiential self-assessment using the Protocol that encompassed a sample syllabus and a
list of indicators reflecting culturally responsive pedagogy. Using these culturally
responsive indicators, practitioners compared their syllabi to a sample syllabus and the
list of indicators to analyze what is communicated about the institution’s culture through
their syllabi.
The ultimate goal of the study was to provide practitioners the opportunity to
become aware that the beliefs, assumptions and values related to race and ethnicity that
they bring to the classrooms may affect the way they view their students and their
students’ ability to succeed. The study revealed that when practitioners were involved in
the inquiry process using the Protocol, their interaction in an activity setting promoted
reflection and exchange of knowledge and co-construction of new knowledge. These
kinds of social interaction within an inquiry process led to changes in their beliefs and
behavior. This study contributes to the body of knowledge about practices that other
community colleges and universities could use to investigate their institution’s culture as
they work to develop equity minded plans for improving student outcomes.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Call to Address Inequities
On July 14, 2009, President Barack Obama announced in Warren, Michigan, the
American Graduation Initiative with the goal to increase the proportion of degree
completion amongst minority students. This initiative followed years later after President
Lincoln’s legislation that created land grant colleges to transform the country’s economy
through higher education and President Roosevelt’s GI Bill to educate a generation that
had experienced turmoil during WWII. President Obama called for Americans to
compete with other developing nations that have surpassed the United States of America
in educational attainment. The initiative compelled postsecondary institutions in the
United States to reform the way they operate so as to improve and increase student
success and completion. With this initiative in place, postsecondary institutions began
plans to add another five million degree and certificate holders out into the work force.
Again, in February, 2011, President Obama set another goal for America to
increase by 2010 the number of college degrees earned (Building American Skills
through Community Colleges). To aid in meeting this goal, his government is working on
providing affordable, open-enrollment community colleges. A Community College
Challenge Funds was created to fund community colleges to improve their instruction,
create stronger networks with local businesses and to implement other transformational
changes that are needed to meet the 2020 goal. In order to increase graduation numbers,
higher education institutions have implemented plans to expand course offerings, to offer
dual enrollment for high school students, and have begun aligning community college
2
transfer courses to four-year institutions. However, with recent budget cuts in California
and other parts of the country, the efforts to increase the number of students attaining
college degrees are being diminished for it is becoming increasingly difficult for students
to fulfill their degree requirements when course offerings are limited, college tuition has
increased, and financial resources to aid students in enrolling and completing their
college education has been reduced (retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/education/05protests.html). Additionally, tuition
increases have further impacted minority students who are already affected by the lack of
financial resources. The lack of funding ultimately impacts access to higher education,
which impedes their attaining a college education.
The national data shows that the graduation rates for African American students
in 2009 was 20 points below that of their white peers, and for Hispanic students, the gap
is more than 10 points (Closing the Achievement Gap in Higher Education). The Kellogg
Commission (1998) reports that higher education has provided access and support to
diverse student population to participate in college, yet minority college students are 50%
less likely to graduate within six years from four-year institutions compared to 33% of
their white counterparts (Museus & Quaye, 2009). Scholars argue that while pedagogy
that includes equity, culture and socialization has been introduced into the curriculum,
there are still degree completion gaps that exist within the minority population (Bennett,
2001; Banks et al., 1993). Progress has been made to increase the numbers of minority
students admitted to institutions of higher education, yet the numbers of students
graduating from community colleges, transferring to four- year institutions or earning
four year degrees amongst these same students is not proportional. The numbers illustrate
3
that equity in enrollment has certainly being addressed, but the numbers of minority
students graduating with degrees from public and private universities has not increased
proportionately.
Achievement inequities amongst minority students have long existed at the K-12
level, and under the No Child Left Behind legislation of 2001, reporting of disaggregated
data by race and ethnicity is required. Yet in higher education, there is an absence of
accountability systems that clearly measure institutional performance to address
educational outcomes inequities (Dowd, 2003). Accountability systems create effective
measures to monitor the performances of institutions, but unfortunately most state
accountability systems do not generate evidence to produce educational outcomes.
Instead these accountability systems function as monitoring mechanism to measure
institutional performance without improving institutional outcomes (Shulock, 2004).
Since the 80’s there have been extreme measures taken to create evaluation and
accountability systems at the state and national levels to address student success; yet
these measures have not increased the numbers of minority students earning four- year
degrees nor has it made a distinctive mark in improving the graduation rates for minority
students.
Institutions of higher education have thus far created one-size-fits all programs to
improve graduation or transfer opportunity to all students, including minority students,
who are historically from lower socioeconomic status. Institutions of higher education
use yearly state and federal accountability statistics to implement solutions as reactive
measures which leaves out the crucial element of assessing institutional structures and
their missions. Rather than analyzing institutional data to tie the data into the institution’s
4
mission and the population it serves, best practices that have worked on other campuses
are being implemented as ways to improve student outcomes. The solutions merely
camouflage the problem without evaluating the root of the problem which is the lack of
improvement in transfer access and degree completion for minority students. The true
problem has been skirted, and millions of dollars are spent hiring educational consultants
who prepare solutions that do not take into account the essential elements that exist at
institutions of higher education where the transfer rates and graduation rates are low.
Racial-ethnic inequities exist because of the unequal structures at institutions of
higher education and the K-12 systems. These inequities contribute to why a large
number of minority students are not persisting on to transfer from 2-year community
colleges to 4-year institutions or completing requirements to attain a college degree.
State and federal accountability systems measure institutional performance based on
educational outcomes. However, there are inequities that still exist at institutions of
higher education that are not addressed by these accountability systems. Instead most
state accountability systems do not generate evidence that shows data that is
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, thereby, making improvements for minority student
achievement difficult. Performance accountability is a measure that is in place to increase
productivity, but monitoring in itself does not promote or allow for organizational
learning to bring about productivity. A lot of effort has been put into holding institutions
accountable but no empirical studies have been conducted to consider under what
conditions learning takes place.
Without disaggregated data, it may not be possible for institutions to assess how
they are performing in terms of minority student transfer and degree completion.
5
Furthermore, practitioners at institutions of higher education may not be motivated to
change their practices since they do not have data to show how their institutional culture
may contribute to minority student underachievement. Institutional accountability data
seem relevant only to institutional leaders and members of the board, and many times the
data that is reported back from state and federal accountability systems are only available
to administrators, especially to institutional researchers. Institutional leaders approach
improvement using a top-down model since they are the ones who have access to the
data. They address improving student outcomes by selective student recruitment,
implementing one-size-fits all solutions, and increasing access for minority students as
their way of providing equitable opportunities.
However, faculty who play influential roles to the successes of their students are
not privileged to the accountability data and how the data has been interpreted. Because
of the lack of relevant data, faculty may not be motivated or are not in the position to use
the data to improve institutional outcomes. Faculty are more likely to continue to conduct
their classes as they have traditionally done without considering how their beliefs,
assumptions and the values that they bring to the institution may contribute to the way
they view their students and their ability to succeed. Careful assessment by faculty would
be more likely if appropriate data are made available to them which would motivate
faculty to participate in the inquiry process.
The concept of a culture of inquiry takes the focus away from data and places it
on the practitioners. The shift creates opportunities for practitioners and decision makers
to use data for organizational change. When practitioners are provided relevant student
outcomes data, they may begin to engage in collaborative inquiry. The culture of inquiry
6
may promote social interaction and dialogue to bring about inquiry into the problems of
student achievement. Inquiry may further lead to reflection, planning, implementing of
action plans and further assessment of planned programs. However, the culture of inquiry
may not exist if behaviors and beliefs of practitioners are not changed. Practitioners must
also be willing to be engaged in institutional change before the inquiry process can
impact them. If the assumption is that the culture of inquiry is cyclical, then it should
promote continuous reflective practices. It is only through the culture of inquiry that any
form of organizational change can emerge (Dowd, 2005).
One way to bring about organizational change is for institutions of higher
education to be involved in the culture of inquiry that incorporates culturally inclusive
practices. Culturally inclusive practices promote learning that takes place within
everyday social and cultural contexts that are strongly entrenched in historical customs
and traditions (Rogoff, 1994). Culturally responsive practices involve including culturally
relevant pedagogy into classroom activities as a way to change organizational culture
(Nasir & Hand, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lee, 1995; Scribner & Cole, 1973). These
practices may decrease the inequities that exist in institutions of higher education and K-
12 system.
This study is particularly important for the state of California since California has
the fastest-growing minority group in the United States. For example, in 2008, California
had the largest Hispanic population accounting for 36% of total population at 12.2
million (retrieved from articles.latimes.com/2008/may/01/nation/na-census1). Students
whose second language is not English require additional language acquisition practice
and with the recent budget cuts, these kinds of additional services may not be provided.
7
More and more students who enroll into colleges and universities are testing into basic
skills courses, and the gap in minority student persistence and retention is widening. This
study seeks to test the importance of the inquiry process as part of action research that
can promote organizational changes which are required to improve minority student
achievement at a large community college in an urban city where there is a large
concentration of Hispanic students.
Introduction of the Problem
Between 1997 and 2007, Hispanic college enrollment rose from 4% to 11% and
African American student enrollment rose from 9% to 12% during the same period
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). However, the rate of college attainment
among underrepresented students, including first-generation students, low-income
students and students of color, is measurably lower than White and Asian students. A
recent Chronicle of Education article from January 23, 2011 states that the number of
students graduating with a college degree has not increased proportionately. A February
2009 report by the Lumina Foundation for Education concludes that only 18% of African
American and 12% of Hispanics have at least four years of college compared to more
than 30% of white, non-Hispanic, American adults. Additionally, the report concludes
that White and Asian students tend to graduate at higher rates than African American and
Hispanic students. The National Center for Education Statistics reported in 2007 that the
average gap in graduation rates between White and African American students was 18
percentage points, and between White and Hispanic students was 12 percentage points
(retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007161.pdf). And as the current
8
demographic and economic trends shift, it is expected that the achievement gaps will be
further widened if measures are not in place to address these disparities.
Scholars and educators claim that when students are under-prepared as they enter
college, the risk of not completing a college degree is higher (Pascarella et al., 2004;
Rendón, 1994). An article in the March, 27, 1998, Los Angeles Times indicates that the
campus-by-campus figures for the California State University system offer a dismaying
view of the lack of preparation for college work at many of the system’s schools,
particularly those in urban areas (Weiss & Nguyen, 2009). Another report by The
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges concluded in February 1998 that
half of the students who enter into the California community college system are directed
into basic skills courses (Hill, 2008). Pascarella and colleagues (2004), confirm, “. . .
first- generation students are more likely to leave a four-year institution at the end of the
first year, less likely to remain enrolled in a four-year institution or be on a persistence
track to a bachelors degree after three years, and are less likely to stay enrolled or attain a
bachelors degree after five years” (p. 250). Dowd (2007) cites data showing that African
American and Hispanic students are overrepresented in these basic skills courses. In
2006, almost 15% of all students enrolled in California community colleges took a
majority of basic skills and/or ESL classes (California Counts: Population Trends and
Profiles, p. 1). Basic skills courses are designed to provide foundational skills to
strengthen students’ skills in math, reading and writing. Once these courses are
completed, students are then able to enroll in college level courses. When minority
students and also first generation college students enter postsecondary institutions, they
face many challenges since they lack the necessary skills to navigate and overcome their
9
daily challenges when attempting to complete their studies. Kirst and Venezia (2004)
state that a large percentage of students do not continue on for a second year of college,
and 41% who earn more than ten credits at a two- or four-year school never complete a
two- or four-year degree. The national retention rate of freshman students who persist on
to sophomore status for 2010 at 2-year colleges was 55.7%, and for 4-year public
colleges, it was 67.6% (ACT, 2007). Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin (1998) found that first
generation college students have lower persistence rates (Fike & Fike, 2008).
Other studies conclude that persistence is closely related to academic and social
attachment (Scott, Bailey & Kienzl, 2006). Dowd (2003) argues that access alone is no
longer sufficient in fulfilling the mission of higher education institutions, especially for
community colleges. Moreover, other scholars confirm that access without progress is an
empty promise (Grubb et al., 2003). Then the question to postsecondary institutions is
what measures are being taken to serve the under-prepared minority students once they
arrive at their doorsteps? Most postsecondary institutions create and implement equity
plans and programs to support minority students to improve their students’ persistence
and ultimately graduation from college or transfer to four- year institutions; however, the
numbers do not show that the achievement gaps for minority students have been
narrowed in terms of persistence, retention, transfer, and ultimately degree attainment.
And if educational attainment does not persist amongst racial and ethnic groups, the
decreased numbers of college educated workers in the United States will cause
substantial economic consequences (Museus & Quaye, 2009)
If persistence and retention are primary goals for all postsecondary institutions,
then minority student access should lead to degree completion. However, data from our
10
nation’s postsecondary institutions do not demonstrate these results. Current student
development literature shows that nurturing environments promote and improve
persistence, retention and reduction of dropouts amongst minority students (The Journal
of Blacks in Higher Education, 2007); hence postsecondary institutions have taken
similar measures to provide environments that are conducive to improving student
success. Yet according to federal and state accountability reports, the numbers of
minority students attaining degrees has still not increased. Providing college participation
opportunities to racial and ethnic groups addresses racial and ethnic diversity, but it does
not equate to providing equitable opportunities to minority students since the number of
minority students who enroll and graduate is disproportionate (Dowd, 2003). Diversity
does not only refer to race or ethnicity. Diversity only refers to the varying levels of
educational strengths and weaknesses which students bring to the institution. Therefore,
postsecondary institutions that enroll minority students based on their ethnicity alone do
not address the disparities that arise in the graduation gaps. Therefore, providing
equitable outcomes to minority students to improve persistence and retention will address
the inequities that continue to exist today.
Culturally Inclusive Practices and Pedagogy
Many institutions have begun their journey to narrowing the equity gaps through
curriculum reform, yet curriculum reform alone cannot happen without buy-in from all
stakeholders. Curriculum reform that incorporates minority students’ culture and history
into the educational curriculum to transform the traditional Anglo Eurocentric curriculum
has become a tool to counter cultural hegemony (Bennett, 2001; Banks et al, 1993).
Banks et al. (1993) call upon Bennett’s historical inquiry when referring to content areas
11
as “transformative academic knowledge” (p. 9) which is knowledge that reflects the
power and social relationships within society and that the important purpose of
knowledge is to help improve society. Even after these reforms are implemented, the
expected results are still dismal.
Varying teaching styles and pedagogies are implemented to narrow the graduation
gaps amongst minority students. Grant and Sleeter (1986) argue that incorporating more
culturally inclusive practices and pedagogies promote and stimulate learning. Scholars
argue that minorities have historically struggled against oppression, and their experiences
must be integrated into the American culture. And if their culture and their experiences
are not part of their learning, then the power for social change is weakened (Grant &
Sleeter, 1986; Tierney, 1999; LeMoine, 2001). Gay (2000) affirms that successful
teaching will “reverse the underachievement of students of color” (p. 1). She adds that by
using ethnically diverse students’ prior experiences and using their performance style,
faculty can “teach to and through the strengths of these students” (p. 29). These theories
affirm that reforming curriculum alone is meaningless unless minority students’ own
cultures and history are included into the context of the new curriculum. However, even
though scholars and practitioners are aware of these strategies, there still remains a large
gap between access, retention and persistence amongst minority students.
Accountability Pressures
Higher education faces frequent changes due to financial constrains, advent of
technology and technologies’ growing importance in society, changing demographics,
changes in faculty roles and responsibilities, and changes in values, both internally and
externally. Moreover, public, federal and state accountability systems scrutinize how
12
higher education institutes provide and maintain equitable outcomes that are affected
through state and federal funding (Kezar, 2002; Levin, 2000). Subsequently, to address
deficiency in minority student success, internal accountability systems have been set up
by governing bodies at postsecondary institutions and accountability measures have been
put into place by the federal and state governments to critically evaluate institutional
roles and how effectively institutions distribute their functions and programs and use their
operational costs. Most importantly, internal accountability involves setting internal
processes to determine student outcomes that meet the shared expectation between
faculty, administrators and students (Elmore, 2002, 1999; Newmann & King, et al.,
2000). Burke (2005) argues that several different types of accountability add to the
pressures that community colleges face. Upward accountability exists between the board
of trustee and the various institutional entities, and at the same time, the institution is
required to maintain a relationship with state and federal agencies. Furthermore, internal
institutional accountability exists in a downward mode, whereby collegial, participatory
decision making continues to hold each institutional entity accountable to each other.
Professional accountability is the inward mode that holds practitioners accountable to
each other and to the institution as a whole. Finally, outward accountability responds to
the needs of the institution’s stakeholders and the current market demands. Without all of
these entities working together, very little change can be seen in minority student success
and achievement.
External accreditation bodies have in the past worked closely with federal and
state accountability systems in the allocation of state and federal aid to post-secondary
education (Schmidtlein & Berdahl, 2005). Many accreditation agencies and state
13
education departments are the external accountability bodies that hold each institution
accountable for various achievement indicators. The main outcome measure used in
external accountability is measures of progress involving completion of courses,
programs, credentials, licenses; transfer rates to subsequent education or employment
rates (Grubb & Bradway, 2005). In short, accountability is simply the outcomes that are
attained from the resources that are allocated to institutions by federal and state agencies
(Schmidtlein & Berdahl, 2005). Kenneth Mortimer also argues that accountability is
measured by output and not by what goes in (cited in Schmidtlein & Berdahl, 2005;
Burke, 2005).
Accountability in California
For institutional changes to occur institutional plans for change must exist; an
accountability mechanism alone will not improve student success if there is not a plan in
place. In California, several professional organizations are in place to address the gap that
currently exists in student success, transfer and degree attainment at community colleges.
The Center for Student Success (CSS) and The Research and Planning (RP) group have
developed a working document for institutions of higher education to use as they measure
student outcomes. The document, frequently called the Poppy Copy, refers to literature
relevant to basic skills research that aids colleges to develop their own self-assessment
tools as they examine their current practices on how to improve student outcomes,
especially in areas of degree completion (CCSO, 2008; Salazar-Romo, 2009).
Another accountability system used in California mandates that student equity
plans be implemented at each institution. These plans, CCR § 54220, were established to
push for accountability measures to be in place to provide equity for all students to
14
succeed. While the accountability measures provide opportunities and access for all
students, they also focus on providing tools for minority students to exit with necessary
survival skills, advance to completing their college education, and to attain a degree
(Bensimon, 2003). In order for students to succeed, community colleges develop and
submit student equity plans related to how each institution will promote student access,
retention, and persistence. Additionally, these institutional plans are roadmaps for
institutions as they address student equity in ESL, basic skills completion, and ultimately
transfer to four-year universities.
To ensure that community colleges fulfill Title 5 requirements, AB 1417 was
passed in 2004 which authorized the California Community Colleges System Office
(CCCSO) to create and implement an accountability system called Accountability
Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC). This accountability system (ARCC)
assesses the progress made by students in the area of basic skills. The ARCC reports also
provide performance measures for (a) rates of completion for associate degree, transfer,
or a certificate; (b) rates of completion of at least 30 units; (c) rates of term-to-term
persistence; (d) rates of completion for vocational courses; (e) rates of completion for
basic skills courses; (f) rates of improvement in basic skills courses; (g) the number and
percent of public institution baccalaureate recipients who transferred from a California
community college; (h) the annual number of transfers to any four-year institution; (i) the
transfer rate to four-year institutions; (j) the number of degrees or certificates awarded
per program; (k) the increase in total personal income following completion of a
vocational degree or certificate; (l) the number of people with improvement in basic
skills; and (m) ethnicity-specific rates of participation in the community colleges.
15
Additionally, the report includes comparisons between peer institutions throughout the
California Community College Systems (California Counts: Population Trends and
Profiles, 2006). However, how these reports are used for internal processes to
improvement is solely dependent on each institution. Data generated by these reports can
be analyzed during action inquiry processes that promote organizational learning and
change, which may lead to improvements in minority student outcome.
Even though the yearly ARCC reports provide accountability data to institutions,
the reports do not disaggregate institutional data to identify how many of their minority
students completed their associates degree or transferred to four-year institutions
(ARCC/AB 1417 Fact Sheet). The data only reports the overall numbers of students who
completed degrees or transferred. The ARCC reports allow for comparison of colleges
based on college size, population size, and ethnic makeup but not by individual ethnic
group and its successes. Moreover, the data compiled does not include the number of
minorities who do not attain degrees or certificates, nor do the data report the persistence
rates or retention rates of students disaggregated by race or ethnicity. Likewise, the
ARCC reports are void of data that reveal retention, persistence and degree completion
disaggregated by ethnic groups. These reports do not provide data that is valuable in
terms of what measures or plans can be implemented to increase student success amongst
minority students. Institutions vary depending on the communities they serve; therefore,
disaggregated data are meaningful only if the data are analyzed in the context of the
particular institution (ARCC/AB 1417 Fact Sheet, 2007).
Disaggregated data are relevant when determining how successful community
colleges are in addressing student persistence and degree attainment. A special report
16
from the Lumina Foundation for Education (2009) maintains that federal and state data
systems and institutions data collection do not assess student outcomes that can be used
by institutions to make comparison with similar institutions (A Special Report from
Lumina foundation for Education, Feb. 2009, p. 4-5). The problem is that the state
accountability data reports do not provide data that is crucial and relevant to addressing
the real issue of equity, which is the rate at which minority students are successfully
completing degree requirements or successfully preparing to transfer to four-year
institutions.
Institutional Change
While federal and state government accountability measures critically evaluate
institutional roles and how effectively institutions distribute their functions and programs
and use their operational costs, other internal measures may be in operation at each
institution to address the low numbers of minority students who transfer or complete
degree requirements. Internal accountability systems are set up by governing bodies at
postsecondary institutions. Internal accountability systems may or may not lead to
changes because each institution has a defined set of socially accepted patterns of
behavior. Scholars argue that these socially accepted behaviors are learned through
choices because these socially prescribed behavior, frequently conscious, lead to certain
patterns of behavior that become a natural part of the institutional culture. Therefore,
institutional change is discretionary since all conscious behaviors are outcomes of choice
(Bush, 1987), but socio-cultural scholars claim that conscious behavior is learned through
cultural and social experiences. Individuals’ past experiences through social interactions
become ingrained as deeply held personal theories (Pajares, 1992). According to Tharp
17
and Gallimore (1988), higher order functions or thought processes that lead to behavior
develop out of social experiences and interactions and may be unconscious behavior and
therefore can be changed. Similarly, Vygotsky (1986) argues that individuals learn
through social events as they interact with people, objects and events and can be thought
to change their behavior through social interactions.
No matter what view is taken, it is still apparent that institutional change in its
broadest sense as determined by the ever changing context of higher education is not
happening at rates to produce effective student outcomes. The reason why institutional
change has not taken place expediently is that there has been no clear strategy or
approach to produce substantial improvement because the available data that federal and
state accountability systems collect and disseminate do not take into account contextual
factors that affect equitable outcomes. The available data, that may provide aggregated
institutional data, does not provide crucial information that is disaggregated by race.
Disaggregated data provides institutions a clear picture of how each racial group is
progressing. Berquist (1992) argued that context based data analysis allows for
practitioners and institutions to identify and isolate specific institutional data that can be
valuable to the institution. Furthermore, context based data analysis allows practitioners
to further dissect relevant data to seek even more evidence as they begin the inquiry
process for institutional transformation (Berquist 1992 as cited in Kezar, 2002). Before
context based data analysis can begin, practitioners should learn to recognize what
personal experiences and perspectives, values, beliefs and assumptions they bring into the
inquiry process (Dowd, 2005). The inquiry process will enable practitioners to assess
institutional data for its face value without supplanting their personal perspectives.
18
Some scholars argue that institutional changes begin with practitioners further
dissecting and analyzing essential data by seeking, requesting and compiling evidence of
student outcomes by disaggregating data by race and ethnicity (Dowd, 2005). The
disaggregated data provide meaningful insights as to how minority students meet
institutional outcomes. Compared to aggregated data, which views all outcomes in
general terms, disaggregated data looks at specific groups, i.e. Hispanic student success
or degree completion or degree completion of African American students. Bauman, et al.
(2005) argue that disaggregation of data can afford insight to practitioners on how to
begin plans to remedy low institutional student outcomes
(www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/documents/bauman_et_al.).
National and State Strategies for Change in Higher Education
To close the current equity gaps, numerous federal, state and private foundations
have initiatives and policies in place to improve student success. The strategies addressed
by national and state initiatives can be categorized into the following areas: A. Establish
greater federal efforts for higher education; B. Provide more resources; C. Create plans
and set goals; D. Promote diversity/multiculturalism; E. Implement performance
reporting; F. Promote collective practitioner role and inquiry. These strategies are all
interrelated and provide guidelines to colleges and universities as they work towards
improving student success, but again, without institutional planning that includes inquiry,
the effort to improve student success may not occur.
A. Establish greater federal effort for higher education
Obama’s the American Graduation Initiative that includes The College Access
and Completion Fund is designed to allow for more innovation, evaluation, and
19
expansion of community colleges to increase their graduation rates. Funding is available
to assist states to account for student progress and completion by providing student
scholarships, promote learning communities to increase student success, improve
teaching amongst faculty, improve and implement strategies to aid working adults
(Building American Skills through Community Colleges).
B. Provide more resources
The ultimate goal is to provide enough funds to ensure that once students enroll at
community colleges, all measures are in place to guarantee that students either transfer or
earn a certificate. The resources provided would expand Pell Grants and college tax
credits, reforming student loan programs, and expand the Perkins loan programs.
C. Create plans and set goals
More recently, in April 2011, Vice President Biden announced the government’s
“college completion toolkit” to aid states and governors to develop a strategy to increase
college completion through a set of “no-cost or low-cost” programs to improve student
persistence and increase productivity of public colleges. Biden’s proposal includes a new
$20 million grant program that complements President Obama’s administration’s 2012
budget which focuses on increasing graduation rates to at least 50% by 2020. The grant
program will provide college funding to improve student persistence and completion. The
Department of Education has also created a state-by-state outline for each state and how
each state will increase its graduation rate. Biden argues that the commitment made to
providing access to post-secondary education alone is insufficient; he now urges the
nation to be committed to completion
(http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/Pages/Academic-Programs/Biden-announces-
20
college-completion-tool-kit.aspx).
Another initiative which attempts to bridge student success gaps is the 2008
Bridges to Opportunity Program funded by the Ford Foundation. The initiative provides
opportunities to low–income adults to return to college to earn their vocational
certificates. Additionally, Achieving the Dream, funded by the non-profit Lumina
Foundation, aids colleges in improving institutional programs through the use of
institutional data and research that will provide resources to institutions when preparing
plans to improve student success. Its focus is to influence community colleges to develop
policies that will generate new knowledge through the engagement of its stakeholders
(http://www.achievingthedream.org/). The Lumina Foundation’s goal is to increase the
percentage of Americans who have earned degrees and credentials from 39% to 60% by
2025 (A Special Report from the Lumina Foundation for Education, Feb, 2009).
D. Promote diversity/multiculturalism
The Association of American Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) Making
Excellence Inclusive promotes the inclusion of individual differences in the student’s
ethnicity, learning styles and life experiences. AAC&U focuses on providing institutions
guidelines on how to transform and bring about changes to student learning and
achievement. Included in this initiative is the need for active, intentional and ongoing
engagement in diversity in all aspect of institutional operations, especially in areas such
as curriculum and in complex institutional cultures that exist on each campus. According
to Polkinghorne (2000), practitioners are not “locked into their socially transmitted
backgrounds” (p. 453), and therefore, when practitioners become aware of the
21
inequalities that exist based on race differences, they will learn that these inequalities are
problems that hinder outcomes for minority students.
E. Implement performance reporting
Minority student success has not improved despite the design and implementation
of internal and external accountability systems. Without necessary internal changes in
institutional practices, the number of minority students completing their postsecondary
education or attaining degrees will not increase. According to Burke, Minassians and
Modarresi (2003, 1999), institutional practices can be measured through three kinds of
performance accountability that are frequently used in higher education institutions; they
are performance funding, performance budgeting and performance reporting (Burke,
Minassians & Modarresi, 2003, 1999 as cited in Harbour & Jaquette, 2007). Burke
(2005) contends that these kinds of reporting on performance indicators merely
camouflage crucial data which do not reveal meaningful information to promote positive
changes (Harbour et al., 2009). Bensimon (2005) argues that institutional practices are
developed, not through polices established by internal and external agencies, but through
shared cognitive frames or cultures developed by institutional participants. Subsequently,
institutional participants create and apply their own rules on how they reason and behave
to certain situations. These unwritten rules thereby become the culture that is in place at
the institution. Cultural rules also regulate how postsecondary institutions receive and
interpret data regarding student success. If relevant evidence is not sought when
addressing and changing institutional policies, then the goal to narrow minority student
achievement gaps may not be addressed to meet the Nation’s call to improve graduation
rates amongst minority students.
22
F. Promote collective practitioner role and Inquiry
Practitioners, who view these inequalities as not only being individual
responsibilities but institutional, will take a collective role in adopting new knowledge,
practice and policies to address educational inequities (Lee & Loeb, 1996; Bensimon, et
al., 2007; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986). One such approach to address
educational inequities was developed by the Center for Urban Education (CUE). CUE’s
Equity Scorecard, which was originally 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 . . . equity, while valued in
principle at many institutions, is not regularly measured in relation to educational
outcomes for specific groups of students” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 45). Bensimon (2004)
believes that in order to bring about institutional change, higher education practitioners
must become clearly aware of the inequities that exist at their institutions. They must see
these inequities for themselves, and once they are aware of the existing inequities, they
will then be able to analyze and integrate their meanings to these inequities. After the
interpretation has been completed, there can be movement to address the inequities.
These processes encourage institutional leaders, community leaders, and other
stakeholders to address the disparity between graduation rates amongst minority students.
The goal of each institution’s scorecard is to assess and redress past failures by
reevaluating the institution’s mission and what steps are being taken to become effective
in the institution’s effort to improve, not just with access, but retention and persistence
(Bauman, 2005). The ultimate goal for all institutions is to show evidence that they have
23
improved graduation rates, not just for White students, but for all students, minority
students included.
The goal for all institutions, as they focus on narrowing the achievement gaps of
minority students, is to change their institutional culture into a culture of inquiry which
relies on data to drive their decision making. The culture of inquiry is derived from action
inquiry research which, according to Greenwood and Levin (2005), is the study of the
various entities that make up the institution itself. Each of these entities is the wheel that
turns the axle and puts the organization into motion. Greenwood and Levin (2005) argue
that funding based research does not improve institutional change. Research that uses
practical human affairs or “praxis” allows institutions of higher education to
systematically analyze how they are a part of the social systems that improve knowledge
distribution. Through action inquiry research, institutions of higher education are
encouraged to focus on their purpose and mission through self-reflection so as to bring
forth more structured research by using data that is relevant to their institutions as they
make decisions for the future of their minority student population (Dowd, 2005).
Promoting equity and becoming equity-minded is essential for all higher educational
institutions that have a large minority student population and where the achievement gaps
in student success and completion is wide
(http://www.congressweb.com/aascu/docfiles/PM-Top10for2011.docx.pdf). However,
state and federal initiatives alone will not improve minority student success.
24
Purpose of the Study
Despite improvement in providing college opportunities to minority students, the
numbers of minority students graduating with degrees from public and private
universities have not increased proportionately. Higher education institutions are facing
an enormous burden in finding new ways to resolve the low numbers of degree
completion as institutional demographics changes, as federal and state funding are
minimized, and as more and more demands are placed on postsecondary institutions to
prepare young people to become productive members of the community. My study is a
developmental evaluation of action research and inquiry, a model influenced by
Aristotle’s concept of “phronesis.” This concept details how practitioners become aware
and responsive to the particularities of the situations and contexts that they are in (Dowd
& Tong, 2007). CUE’s action research inquiry strategies will be used to create activity
settings to investigate how practitioners can become instrumental to organizational
change. CUE’s inquiry tools are designed to enable practitioners to become aware of
various particularities as they transform themselves to become the researchers as they
begin the inquiry process. The practitioner-as-researcher model requires that the
community through collaboration be involved in participatory action research (Bensimon,
et al., 2004; Dowd, 2005). The ultimate purpose of this practice is to bring about changes
in the individual, in the organization and in society as a whole (Bensimon et al., 2004;
Kaur, 2009). CUE facilitates this process by providing institutional practitioners inquiry
tools that generate inquiry processes as practitioners collect data to create new knowledge
in resolving institutional problems that exist with their minority students not completing
degree requirements or transferring to four-year institutions. Yet, much remains to be
25
examined about the effects on and experiences of practitioner beliefs, assumptions and
values regarding student success. My study involved the use of CUE’s action research
tools at a community college as the setting to study the beliefs, assumptions and values
that practitioners exhibit that affect or facilitate organizational change.
Significance of the Study
Through the study of CUE’s inquiry projects, I examined the manner in which
practitioners built awareness of their cultural assumptions, values and beliefs and
possibly began their cultural change processes that affected their minority students’
success. The inquiry project study first explored what practitioners learned and did
through the inquiry process that was facilitated by CUE’s tools. Through this study, I
investigated practitioner reactions in their engagement in action inquiry and what they
learned and did through their engagement. This study explored how practitioners as
researchers used data to discover instructional tools and strategies that could be used to
increase student success. And finally, I explored how their participation in action
inquiry/research affected their behavior and their self-efficacy to bring about
organizational changes in regard to equity in higher education.
Action research projects like those conducted by CUE may prove beneficial to
postsecondary institutions when seeking institutional changes as they begin to improve
on minority student success. CUE’s socially conscious research develops tools to provide
institutions of higher education goals to develop a culture of inquiry as they begin to
narrow achievement gaps that exist on their campuses. CUE’s tools aim to help two- and
four-year colleges, universities and systems office stakeholders begin inquiry into their
institutional policies and practices which may add to disparities in minority student
26
success. CUE inquiry tools further provide processes on how to transform data into
valuable knowledge. The knowledge that is produced through the inquiry process is
knowledge that can lead to improving institutional effectiveness, institutional
accountability, and improving student outcomes (http://cue.usc.edu). Additionally, the
study results may help practitioners remediate their teaching practices. They may choose
to utilize expansive learning techniques that take into account the cultural and social
factors that affect their students’ cognitive and behavioral processes.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five different chapters. Chapter Two provides
several conceptual frameworks that exist to frame my study. Chapter Two addresses: (a)
the various theories and frameworks which explain the cultural, social and historical
factors that contribute to gaps in minority student success; (b) the theoretical benefits of
using action inquiry research model to address the achievement gaps that exist amongst
minority student. Chapter Three presents the research design and the methodology that
was used to study the problem. The results and findings from my study are presented in
Chapter Four, and Chapter Five reviews and summarizes the findings of my study and
provides my recommendations for further research in this field of study.
27
CHAPTER TWO
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The problem that exists today in higher education is that a large number of racial
ethnic minority students are not persisting on to transfer from 2-year community colleges
to 4-year institutions or completing requirements to attain a college degree. The question
that arises each time is what steps are being taken by institutions of higher education to
address these disparities. Scholars agree that institutional leaders, administrators,
counselors, and faculty members contribute to the success of their students by either
supporting or hindering their students’ educational path (Bensimon, 2005; Javier, 2009).
Grubb and Bradway (2005) argue that students’ educational outcomes are directly related
to instructional conditions of the institution. However, if practitioners are not aware that
their beliefs, assumptions and values contribute to their students’ success and failures,
then institutional changes cannot occur in order to improve racial ethnic minority student
transfer and graduation rates. To better understand how these changes may occur, several
conceptual frameworks are presented that further explain how practitioners play a
significant role in racial ethnic minority students’ success.
Some scholars argue that institutional changes can take place through an inquiry
and benchmarking process that enables practitioners to collectively assess the problems
that exist on their campuses (Dowd & Tong, 2007). They believe that institutional agents
at higher education institutions can function as change agents who promote institutional
changes. These educational scholars state that institutional agents need to examine their
institutions’ cultures before attempting to implement changes. Strategies like
28
transformation learning, expansive learning and participatory action research (PAR) are a
few conceptual tools that institutional agents can use to begin the change process. They
can apply these tools to overcome the challenges that practitioners experience that are
related to inequities in educational outcomes among racial-ethnic groups. Furthermore,
some scholars argue that social learning strategies can be used to narrow achievement
gaps that racial ethnic minority students experience. The Center for Urban Education
(CUE) at the University of Southern California, whose action research projects provided
the field settings for this study, has developed social learning tools that the Center’s
researchers believe educational institutions can use to improve organizational learning
and innovation as they address racial and ethnic inequities. Therefore, socio-cultural
perspectives on learning and professional development provide a particular lens to
investigate whether and under what conditions practitioners develop new beliefs or
practices in regard to educational inequities.
I begin my chapter by providing an overview of Lev Vygotsky’s (1987) study on
cognitive thought process that is affected by one’s socio-cultural experiences. One’s
socio-cultural experiences are constructed through their racial and ethnic beliefs and
values. Vygotsky (1997) asserts that the cognitive thought process in humans is revealed
through a conscious or unconscious manner as they use tools to mediate how and why
they behave in particular ways (Roth & Lee, 2007). He argues that one’s belief system
contributes to the way one behaves or conducts oneself. Vygotsky's theory claims that an
individual’s development depends on his interaction with people. The individual then
develops a culture through these interactions which provides him his view of the world.
He develops culture by imitating what he sees others doing, by being instructed or by
29
learning from others through collaboration (Tomasello, et al., 1993). So, if a practitioner
brings with him preconceived notions or beliefs about his students and their capabilities,
the students will, during their interactions with the practitioner, imitate or learn the
culture that the practitioner has with him. The institutional culture that the students are
exposed to may influence the successes or failures of their students.
To illustrate the point made above, I use the following scenario to elaborate
Vygostky’s meaning:
When a White teacher instructs her African American student to conduct himself
in an appropriate manner in class, the teacher is implementing her rules of
behavior to the student. Hence, the student may not understand the teacher’s
defined standards of appropriate behavior and will continue to behave in a manner
that he is accustomed to. His conduct is one that he has acquired from his home
and community. The teacher then presents her definition of appropriate behavior,
asking that the student wait his turn to respond rather than interjecting whenever
he feels like it. As the lesson continues and feeling the urgency to voice his
opinion, the student raises his hand to speak but he is overlooked by the teacher;
finally, after being overlooked by the teacher several times, he interjects without
raising his hand and asks why she has now decided to ignore him even after he
had chosen to raise his hand. The dissonance that has been created produces
another activity that moves away from the original activity that was intended by
the teacher for the day. The dissonance brings another kind of activity that will
call for the teacher to introduce her definition of appropriate student behavior and
the student’s understanding of what is acceptable. If the teacher decides to learn
30
why the student believes that his interjection is appropriate, and if the student
agrees to accept the teacher’s explanation as to why she does not think he is
behaving appropriately, then the purpose of the activity changes. She may learn
that the student interjects during class lectures because he is used to this kind of
oral tradition that is accepted in his community. If the teacher understands this
cultural nuance, then an intramental cognitive change has taken place in her mind
(Engeström, 1999, 2001; Vygotsky, 1997)
Both parties (subjects) are now working to resolve the dissonance at hand. The
meditating tool used to resolve the dissonance is language discourse. The collective
understandings that may be reached after the subjects conclude their discussion will be at
the intermental plane whereby the two subjects are now repositioning or rethinking the
initial intent or purpose or object of their activity with each other. If both subjects are
then able to reshape how they behave or view the next activity, perhaps the student will
decide to raise his hand when he wants to make a point, or the teacher will then
reconsider why the student speaks without being called upon. Subsequently, the next time
the two subjects are in the activity setting, new actions will be seen because intramental
cognitive changes had taken place, which will then produce intermental changes that
would be observed when they interact with each other. The change that has taken place
can be illustrated in Engeström’s cycle of expansive learning:
31
Figure 2.1 The Cycle of Expansive Learning (Engeström, 1999/2001)
The scenario above produced the exact results shown by Engeström, but in real
life situations where disparities continue for years because of unequal social and political
structures, intramental and intermental changes may not occur to address the dissonance.
The scenario illustrates several resulting tensions which institutional agents may need to
become aware. Institutional agents may need to be aware of the cultural and social factors
that affect cognitive and behavioral processes between the subjects. They may also need
to become aware that cultural and social factors that have become institutionalized over
decades may lead to unequal institutional structures (Margolis 2008). Additionally, it is
important for practitioners to know that that subjects who come from divergent socio-
economic and cultural dimensions bring with them different beliefs and values that
produce different expectations, which ultimately affect their social interactions.
When there are unequal institutional structures, institutional racism is perpetuated
in the form of educational inequities. When institutional racism becomes difficult to
dismantle, other strategies need to be found. Action inquiry may be a strategy that can be
32
used to address institutional racism. Action inquiry involves getting all stakeholders
involved in organizational changes. If stakeholders are not aware of the problems that
exist at their institutions, changes cannot be made to improve the achievement gaps that
exist for racial ethnic minority students.
The Call for Equity Pedagogy
The previous scenario reveals how equity has not been a central part of the
discussion to improve student success. The same can be seen in Jane Margolis’ (2008)
Stuck in the Shallow End which compares two very dissimilar activities that both
represent institutional racism. Margolis’ study is a good illustration of how institutional
racism has segregated African Americans from the sport of swimming in the past, and she
claims that today African American and Hispanic students are discouraged from enrolling
in advanced computer science courses in high schools for the same reasons. Margolis
provides an overview of how past racial overtones and prejudices have continued to have
detrimental effects on the current state of why there continues to be ongoing inequities in
how the computer science curriculum is offered at public high schools, notably its limited
access for racial ethnic minority students. Margolis claims that inequities have long been
perpetuated through the role of institutional racism that has extended its control into the
educational arena.
The studies conducted by Margolis and her team of researchers investigated why
African Americans and Hispanic students did not take advanced computer science
courses. Their study included three schools from the larger Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) which had a large racial ethnic minority student population; these
students either lived within the district or were bused from neighboring communities
33
outside the school district. Even though one of the schools in the study, Westward
Senior
High School, was noted for its aerospace, mathematics, and science curriculum which
should provide a large array of computer science classes, there were still limited
opportunities afforded to racial ethnic minority students. A second school in the study,
East River High School, with an almost all Hispanic population housed many computers,
but it did not fare any better since the computer science curriculum did not extend beyond
literacy and application skills. Even the third school, located in an affluent part of Los
Angeles, which busses its students from other parts of Los Angeles because of its strong
mathematics and science curriculum, did not provide access to computer science classes
to its racial ethnic minority students.
The tension in Margolis’ study is that institutional racism has taught racial ethnic
minority students through their social interactions at their schools that they are less
capable of participating in advanced cognitive activities. Instead of practitioners showing
students how to imitate positive behaviors, instruct their students to develop cognitive
skills and learn through collaboration (Vygotsky, 1997) through a learner and tutor model
(Wertsch,1998), some practitioners have instead concluded, based on their personal
beliefs, assumption and values, that their racial ethnic minority students are not capable of
higher order cognitive skills.
Margolis’ study concludes that there are institutional and personally mediated
beliefs that have systematically been in place which limit racial ethnic minority students
from taking computer science classes. This notion is supported by critical race theorists
who believe that institutional racism has given rise to institutional hierarchies and
inequities which have subsequently trivialized and diminished the competencies of
34
people of color (Nasir & Hand, 2007; Delgado Bernal, 2002). Jones (2000) illustrates a
theoretical framework detailing three levels of racism that can be applied to analyze how
racism has systematically obstructed institutions of higher education from narrowing the
existing gaps in racial ethnic minority student transfer and degree completion.
Institutional racism obstructs access to services, goods and opportunities to society based
on race. Therefore, because of institutionalized racism and the manner in which
opportunities are distributed, the differential access that emerges between the races
continues; furthermore, because of differential access, there is a direct relationship
between race and socioeconomic status. Jones (2000) argues that institutional racism
transfers to racial ethnic minority students who internalize within themselves that they
deserve the differential treatment that is given to them in terms of opportunities.
Personally mediated racism proliferates into every dimension of society, including the
way in which institutional agents conduct themselves based on their prejudices and
discriminatory perceptions. The beliefs that institutional agents bring to their profession
determine the manner in which services, goods and opportunities are disseminated.
Finally, internalized racism, a subtle but damaging form of racism, stems from the
long exposure to not having what is afforded to those who have been privileged from
historical times. Underrepresented and underprivileged students, namely African
American and Hispanics, accept the stigma that has been perpetuated. They are seen as
being incapable of excelling like others, and thus they devalue themselves to the extent
that they do not believe in themselves.
Jones (2000) uses the allegory of A Gardener’s Tale to illustrate how damaging
the three levels of racism are to society. The moral behind this tale is that when an
35
individual holds certain bias and he structures his everyday practices based on this bias,
he does not realize the effect that he leaves behind. He will continue this practice, either
intentionally or unintentionally, and soon those around him, especially the vulnerable
ones, will internalize the practices and treatments as acceptable. An example of how
one’s bias and practice affects a larger group is seen in the way funds are allocated in
schools. When an individual or institution’s bias is intentionally or unintentionally
directed to control fund allocation, the action creates disparities. When appropriate
funding is not afforded to institutions, advanced curriculum are not afforded to students,
and this limitation affects the level of interest students develop in certain career fields;
without interest, they do not have the practice or know-how to build or excel in these
fields. When resources are not provided to racial ethnic minority students, they are
systematically deprived as a group, which effectively molds their culture and cultural
beliefs and the way others view them.
Kilgore and Pendleton (1993) add that structural constraints imposed on schools
impede decisions of students and teachers. These structural constraints ultimately affect
student learning. Additionally, “racial ethnic minority students' opportunities may be
compromised most by inaccessible instruction, and the average students’ opportunities
may be compromised most by their enrollment choices, and high-ability students'
opportunities may be compromised most by the rate of exposure” (p. 81). Similarly, the
racial ethnic minority students in Margolis’ (2000) study experience the same deep
structural constraints which continue to impede their opportunities for achievement.
36
Challenging Deficit Notions
Beliefs, assumptions and values, deficits views, discourse and ideologies lead to
institutional racism which in turn obstructs racial ethnic minority students’ educational
advancement. Critical Race theorists (CRT) believe that racism still exists in the United
States and is endemic to all Americans. To overcome or expose racism as existing, CRT
theorists urge that social issues that affect people of color should be discussed through
historical analysis as a means to unpack the history of racism. The process of historical
analysis will allow the oppressed to be heard and their experience and knowledge can
thus be authenticated (Nasir & Hand, 2007; Delgado Bernal, 2002; Coello & Casanas,
2004).
Similarly other social theories conclude that there are deficit notions amongst the
controlling majority group. CRT scholars claim that the controlling group may view
minority communities as having diminished cognitive potential (Gutierrez et al, 2008),
claiming that the dominant culture characterizes literate and non-literate communities
based on the “categorical differences in cognition and language as consequences of
literacy” (Gutierrez et al, 2008, p. 212). However, these deficit notions have been
challenged since they differentiate societies only by their cognitive process and language
use (Gutierrez et al, 2008). Gutierrez and others argue that dualities are created when
literacy and non-literacy are contrasted; the ideology that writing determines literacy and
orality distinguishes someone as non-literate has structured how people are categorized as
either literate or non-literate. This kind of literacy paradigm demonstrates a deficient
view since it defines literacy through the use of language and literacy practices of cultural
communities. Another view is that groups of people who are categorized as illiterate can
37
become literate through heightened cultural and social practices and by providing these
groups literacy tools. These groups of people who are categorized as illiterate will
improve their cognitive skills and ultimately their economic conditions (Gutierrez et al,
2008; Bergerson, 2003) through imitation, by being taught and through collaborative
participation in cultural and social practices (Vygotsky, 1997; Wertsch, 1998).
Early approaches to culture and race, based on social theories, claim that
intelligence is attributed by both biological and cultural factors. If practitioners believe
that intelligence is a biological phenomenon, they will believe that the minority
population will continue to remain at this level because this is how the group is
biologically structured. Therefore, any person who is poor or intellectually limited will
not be able to conform to acceptable behavior will be minimized as being deficient based
on his biological makeup. Additionally, the culture of poverty is a notion that associates
deficits in individuals or groups to their cultural traits. These scholars assert that this kind
of deficit thinking suggests that students, who are culturally deprived live in a culture of
poverty, fail in school because of their internal deficits. This view takes the responsibility
away from the institution and its agents (Gutierrez et al., 2009). However, socio-cultural
theories claim that cognitive development is not biologically driven but through cognitive
development that takes place through social and cultural interactions in historical
contexts. Therefore, learning that takes place through these social and cultural
interactions promote cognitive development (Nasir & Hand, 2007; De Valenzuela, 2006).
These scholars argue that if organizational changes are to occur, deficit minded
perspectives that practitioners hold must first be addressed.
38
Reordering Relationships between Dominant and Nondominant Communities
Culture is the core to understanding learning and development (Nasir &Hand,
2006). Individual participation in learning activities can be successful if participation
takes place in a specific cultural community and is context-specific (Gutierrez et al.,
2008). Trueba (1988) claims that “academic failure or success is not a personal attribute
of any child, nor a collective characteristic of any ethnic group, but a social phenomenon
linked to a historical and social condition” (p. 282). Learning and development center on
how individuals draw from available artifacts, tools and their interaction with others in
the setting (Nasir & Hand, 2007). Culture is thus created through ongoing interactions
with others which are then constantly reconstructed over time. Past research on racial
ethnic minority student learning and achievement has viewed culture as a system of
“rituals and beliefs and fixed traits” that remain cohesive over time that members take
with them (Nasir & Hand, 2007). Similarly, practitioners too have fixed knowledge or
competencies that become steadfast. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) argue that this fixed or
“fossilized” knowledge will need to be unlearned once practitioners become aware that
their knowledge or competencies are no longer effective. They argue that when
practitioners become aware of their ineffective knowledge, they may be willing to change
by seeking assistance from others who have new knowledge to impart to them.
Learning is thus influenced by institutional processes and also by outside learning
activities. The National Research Council’s report titled How People Learn states that
“All learning takes place in settings that have particular sets of cultural and social norms
and expectations and these settings influence learning and transfer in powerful ways”
(http://nationalacademies.org/). However, before learning can take place in an
39
educational setting, institutions must prepare to embark on a prerequisite journey, one
that explores the cultural and social factors that promote literacy before students arrive to
their institutions. According to Gutierrez et al (2010), culture, as it evolves and
progresses, “attributes significant differences to the cognitive and cultural development
of literate and non-literate people and their communities” (p. 212). Cole (2005) argues
that culture progresses evolution, thereby making cultural understanding a monumental
initial step to beginning the research on narrowing the equity gap that exists amongst
racial and ethnic groups (Gutierrez et al., 2010).
Without understanding what cultural traits students of color bring with them,
institutional agents, consciously or unconsciously, apply certain norms and behaviors that
continue subsequent ideologies that may generate either positive or negative outcomes.
Therefore, to bring about organizational changes, there needs to be changes in the
cultural tools that are used by practitioners. Scholars argue that some educators do not
agree that learning is a cultural phenomenon and that low achieving students are
underachieving not because of their disadvantages or deficits, but because they do not
have the funds to negotiate in new activity systems (Roth and Lee, 2007; Stanton-Salazar,
2010).
To eliminate these deficit views, different cross cultural experiences can be
brought into the context of learning to promote literacy amongst non-dominant cultures
(Gutierrez et al., 2009). Non-dominant students’ educational opportunities have been
historically marginalized in the United States and they do not have the power or control
what educational opportunities are afforded to them (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). The
40
dominant culture, on the other hand, can be considered to possess power and control of
the educational system and other institutions.
One way to eliminate deficit views is to introduce culturally responsiveness and
culturally relevant pedagogy into classroom activities as a way to change organizational
culture (Nasir & Hand, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lee, 1995; Scribner & Cole, 1973).
Also, culturally misplaced and cultural deprivation theories argue that non-dominant
groups underachieve because there is a non-alignment of their cultural practices at home
and school, thereby increasing the persistent underachievement (Gutierrez et al., 2009).
In addition to non-dominant students adopting certain norms in their homes and
community, they are required to accept the operating norms of the dominant culture, i.e.
the establishments of the white dominant structure that all its constituents must conform
to. It is in this latter category, that racial ethnic minority students fall short. They are
required to adopt the accepted dominant behavioral norms which they have not learned
nor understand; they are then required to conform to the prescribed standards established
by nonfamily adult agents or institutional agents. These standards leave out essential
cultural and social beliefs and values minority adolescents bring to the new educational
environment (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
The Role of Institutional Agents
If institutions of higher education acknowledge that the racial ethnic minority
students benefit when institutional agents assist them in navigating their educational path,
then institutional supports for institutional agents and their practices may follow. Stanton-
Salazar (2010) states that institutional agents possess intellectual and social resources
which they provide to empower their students as they navigate the educational system.
41
He argues that social capital is “high-status institutional resources embedded in social
relationships and social structure” (p. 4). Bensimon and Dowd (2009) claim that
institutional agents play multiple roles in racial ethnic minority students’ post-secondary
aspirations. Institutional agents provide students a “sense of belonging” (Hurtado &
Carter, 1997) which is established through the interactions they have with institutional
agents such as counselors, instructors, and other non-family members that they meet at
their educational institutions (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009).
Stanton-Salazar (2010) adds that there is a need for external agents, those from
the community, to be a part of the racial ethnic minority students’ existence at
postsecondary institutions as mentors because they lack the foundation or the social
capital that may not have been made available to them in their homes or communities.
Additionally, he affirms that social capital builds solidarity within a hierarchy that
institutional agents can use to help bridge and build upon each other’s resources, either
for personal or collective purposes. Additionally, there is consensus from many
educational scholars that institutional agents embody ingrained motivational and
ideological characteristics that affect the ways in which they empower the minority
adolescent in his educational development.
Rendón (1994) defines this empowerment as validation which is an “enabling,
confirming, and supportive process initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that foster
academic and interpersonal development” (p. 44). The concept of validation, according to
Rendón, has had positive academic and personal effects on minority students since it
places the responsibility on institutional agents. When institutional agents initiate contact
with students, especially with students who may not possess the funds of knowledge
42
required to succeed in college, they attempt to aid in creating an environment that allows
students to ask questions. Validation also eases the students’ sense of uneasiness that may
arise when they arrive in a new environment and this in turn will encourage students to
feel a sense of empowerment. When institutional agents provide to students on-going
interpersonal validation, they build their students’ academic confidence. The confidence
that is built through the validation process is especially essential during the first year of
the student’s college experience (Rendón, 1994). Similarly, Stanton-Salazar confirms that
institutional agents must create effective social networks to empower themselves to
become effective at their role in providing racial ethnic minority students specific
academic skills that they have not acquired in their prior schooling, homes and
communities. It is through organizational change processes that new networks and social
interactions can be created. A number of sociologists (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Sewell &
Hauser, 1980) place importance on the mediating roles of institutional agents as
socializing agents for they relate educational background to economic background (as
citied in Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 8). This is found in the ‘status attainment’ model
(Sewell and Hauser, 1980) which claims that racial ethnic minority students self evaluate
themselves based on the attributions placed on them by significant others, primarily
institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
Institutional Agents of Empowerment
Students begin their empowerment journey when they find unobstructed
opportunities to build on relationships with institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
Learning and development takes place for adults and adolescents with social others and
through social interactional processes and true learning takes place when relationships
43
change in these social interactions (Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 459). Social interactions take
place between students and the institutional agents who hold positions of power and are
able to mobilize, direct and empower their students with support such as resources,
opportunities, privileges and services (Stanton-Salazar 2010). Stanton-Salazar argues that
institutional support must exist in several different forms; they are funds of knowledge
that students require to navigate the educational system; institutional agents are contacts
and gatekeepers, and should not become obstacles in the educational system; they must
advocate by speaking up on behalf of underrepresented student groups; they must become
role models by providing a representational model to how students act; and finally, they
must provide emotional and moral support; and finally, by learning about “household
knowledge” of various ethnic groups, institutional agents will be able to learn about their
students’ cultures and become aware of how to use this knowledge to support their
students (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Moll, 2000). If institutional agents are able to
provide valued connections for racial ethnic minority students to resources, it will enable
them to discover the social networks that exist outside of their homes and communities.
Therefore, institutional agents are called upon to create social networks to empower
racial ethnic minority students as they work towards attaining their educational goals and
to empower themselves to act as agents of change.
Bringing about New Organizational Behavior
To bring about organizational change, Lewin (1946) asserts that planned changes
can be initiated, managed and then continued to become stabilized. According to Lewin’s
force field theory, previously held behaviors, values and attitudes must cease before any
change processes can begin. With these changes, practitioners can learn new cultural
44
behaviors and values. Change cannot occur if individuals are not willing and are not
motivated to change (Levin as cited in Noffke, 1997, p. 311). A number of scholars have
concluded that “all learning takes place in settings that have particular sets of cultural and
social norms and expectations and that these settings influence learning and transfer in
powerful ways” (The National Research Council, 2000, p. 4). This argument supports the
importance of organizational improvement as it is the basis to reforming the educational
inequities that exist in higher education in the United States. Institutional learning is
influenced by institutional processes and also by outside learning activities.
Organizations are created by the prevailing culture and values normalized by its
institutional society (Ogawa et al., 2008). To bring about organizational change four
elements are involved: goals (object), participants (subject), technology (artifacts), and
social structure (division of labor). These components are similar to Engestrom’s (1987)
Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research that suggests that goals are
the objects or purpose for the activity; the participants are the subjects who perform the
activity; technology is the mediating artifacts; and social structure includes the rules
established by the community and how labor is divided in the organization (Ogawa, et al.,
2008; Engestrom 2001, 1999). The community or activity setting within the organization
is influenced by internal and external conditions and these factors then influence how
participants or subjects shape the institution (Ogawa, et al., 2008).
Changes in organizational settings can be advanced through a new social design
experiment that is modeled around mediated and reflective practices that stem from
cultural historical concepts of learning and development in children and adults (Gutierrez
& Vossoughi, 2010).This new design develops around the notion that co-constructed
45
knowledge is gained by participants’ understanding of the historical and cultural practices
that emerge in individual settings. Participation in this context of study is grounded in
expansive notions of learning which provides participants the opportunities and
experiences to learn from others. Rather than looking to outside experts to identify the
problem and subsequently arrive at the solution, the participants themselves are the
experts who are directly involved in the situation (Gutierrez & Vossoughi, 2010).
Past approaches required that outside experts or researchers are involved in
observing and interpreting participant actions and practices in their setting; however,
transformative learning takes the opposite approach. It requires that practitioners are
“studying side by side” to develop accounts of their actions and how they construct and
co-construct their knowledge through their interactions in the setting (Erickson, 2000;
Bensimon, 2012). However, many scholars argue that learning must focus on the
students’ histories of involvement in literacy instead of focusing on their deficiencies as
established by current standards (Gutierrez & Vossoughi, 2010; Ginorio & Huston,
2001). Hence, culture becomes the mediating factor in examining participants’
assumptions about their institution, community, and the beliefs that they hold about their
students.
Engeström’s (2007) Change Laboratory, an activity theoretical theory, is one form
of expansive learning that allows participants to engage in dialogue that promotes open,
“intense, transformational and incremental improvement” (Engeström, 2008) which then
promotes sense making, synthesis, reflections, and mediated practices that move away
from theoretical practices to day-to-day applications. The movement from reflection to
action is paramount to organizational change. The movement is enabled by the ability for
46
humans to separate themselves from immediate influences of their environment through
the use of language and other mediating artifacts that allows them to reflect deeply about
the situation at hand so as to bring about equity and change (Gutierrez & Vossoughi,
2010).
Action Research as an Organizational Change Strategy
How will practitioners be able to approach current problems within their
educational activity settings so they may become aware of their roles in the changing
process? Scholars advocate using action research to get practitioners to become aware of
their roles and how their roles are instrumental in the change process. Action research
uses the practitioner-as- researcher model where the practitioner is the central participant
in the activity as he begins to influence change through the act of collecting information
through the inquiry process. Action research began with social psychologist Kurt Levin’s
(1946) work in “promoting positive social change” (Noffke, 1997). Borg et al., (1993)
reduced their definition of action research into the following steps:
1. Defining the problem
2. Selecting the design, sample and measures
3. Analyzing and interpreting
4. Reporting the findings.
Action research is a science that goes beyond the political and historical process
and attempts to bridge the traditional theory that the knowledge that practitioners possess
can be applied in their social setting and that this valuable knowledge can be used in the
practice communities. Action research brings about “greater self-knowledge and
47
fulfillment in practitioners’ work, promotes a deeper understanding of their practice, and
promotes the development of personal relationships through researching as team
members” (Noffke, 1997, p. 306). Borg, Gall, and Gall (1993) argue that “action research
is focused on problem solving at the local level and follows the usual steps of traditional
research, even if the research evidence is minimal for practitioner use” (Noffke, 1997, p.
307 ). Fals-Borda and Rahman (1991) claim that action research “is a new paradigm, a
challenge to existing epistemologies, and thereby, a competing (or complementary) entry
into the political economy of knowledge production” (Noffke, 1997, p. 307). Others see
action research as “problematizing social practices . . . in the interest of individual and
social transformation” (Noffke, 1997, p.307). Action research addresses issues of identity
which articulates historical roots of both individual and collective belief systems which
then brings about personal awareness. Action research touches on the political dimension
of democracy and social justice for all people to be able to appreciate democracy and
equality (Noffke, 1997). Similarly, the notion of institutional racism that CRT scholar
claim have created unequal structures for ethnic/racial groups can be addressed through
action research which promotes self-inquiry, self exploration, reflection, and self-
improvement (Noffke, 1997; Kumaravadivelu, 2001).
Practitioners as Co-researchers of Change
Why is participatory action research (PAR) relevant to organizational change?
PAR is a self-reflective and critical practice which involves practitioners participating
cooperatively in structured yet invigorating and cathartic dialogue to bring about
awareness. Each setting has a unique organizational culture which brings with it unique
problems; it is through PAR that practitioners identify the problems that exist at their
48
institutions (Reason, 1994; Noffke, 1997). Participatory action research is “a
participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the
pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview” (Reason
& Bradbury, 2001, p.1), which enlightens, awakens and ultimately empowers
practitioners to transcend, from not having, to having control and power. PAR’s main
goal is producing essential knowledge through the inquiry process by “gathering data and
analyzing the data and then controlling the outcomes” (Noffke, 1997, p. 311). This
process of inquiry is emergent as it starts from within the participant group and then
builds through dialogue and collaboration amongst its participants to “empower,
motivate, increase self-esteem, and develop community solidarity” (Noffke, 1997, p.
329).
Thus, the primary goal of PAR is to empower people to co-construct knowledge
and to use this knowledge to address institutional changes through self-inquiry, self-
exploration, reflection, and self-improvement (Noffke, 1997; Kumaravadivelu, 2001).
PAR involves understanding current educational practices that have been built upon
historical and social issues such as institutional racism, and it helps to create purposeful
interactions intended to provoke practitioners’ knowledge during the inquiry process.
Ultimately, PAR builds upon the cultural traditions of common people to produce
authentic commitment and genuine collaboration and interactions to arrive at practical
solutions to disparities that concern people (Noffke, 1997).
Rogoff (1994) adds that social interactions are required for PAR in the activity
setting. Social interactions through personal, interpersonal, and community or
institutional interactions are necessary in order to bring about awareness in practitioners.
49
Interaction at the personal level develops around the notion that the individual needs to be
aware of his emotions, behavior, values and beliefs so as to bring about intramental
cognitive change (Engeström, 2001, 1999). The interpersonal or social includes
“communication, role performances, dialogue and cooperation, conflict, assistance, and
interactions with important social others” (Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 459) to produce
intermental cognitive change. And finally the community or institutional plane
emphasizes the historical dynamics that involves “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 Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 459; Schein, 1985). When practitioners become
aware of how their roles are instrumental in the organizational change process, they can
continue to influence and mediate activities in participatory appropriation, guided
participation, and apprenticeship respectively (Nasir & Hand, 2006).
Nasir and Hand (2006) argue that apprenticeship learning, a social and cultural
process, enhances and promotes learning opportunities where a less experienced person
observes or emulates the actions of more experienced persons. Additionally, two more
can collaborate by dividing the work to create new or more sophisticated actions thus
producing a collective product (Roth & Lee, 2007). Nasir and Hand (2006) explain that
when individuals participate in learning activities, they use cultural tools such as accepted
behaviors, values and beliefs that are derived from within their culture. The social
interactions, whether they produce positive or negative outcomes create social
relationships that continue to reinforce the cultural practices within the community.
Culture is ongoing and non-static and constantly changes and transforms as participants
50
interpret and make new meanings associated with the artifacts (Gutierrez, et al., 2009);
therefore, as practitioners become aware of their personal, interpersonal and institutional
cultures, they will be able to begin their change process. Nasir and Hand (2006) conclude
that “learning is about not only shifts in an outside cultural world, but also shifts in one’s
conception of one’s relations to that world” (p. 468), and if the world that one sees is
unequally structured, then this structure will continue to be perpetuated.
The core of participative worldview is the view that humans can create and co-
create their reality through their experiences and their thinking through the act of
participation where members in a group work together as co-researchers to manage and
create the design of the inquiry activity (Reason, 1994). The conclusion or product of any
inquiry process is generated by the subjects as participants who analyze their actions and
involvement in the particular activity. The participants are therefore the experimenters
and the subjects of the experiment. They are themselves providing the actions that
become the focal point of their research. However, not all of the participants will generate
the same amount of inquiry based on the roles the participants hold and the purpose of the
project (Reason, 1994).
Cultural Artifacts as the Media of Change
Situated cognition theory presupposes that “learning and knowledge are situated
within the context, culture, and activity” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 39) and these entities are
tied together and cannot be looked at as separate entities. Activity is mediated by social,
historical and cultural factors that affect the learning that takes place in the context
through the use of tools and artifacts (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Tools and artifacts are
intertwined with the nature of thought as we use tools and artifacts to convey what we are
51
thinking (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Similarly, the basic premise for Cultural Historical
Action Theory (CHAT) is that humans use culture as the medium in which they mediate
their interactions with others. Individuals within a cultural group constantly reevaluate
meanings to artifacts and establish values associated with these artifacts. Wetsch (1998,
1991) calls cultural tools the meditational means for cultural development to take place.
He argues that the agent or individual uses the cultural tool, like language, artifacts such
as syllabi, and symbols to accomplish an intended goal-directed action (Nasir & Hand,
2006, p. 461). This ongoing cultural change is further negotiated based on their changing
needs. These cultural values are conveyed through artifacts that transform the
environment and the goal-directed behavior of the participants.
According to Cole (1998) culture is “the artifact-saturated medium of human life”
and that artifacts are “materials and ideal/symbolic” represented through forms of
“objects, words, rituals and other cultural practices” (Gutierrez, et al., 2009, p. 216-217).
This then suggests that the current cultural views held by practitioners and institutions
may need to be rethought as organizational changes begin since behavior exudes the
mind’s cultural beliefs and values. It is only through observing voluntary and involuntary
actions of the individual that one sees how his functional learning system operates.
Therefore, what one does in “effective environments” or activity settings describes the
mind’s function and thereby reinforces the notion that individuals in culturally organized
activities perform in certain ways as they use culturally mediated tools in the context.
“Activity, thought, and learning are mediated by cultural tools which are presented in the
activity,” (Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 466). Additionally, the CHAT concept emphasizes the
study of social/spatial ecology, suggesting that all humans as off-springs of previous
52
generations learn from previous cultures. CHAT then focuses on the “social and cultural
organization of human activity” in the study of culture and how its participants operate
(Gutierrez, et al., 2009).
Bridging Institutional Theory with CHAT
The current literature that exists views Institutional Theory (IT) and Cultural
Historical Action Theory (CHAT) as two separate entities. CHAT looks at how
individuals in an activity system are influenced by internal and external factors that
ultimately mediate their interactions. The IT theory looks at how these interactions are
based on values and habits developed by institutions (Ogawa, et al., 2008). CHAT and IT
can, therefore, be used simultaneously to explain transformation and change at
educational institutions in order to address the disparities that exist for racial ethnic
minority students. Since learning is a social process and CHAT is based on the socio-
cultural theory of learning, Ogawa et al., (2008) support what they have termed CHAT-IT
as an integrating review of the two theoretical frameworks. The IT theory suggests that
socio-historical roots specify how institutional agents interact with each other based on
accepted values and assumptions. All meanings established in an institution are
normalized through social interaction, but since meanings are dynamic, they can change
depending on the activity settings and context. Thus societal rules and agreed upon
meanings once established by institutional agents and stakeholders can be changed to
meet current societal needs. Thus, it becomes apparent that Institutional theory and
CHAT, which includes the cultural, historical activity theory, cannot be viewed as
separate entities. More studies using the two frameworks may provide better tools to
53
increase achievement rates of racial ethnic minority students at higher education
institutions.
Using the CHAT-IT frameworks, The Center of Urban Education (CUE) at the
University of Southern California focuses on examining cultural artifacts in a manner
informed by the cultural historical activity theory and theory of practice and inquiry to
study access, participation and outcomes. CUE uses action research as its research
methodology to bring about organizational change. It combines the CHAT theory with
the social learning theory in its pursuit to remediate institutional artifacts that affect
professional practices at higher education institutions as they work towards achieving
equitable outcomes for ethnic and racial groups (Dowd, et al., 2012). Using the CHAT’s
framework, CUE’s focus on the historical and dialectical construction of language and
how cultural artifacts have strong bearings on institutional structures. Artifacts have
cultural origins; therefore, interactions amongst institutional agents with the use of these
artifacts will either facilitate or hinder the change process based on the rules, norms, and
goals of the institution and how the roles of labor are divided and assigned. With the
CHAT framework as its basis, CUE invites practitioners to participate as members of an
inquiry team to recognize and question the past and present traditions that determine the
culture of institutions. Through this active reflection process of recognizing and
questioning historical behaviors, institutional agents may either resist needed changes or
adopt measures to forward new forms of action through “shared, mutually engaging
activity” (Dowd et.al., 2012).
54
CUE’s Research Involving Activity Theory
Based on the CHAT-IT framework to promote transformational learning, CUE’s
action inquiry projects aid to support institutions as they begin the change process. An
example of CUE’s action inquiry projects is the Equity Scorecard that addresses the
disparities that exist for racial ethnic minority students to transfer to four- year
institutions or to attain a college degree. Bensimon (2012) argues that institutions must
exhibit ‘race-consciousness’ in order to begin the change process. Her research places the
institution at the heart of the problem rather than holding students accountable for their
failures. She argues that institutions of higher education cannot remedy the problem by
implementing generic solutions, but they must first assess how they view inequities,
whether it is institutionalized racism, personally mediated racism or internalized racism
that prevents the institution from narrowing the equity gap. Without evaluating the nature
of how institutions and their agents view the phenomenon of racism, change cannot begin
nor can it be addressed if practitioners are unaware of existing unequal structures and
their personal beliefs, assumptions and values that they bring with them to educational
arena.
CUE conducted a year-long examination of Long Beach City College’s (LBCC)
institutional data and educational outcomes disaggregated by race and ethnicity. LBCC
used a customized version of CUE’s “Equity Scorecard” (Dowd et al., 2012). The goal of
this project was to examine the transfer readiness and the actual transfer of four cohorts
for first time students. The “evidence team” that was made up of instructors and
administrators was focused on determining how many of the cohort student sample met
55
the transfer requirement in the three year timeframe to earn an associate’s degree. The
finding was that only 2% of the 27,422 students in the cohort met the requirement.
This discovery prompted further inquiry by the evidence team. They wanted to
know how the 2% of the students who were identified as the “fast-track” group managed
to meet the requirement, so these findings could be applied to others who did not meet
the target. The initial interviews of the “fast-track” or “high achievers” group provided
aspects from the students’ point of view that the team had not considered previously.
Hence, the team conducted more interviews, ethnographic observations and document
analysis to better understand what had been occurring at the institution. The evidence
team discovered that the institution had not been student centered but was merely
attempting to remediate the cultural norms, without looking at the long-standing routines
and processes that failed to transfer racial ethnic minority students. The team discovered
that even though LBCC is a Hispanic serving institution, its symbols and artifacts did not
represent or serve Hispanic students. Because of institution’s culture and how it was
structured, its institutional agents had not questioned if they were meeting the needs of its
students, denoting that there was a sense of “color-blindness” that existed within the
institutions. LBCC’s focus was to serve all of its students, yet it did not address the needs
of its African American and Hispanic students who did not fall into the 2% “fast-track”
group. The data that LBCC had used thus far had been the ARCC reports that did not
disaggregate the measured student outcomes by race and ethnicity.
Accountability reports do not provide tools or incentives or motivation to change
or to find the underlying causes of poor institutional performances. Accountability reports
and the data that are reported are usually accessible only to institutional researchers.
56
However, many accountability systems believe that data is what is required to begin the
change process; data alone does not self activate the change process (Dowd et al., 2012).
Institutional agents must become aware of disparities that exist at their institutions before
they can analyze and interpret the data (Alford, 1998) before any kind of organizational
change can occur in order to address underachievement amongst racial ethnic minority
students. It is the institutional researcher who has access to data, not faculty and staff who
are in constant contact with students. They are not privileged to this data and thereby
cannot focus on making necessary changes to increase student success. CUE’s Diversity
Scorecard helped the evidence team at LBCC begin its strategic planning. It assisted
LBCC to analyze the institution’s culture and structure before it could make planned
changes.
The Center for Urban Education and other similar research bodies are working to
address and narrow the gaps that exist in racial ethnic minority student transfer and
degree completion. CUE’s research focuses on the institution and what it is accountable
for and provides institutions tools on how to address the low transfer and degree
completion rates for racial ethnic minority students. CUE presents several frames or
lenses that practitioners can use to begin the process. One such frame is the cognitive
frame which addresses attitudes and beliefs which affect the way institutional agents view
student success or the lack of it. Practitioners or institutional agents develop their
cognitive framework through their everyday practices which are culturally and socially
transmitted. This framework or lens that they use is exposed through frequent dialogue
where individual practices are affirmed if found to be conducive to student success, and if
they are not, then reasons are found as to why they are counterproductive to the
57
institution’s mission. Learning is an ongoing process that takes place within everyday
social and cultural contexts that are strongly entrenched in historical customs and
traditions (Rogoff, 1994), and therefore, the setting of the shared, mutually engaging
activity becomes the unit of analysis for CUE’s study. Studying the activity setting,
where multiple cultural and historical interactions exist, is CUE’s focus in the inquiry
process. Additionally, the analytic objectives of CUE researchers include the examination
of practitioner beliefs. Practitioner beliefs towards inquiry will be revealed through their
attitudes and behavior. Practitioner beliefs are shaped by the knowledge that they hold. If
practitioners have knowledge that a problem exists, they will be willing and motivated to
change their “practices and agency to change institutional norms” (Seo & Creed, 2002).
CUE’s Action Research Agenda
CUE had conducted several action research projects at dozens of colleges to study
institutional assessment projects undertaken by evidence teams of faculty, administrators,
counselors and institutional researchers. The main purpose for these assessment projects
is to identify what can be done to alleviate the difficulties that open access institutions
face in analyzing national and state accountability data. Open access institutions lack the
capacity to analyze the overwhelming amount of accountability data to begin the process
to organizational learning (Dowd & Malcolm, et al., 2012). These institutions lack the
ability to analyze and apply the accountability data through the “craft of inquiry” (Alford,
1998) which is to transform data into knowledge that can be used to improve and
promote organizational learning (Dowd et al., 2012). Dowd et al. (2012) found that the
reasons why these institutions, especially less selective public and private schools, were
not equipped to transform data to knowledge is because they lack human resources, those
58
who are trained to analyze and interpret data that can become useful to produce positive
student learning outcomes; additionally, ranking and rating systems too did not help
institutions focus their efforts on how to improve student outcomes.
The implication of CUE’s studies is that there are specific and effective ways to
integrate data to improving decision making and practice. Once these practices are in
place, organizational and individual learning can begin to address the ongoing inequities
that affect student achievements. CUE’s studies have concluded that institutional
researchers are instrumental in organizational learning and that their role should include,
not only to disseminate institutional data, but also to facilitate in the organizational
change process by teaching and guiding other institutional agents, those with teaching
pedagogy and adult learning to analyze and interpret data that can be used in institutional
decision making (Dowd et al., 2012). Institutional researchers are required to be team
players in the inquiry team where members of the team adopt active learning strategies to
facilitate discussions and self-reflection that lead to developing strategic intelligence in
data analysis and applications as institutions attempt to narrow the inequities that exist on
their campuses.
Summary
Several questions arose from the earlier scenario between the White teacher and
the African American student. One was whether cultural and social factors affect
cognitive and behavioral processes between the subjects. The second was whether
institutional culture and social factors affect the achievement of racial ethnic minority
students. The third question asks whether divergent socio-economic and cultural
dimensions that give rise to different beliefs, values and expectations, affect social
59
interactions between practitioners and their student population. In addition to studying the
stratification of institutions that have become structured through social and political
construct, action research approaches can be used to investigate solutions to the
inequalities that exist today. Action research approaches draw upon institutional theory
and cultural historical action theory to restructure institutional cultures, cultures that have
apparently remained the same even with the changing demographics. My study
investigated and examined the manner in which practitioners became aware of their
cultural beliefs, assumptions, and values as they began their organizational changes. My
study also explored recognition of deficit mindedness that existed at the individual and
institutional level that influence the achievement of racial ethnic minority students who
come from varying cultural and historical backgrounds.
60
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS
In my previous chapter, I discussed several concepts which established the
reasons why unequal structures at institutions of higher education are prevalent and how
these unequal structures contribute to why a large number of minority students are not
persisting on from 2-year community colleges to 4-year institutions or completing
requirements to attain a college degree. In this chapter, I present the specific research
procedures and methods that I used to conduct my study. The first part of my chapter
details the use of developmental evaluation to investigate the impact of action research
and how it is instrumental to organizational change. The second section includes detailed
description of the sample and field site of my individual study as well as of a larger
collective study of which this study is a part, data collection procedures and methods, and
data analysis procedures. And the third section addresses ethical concerns, standards of
review, including credibility and limitations, and reporting of results and findings.
Developmental Evaluation in Organizational Change
I used developmental evaluation to investigate and examine the manner in which
practitioners become aware of their cultural beliefs, assumptions, and values as they
participate in action inquiry to bring about organizational changes. Through the
developmental evaluation method, I also explored how practitioners recognize the notion
of deficit mindedness that exist at the individual and institutional levels which contributes
to underachievement of minority students at institutions of higher education. I chose
developmental evaluation as my methodology since developmental evaluation seeks to
establish social and personal interactions that encourage cooperative relationships
61
amongst the participants involved in the project. Secondly, developmental evaluation
seeks to provide transparency, whereby all participants agree on the processes and
procedures related to the project and how they will determine the kinds of information
necessary to move the project along. Developmental evaluation involves authentic
participation. Lastly, developmental evaluation encourages all participants to
continuously work towards establishing an on-going process of observation, reflection
and action, which then follows with an evaluation of the plan (Stringer, 2007). Moreover,
developmental evaluation has the potential to inform institutions of higher education
about how to incorporate action research into the assessment of institutional effectiveness
and equity (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009; Patton, 2011). Developmental evaluation helps
evaluators to fully participate in all aspects of the evaluation process in “decision making,
discussing how to evaluate the project, interpreting findings, analyzing implications and
applying the next stage of development” (Patton, 2011, p. 20).
Developmental evaluation aids innovators to bring about “systems change under
conditions of complexity” (Patton, 2011, p. 20). In developmental evaluation, the goal is
to provide avenues for further inquiry by asking evaluative questions, using evaluation
logic, and gathering data from these questions, which then makes on-going decision
making possible (Patton, 2011). The primary function of developmental evaluation is to
elicit discussions that bring about data-based decision making. The reservoir of
knowledge that practitioners bring to the table can then be used to design new social
innovations (Patton, 2011). Practitioners can then evaluate the effectiveness of
institutional programs as they continue on-going assessments of these programs. The
field setting for my study and the larger collective study consists of two-year community
62
colleges and four-year state universities located in large urban cities involved in action
research projects conducted by CUE. Therefore, CUE researchers and other higher
education researchers involved in inquiry projects are the primary group of practitioners
who will benefit from the results of this study as the findings will inform better designs of
action research tools and processes.
CUE’s research involves understanding how practitioners can incorporate the
“language of equity and the characteristics of equity-mindedness” (http://cue.usc.edu/) as
they create institutional assessment tools that can be used to purposefully design
collaborative activities that address the problems of equity that exist at two- and four-year
institutions. The study specifically examined the impact of CUE’s action research tools
that facilitate inquiry into the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and practices of a small sample
of faculty, counselors and administrators at a single institution. The findings also drew
from pooled data collected by collaborating researchers at other field sites during the
same period of study.
Developmental Evaluation Research at DCC
Figure 3.1 below illustrates the relationship of this study, which used
developmental evaluation methods, in relation to other types of research conducted by
CUE researchers. Developmental evaluation informs the development of CUE’s action
research tools, which are designed to foster equity among racial-ethnic groups’
experiences and outcomes in higher education. Developmental evaluation methods
inform multiple modes of research. The figure illustrates first that the activity setting
involved institutional (campus-based) participants, who were referred to as the DCC
“early adopters, collaborating on a joint activity to identify and address an institutional
63
problem. In this case, the action inquiry or first person research conducted by the
campus-based participants involved an activity – a workshop – using CUE’s syllabus
review protocol. CUE researchers were involved as “second-person” action researchers.
The campus-based participants also became action researcher themselves, in a sense, as
they looked at the problem that existed within their institution aiming to change the
system within, as well as enact changes in practices within their immediate control. Next,
developmental evaluation allows for a third person perspective whereby an outside
observer, not one involved in the action inquiry or in action research as a facilitator, can
study the activity setting and its action research operations as they create tools to
remediate practices. As noted in Figure 3.1, this is where my study was located within
CUE’s broader researcher agenda and in relation to the practitioners who were
conducting the action inquiry in the activity setting. Finally, numerical data collected
through evaluation questionnaires were analyzed through correlational analysis by an
additional collaborating researcher who was not involved in facilitating the action
research activities or in collecting observational data.
64
Figure 3.1 Developmental Evaluation Research Design at DCC
Action Research Promoting Inquiry
CUE conducts action research to facilitate practitioner inquiry. As action
researchers, CUE creates activity settings with the aim of remediating educational
practices that are harmful to racial-ethnic equity. CUE’s focus relies on the tenets that
learning and knowledge are constructed and co-constructed in collaborative activities.
During the inquiry process, specific discourse can occur to bring about acceptances and
disagreements which then lead to a shared understanding of the problem. The inquiry
process promotes contradictions between participants’ views about their personal beliefs,
assumptions, and values. These contradictions may motivate participants to gather data
65
that reveal the beliefs, assumptions, and values held by participants in the setting. CUE
seeks to conduct its action research projects at a “critical point of intervention.” This
critical point of intervention begins a cyclical process that involves purposeful social
interactions that allows for the exchange of knowledge and beliefs in specific cultural
contexts. During the interactions, the knowledge that the participants espouse may reveal
participants’ beliefs, assumptions and values which in turn will provide for reflection
amongst the participants. Therefore, reflections, which are important outcomes of social
interactions, will allow for problem identification which is conducted through data
analysis. Once the problem has been identified, problem solving can begin through action
implementation. Evaluation of the implemented plan will call for further evaluation and
assessment of the intervention (Stringer, 2007). CUE’s action inquiry process emphasizes
how when practitioners apply knowledge that they have learned through participatory
inquiry they may impact the way instruction and other educational practices are in place
as practitioners work to improve equity and effectiveness (Figure 3.2).
66
Figure 3.2 Reflective Practices (Inquiry) as Driver of Racial-Ethnic Equity in
Postsecondary Outcomes
Addressing Accountability and Assessment Measures
My study contributes to the efforts by institutions of higher education as they
address state and federal accountability and assessment measures. Action research
provided practitioners with the 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 their minority students. Additionally,
action research provides institutions the means to investigate causes for low student
success rates as they address accountability. 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
Institutional
Structures
Instructional
Practices
Equitable
Student
Outcomes
CUE EQUITY MODEL: IMPACT
Intervention
Point
Mediating
Outcomes
Ultimate
Impact
State Policies
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
67
and action (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). CUE’s equity model (Figure 3.2) seeks to provide
practitioners tools which show how external and internal mediating outcomes affect
equitable outcomes. The cycle of inquiry is therefore not static and continues to evolve as
state and federal policies challenge institutional structures and instructional practices
(Dowd & Bensimon 2009).
The difference between traditional evaluation processes and developmental
evaluation is that developmental evaluation allows innovators to understand the problem
as they experience it. Unlike traditional program evaluation, developmental evaluation
develops measures and tracking mechanisms as outcomes emerge and the measures are
then modified along the way as changes emerge. 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 that reflect institutional goals (Patton, 2011, p. 23-26).
Table 3.1 Research Questions and Sub-Questions
Research Questions
1. What influence do 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 post-secondary educators’
social interactions, behaviors, and educational practices in regard to equity in
postsecondary education?
68
Table 3.1, 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, 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?
Table 3.1 illustrates the list of research questions and sub questions that guided the
collective developmental study. I used the list of questions listed in Table 3.1 and further
narrowed these questions down to four research questions that I have asked based on my
own experiences as a practitioner. As a community college practitioner, I have attended
meetings where faculty express their views about their underrepresented students and
hold their students accountable for their own failures. Faculty also claim that they have
done all that they can do to aid student success; they don’t 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 will learn
through this study, I was particularly interested in examining the following questions:
1. What beliefs do higher education practitioners, especially faculty, hold about
underrepresented students’ success?
2. How do practitioner beliefs influence their educational practices as they impact
underrepresented students’ success?
3. How do those beliefs influence their engagement in action inquiries to improve
student outcomes and program quality?
69
4. How does participation in action inquiry influence practitioners’ willingness
to engage in behavioral changes and their self-efficacy to bring about
organizational changes?
Major Research and Action Research Initiatives
My study was part of CUE’s larger action research and evaluation agenda that
was based on several major research and action initiatives that began in 2004. These
projects conducted by CUE included the Diversity Scorecard, Equity for All, 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, 2009).
The larger study included four field sites: one California State university and three
California community colleges (Table 3.2). The institutions that participated in the study
were all California public higher education campuses. Monarch State University (MSU)
is a four year degree granting university offering bachelors and master degrees that is
located in a small city. It serves just fewer than 20,000. In 2009, there were 12%
Hispanics and 1% African American students enrolled at Monarch University. The racial-
ethnic breakdown in the region where the Monarch State University is located was as
follows: White 91%, Hispanic 20%, Asian 3% and African American 2% (US Census).
The study included three California community college which offered certificates and
associate degrees. Las Flores Community College (LFCC) is a two-year institution that
offers certificates and associate degrees. In 2009, LFCC enrolment was just under
17,000. The racial and ethnic breakdown at LFCC was as follows: White 32%, Hispanic
27%, African American 18%, and Asian 10%. The colleges’ services area population
70
was just over 65,000. The racial and ethnic makeup of LFCC’s service area was as
follows: Hispanic 41%, White 21%, African American 18%, and Asian 16%.
(https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/studdemo_annual_college_rpt.cfm?RequestTim
eout1000). The second community college in the collective study is Amarillo Community
College (ACC) which has an enrollment of 17, 888 students. It is located in Fairview,
California which has a population of 10,003. The College’s service area encompasses the
communities of Benicia, Dixon, Fairfield, Suisun, Vacaville, Vallejo and Winters, as well
as Travis Air Force Base. The racial-ethnic breakdown of the city's population is: White
%, Asian %, Hispanic %, and African American % (IPEDS). The racial makeup of
Fairview, CA was 45.0% White (36.2% non-Hispanic), 21.0% African American (20.5%
non-Hispanic), 0.8% Native American, 15.2% Asian, 1.3% Pacific Islander, 9.1%
from other races, and 7.6% from two or more races. 21.7% of the population
was Hispanic (2010 US Census Data). The racial-ethnic breakdown of the college’s
service area in 2009 is: White %, Hispanic %, Asian % and African American % (US
Census & City Data). Dynamic Community College (DCC), my field site, is located in a
large city with 31,000 students. The racial-ethnic student breakdown of DCC was as
follows: Hispanic 42%, White 31%, Asian 11% and African American 2% (IPEDS). The
White population has decreased by 52%, while the Hispanic population increased by 8%.
DCC had 11% fewer White students and 4% increase in Asian students (US Census &
City Data).
71
Table 3.2 CUE’s Developmental Evaluation Study Field Sites
Pseudonym Type of Institution CUE Tools Used at
Workshops Involving
Individuals from this Field
Site in Spring 2011
Amarillo
Community College
(ACC)
Community college Defining Equity CUE
Module;
Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool
(BESST)
Dynamic
Community College
(DCC)
Community college with
federal designation as a
Hispanic Serving Institution
CUE Modules;
Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool
(BESST);
Syllabus Review
Reflection Protocol
Microaggressions
informational handout
Las Flores
Community College
(LFCC)
Community college with
federal designation as a
Hispanic Serving Institution
Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool
(BESST);
Action Planning Tool
Equity Scorecard Report
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
72
Action Research at Dynamic Community College
In spring 2011, as part of a research team, I was assigned a field site for my
research study. The site that I was assigned was Dynamic Community College (DCC).
Like other field sites in the collective study, this particular field site was chosen since
several of the site’s team participants had attended previous CUE workshops. This
college was one of thirteen community colleges and two California State universities
whose practitioners had attended workshops with CUE during the Spring of 2011.
Table 3.2 lists the institutions that were involved in the collective study and the
various CUE tools that were used at the particular sites.
These institutions of higher education had shown interest in CUE’s action
research projects and wanted to continue further inquiry and were thus recruited for the
study. The study began with the first process in the action research project which was to
have all participants gather information related to the problems that they were to
investigate. The participants expounded on how they viewed the problems they saw
through their personal experiences and perspectives so they could make sense of the
problems in their own way, (Stringer, 2007, p. 65) based on their beliefs, assumptions
and values. The basic process that was used in the action research project was to:
1. Gather data, and then based on the data, identify the problem.
2. Analyze what was happening and theorize why the problem existed.
3. Develop a plan, implement the plan and then evaluate if the plan had
successfully addressed the problem (Stringer, 2007).
73
Data Collection Procedures
Unit of Analysis
Criterion sampling, a predetermined criterion, was established in the study. In this
study for example, establishing that all participants’ institutions were committed to
participating in the Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST)
(APPENDIX A) workshops in the spring and would be interested in further inquiry
activities with CUE was an example of criterion sampling. The unit of analysis was
higher education practitioners (faculty, staff and administrators) at DCC engaged in
action inquiry facilitated by CUE’s BESST and Syllabus Review Protocol at the
practitioner’s institutions. All participants partook in CUE planning workshops and
meetings. Since developmental evaluation builds on the idea of innovation or evolving to
new ideas and adapting to emergent and dynamic realities in a consistently changing
environment, the BESST workshop initiated further inquiry as participants asked
evaluative questions, used evaluation logic, and gathered data from these questions,
which then brought about on-going decision making.
For the purposes of this study, the design experiment included planning
workshops and meetings that included CUE’s BESST and Syllabus Review Protocol and
subsequent team meetings. The data collection from the study focused on the multiple
factors that affect institutional change. Data collected was used to begin the process of
inquiry for practitioners to critically analyze institutional accountability, whether
aggregated or disaggregated data, which would subsequently elicit evaluative questions
to further on-going discussions that would ultimately bring about data-based decision
making. The focus for my data collection was documenting how participants interacted
74
with each other in the activity settings. Data analysis consisted of compiling information
from action research activities conducted by CUE that included documenting
observations conducted during workshops at DCC and conducting cognitive interviews
with participants at the field site. At each field site an observer was present to record
dialogue between the action researcher (CUE) and the expert (practitioner).
The methods for data collection consisted of document analysis, informal pre-
workshop dialogue with activity setting participants, observation in activity settings,
Syllabus Review Project Evaluation Questionnaire (APPENDIX B), post workshop
debriefing interviews using unstructured questions, post-workshop cognitive interview
with activity setting participants using the Syllabus Project Cognitive Protocol
(APPENDIX C), and member check interviews with activity setting participants.
Data Collection Method
Table 3.3 illustrates the variety of data collection methods used and how the
different forms of data provided evidence to answer the study’s research questions. The
collected data represented policies, discourse and discourse changes, beliefs, behaviors
and behavioral changes, social interaction, norms, knowledge, environmental factors,
CUE’s analytical objectives, self-reported practices and changes in practices. The data
were summarized into categorical summaries through deductive and thematic analysis
and then elaborated using descriptive texts which were summarized in a narrative form.
The summary of data collection table (Table 3.3) identifies the kinds of data source that
were used to collect data, what the collected data represented or elicited, the timeline for
data collection and how the data was summarized. Documents, conversations between
CUE researchers regarding the action research project, pre-and post-workshop cognitive
75
interviews, post workshop debriefing interviews, activity setting observations, workshop
evaluation surveys, and member check interviews were the various methods used for data
collection.
Table 3.3 Summary of Data Collection Methods
Data Source Data Represents When Data was
Collected
How Data was
Summarized
Documents Institutional Context Throughout study
(Summer/Fall 2011,
Spring 2012)
Descriptive text
Observations in
activity settings
(“workshops)
Behaviors
Social interactions
Knowledge
Reflections
Problem identification
Social interactions
Actions/Inactions
During workshop
(Summer/Fall 2011)
Descriptive text
(triangulating interview
data)
Post-workshop
debriefing interviews
using unstructured
questions
Behaviors
Social interactions
Norms
Knowledge
Reflections
Division of Labor
Problem identification
Action/inaction
2 weeks after workshop
(Fall 2011)
Categorical summaries;
Summary tables and text
Post-workshop
cognitive interview
with activity setting
participants
Behaviors
Social interactions
Norms
Knowledge
Reflections
Division of Labor
Problem identification
Action/inaction
2 weeks after Syllabus
Review Project
(Fall 2011)
Categorical summaries;
summary tables and text
Member check
interview with activity
setting participants
Practices
Policies
Behaviors (self-reported)
Behavioral changes over
time (self-reported)
Knowledge
Reflections
Action/Inaction
Norm
Following data
collection;
During interpretation and
thematic analysis
Member check interviews
(Spring 2012)
Informs revision of
descriptive text for factual
accuracy
76
Document Analysis
Prior to attending planning meetings, I analyzed documents that contained
institutional policies, discourse, espoused beliefs, and environment factors that related to
the institution. The documents that I reviewed included the following:
1. Organizational/Administrative Practices of the 2010-11 ESL/Basic Skills Action
Plan
2. DCC’s January 21, 2001 Winter Convocation document which detailed its current
progress and the ongoing plans for student achievement
3. DCC’s District’s Board of Trustee meeting of Monday, February 7, 2011 that
provided the 2010-11 vision and goals for the district, accountability reporting for
the community colleges (ARCC), Presentation of the 12 Measures of Success,
Progress toward 2010-2011 Vision and Goals, Community Responses to Survey on
Board Vision and Goals and finally the approval of the 2010-2011 Vision and
Goals by the Board of trustee
4. DCC’s Strategic Plan for 2007-2015
By studying documents and records, researchers gain a significant amount of
information (Stringer, 2007). In addition to analyzing institutional policies, other kinds of
documents were analyzed. Additional documents analyzed included meeting notes and
agendas from the BESST and Syllabus Review meeting and team planning meetings.
Additionally, Syllabus Review Reflection worksheets that were used by participants
during the meeting/workshops were added to the audit trail and were instrumental to
supporting the integrity of the research process. Also, revised syllabi from participants
who were involved in the Syllabus Review Project were analyzed to assess impact. Both
77
the worksheets and revised syllabi represented new characteristics associated with the
cultural artifacts that CUEs tools were intended to produce. These documents became
beneficial because relevant data about the participants and their roles were made
available which could not be accessed through observations or cognitive interviews
alone. Patton (2002) states that “documents prove valuable not only because of what can
be learned directly from them but also as stimulus for paths of inquiry that can be pursued
only through direct observation and interviewing” (p. 247-48). Analysis of the documents
included the language that was used in the meeting descriptions and whether meeting
agendas were followed in regards to presenters and topics. By analyzing the documents,
evidence pertaining to the institution, as well as what was valued about the project itself,
were gathered.
Figure 3.3 outlines a timeline snapshot for data collection and the kinds of
activities that took place at DCC when data was collected following document analysis
and during the action research project. The data collection timeline was divided into two
phases. Phase One included data collected from the three planning workshops prior to the
Syllabus Review meeting. Phase Two of the data collection followed the Syllabus
Review Meeting and included debriefing interviews using unstructured questions and
cognitive interviews using a structured interview protocol. Since I was not present at the
Syllabus Review meeting, a collaborating researcher collected observational data. To
triangulate the observational data collected by the collaborating researcher, I conducted
debriefing interviews using unstructured questions. As illustrated, these interviews were
conducted from September 2011 through November 2011 and involved six participants in
the unstructured interviews and cognitive interviews.
78
79
Phase One: Action Research Activities and Data Collection
The research team conducted a design experiment which engineered particular
forms of learning to systematically study forms of learning within the context (Cobb et
al., 2003). The design experiment allowed for practitioners and researchers to bridge
theory and educational practice (Design-Based Research Collective). As suggested in
Cobb et al. (2003), the research team needed to have a clear understanding of the learning
pathways, and established an ongoing committed relationship with the practitioners, and
there was supported emphasis on reciprocal learning. Learning in this sense, according to
the CHAT and as discussed in Chapter Two, takes place when people create new artifacts
from existing artifact which then change and regulate their previous behavior (Dowd et
al., 2012; 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” (Bensimon at el., 2010, p.37). Data was gathered
throughout the participatory action research process and analyzed using the CHAT
framework and other theories. I used developmental evaluation methods to examine how
practitioners’ attitudes and beliefs were impacted by action inquiry and research.
Planning Workshop One: BESST
The first scheduled planning workshop at DCC was facilitated by CUE and it
included a presentation of the Benchmarking Equity and Student Success (BESST) tool.
The BESST is an interactive display that shows cohort data for students based upon a
specific course and is disaggregated by race/ethnicity. The BESST was designed to guide
80
practitioners in examining successful course completion rates, persistence rates, and
entering student cohort migration rates from basic skills classes to transfer classes
disaggregated by race and ethnicity (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). 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, respective campuses had
data from a 5-6 year period that identified potential problems in transfer pathways or
degree completion. Since data informs understanding in activity settings and can inform
action research, practitioners at field sites used information from CUE’s research team to
assess campus cultures, policies and practices. This tool developed by CUE assisted
workshop participants in determining where barriers exist in student success; it also
permitted workshop participants to explore “what-if” scenarios and helped them
determine short and long-term benchmark goals focused on racial and ethnic equity. This
initial data tool permitted the workshop participants to contextualize and define
institutional problems by asking questions and deciding what other data needed to be
analyzed to answer their questions. The BESST presentation involved showing DCC
participants data on their students’ successful course completion rates, persistence rates,
and entering student cohort migration rates from basic skills classes to transfer classes,
and how many of their students persisted to earning an Associate’s degree or completed
sufficient credits to transfer to a four-year university. Student success was tracked at
specific milestones and transitions that either supported or hindered their progress
through college.
The participants were given the opportunity to manipulate the BESST tool for
action planning by using baseline numbers and then adjusting the number to determine
81
how many students could be moved on through the pipeline. The participants stated that
it was easy to visualize what could be done to successfully move the number of students
to the final milestone. Subsequently, the team was asked to establish performance
benchmark goals for specific milestones and transitions. Through the use of diagnostic
and process benchmarking, the team discussed an action plan that would support student
success. The participants discussed what methods could be implemented to improve
student retention and persistence. Through collaboration, the participants discussed
extending the inquiry process to include the Syllabus Review Project. The Syllabus
Review Protocol is a tool that helps evidence teams review the first document most
students receive on their first day of class. By using this tool, practitioners are able to
explore the extent to which course syllabi communicate the expectations of the instructor
and how the course will meet students’ needs.
Following each planning workshop, each participant completes an evaluation
form, a tool created by the CUE research team that is used to gather quantitative data that
would reveal participants’ behavior, opinions, feelings, and other kinds of knowledge,
including the participants’ motivation to become involved in the inquiry project. The
workshop evaluation questionnaire was also be used to gather data that reflected
participants’ beliefs and their self-reported practices. The workshop evaluation
questionnaire consisted of a 21 items set on a Likert scale with the following response
categories: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree and Strongly Agree. Examples of prompts
used to analyze the effectiveness of the workshop include: (1) The CUE team provided an
effective foundation for institutional activities on my campus, (2) Prior to this workshop,
I have been active around issues of equity on my campus (3) Prior to this workshop, I
82
have felt that my individual actions make a difference concerning racial-ethnic equity at
my institution, (4) Due to this workshop, I feel better able to identify equity gaps using
data and (5) Due to our work with CUE today, I feel that my colleagues have gained an
increased commitment to addressing equity on our campus. Open-ended questions were
given to workshop participants so they could provide additional comments and feedback
on information presented during the benchmarking workshop. The evaluation form
provided the researcher information that 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 Urban Education.
Planning Workshop Two: Syllabus Review Planning Workshop
The second planning workshop facilitated by CUE and two of CUE’s research
assistants involved the use of the Syllabus Review Protocol (SRP). At this planning
workshop, the two research assistants presented syllabi that they had revised after their
involvement in a previous Syllabus Review Project. After the research assistants’
presentation, ten participants from DCC worked in small groups to complete an
experiential review of the syllabus review tool that encompassed a sample syllabus and a
protocol (APPENDIX D) that was composed of a variety of indicators reflecting
culturally responsive pedagogy. The indicators in the protocol were developed by CUE
researchers who had derived the protocol from literature involving culturally responsive
pedagogy. The Syllabus Review Protocol is a tool that helps evidence teams review the
first document most students receive on their first day of class.
Following the Syllabus Review planning workshop, five of the ten participants
met to discuss the process the evidence team would use to conduct the Syllabus Review
83
Project at DCC. Once the inquiry process was identified at the third planning workshop,
the inquiry team (Early Adopters), which was made up of eight participants, met to
conduct their own inquiry using the Syllabus Review Protocol, a Syllabus Content and
Organizational Checklist (APPENDIX F), and their own syllabi. One of the lead
participants from the evidence team who was familiar with the Syllabus Review Project
facililated this workshop.
Observational data were collected during the three planning workshops. The
average length of the workshops was approximately four hours long with breaks and
lunch included. Observational data (APPENDIX E) collected from the workshops
represented behaviors, social interactions, norms, discourse, and knowledge of the
activity setting participants. The research team documented verbal and relevant non-
verbal communication during the workshops held at multiple sites and I was responsible
for primary data collection at DCC. The data collected reflected the participants’
attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and practices. I continued collecting qualitative and
quantitative data at subsequent workshops that had been scheduled for summer and fall of
2011. Two weeks after the Syllabus Review meeting was conducted by the eight
participants at DCC, I scheduled debriefing and Syllabus Review Reflection Cognitive
Protocol interviews (APPENDIX C) with activity setting participants. Each instrument
added to my ability to triangulate the data and to add to the reliability of the study.
Debriefing and Cognitive Interview for Data Collection
Since I was not involved in facilitating the Syllabus Review meeting, the
interactions and results from this meeting were documented through follow-up post
workshop debriefing interviews with each workshop participant. The debriefing
84
interviews were conducted using unstructured questions. The overall goal for the
debriefing interviews was to gather data about how the participants felt about the
Syllabus Review activity and what kinds of questions arose from their interactions. Data
to examine the impact of action research on learning and change among higher education
practitioners were collected from the participants involved in the various meetings and
workshop. The data were collected by conducting cognitive interviews with the
practitioners who had participated in the BESST and Syllabus Review workshops. These
cognitive interviews were conducted immediately after the debriefing interviews. The
cognitive interviews were conducted using the Syllabus Review Reflection Cognitive
Interview Protocol (APPENDIX C) which consisted of eleven questions that evaluated
the survey items (APPENDIX B) that the participants completed following Syllabus
Review Project. The cognitive interview questions were developed by CUE’s staff and
PhD students at USC who had captured what practitioners had learned from their
experiences during their engagement in previous workshops. Each of the cognitive
interview questions were designed to address one or more of the research questions and
were supported by concepts studied in the literature review. Notes were taken during the
cognitive interviews. As the researcher, I took reflective analytical notes during each
interview. Data collected from these cognitive interviews represented the attitudes,
beliefs, self-reported practices and knowledge of the activity setting participants.
Cognitive interviews were carried out with six DCC’s participants who participated in the
Syllabus Review meeting participants from DCC. The interviews were conducted in the
participants’ offices, and the interviews lasted thirty to forty-five minutes in length. The
purpose of cognitive interviews was to “probe respondents to see if they understood the
85
closed-ended questions on a survey in the intended manner; to observe how they worked
through the items; to assess if a response category was appropriate for the item; and to
see if rephrasing the item made it clearer” (Ouimet et al., 2004). In my study, cognitive
interviews were used to support or dispute the data that were collected from observations
and document analysis. The cognitive interviews were also be used to assess
participants’ beliefs about equity and the impact of action research activities.
Cognitive interviews were designed based on the process described by Willis
(2005). The procedure used encompassed (1) developing a testing plan; (2) creating a
cognitive testing protocol that included both target and probe questions; (3) setting up
interview times with members of the DCC team; (4) utilizing appropriate cognitive
interviewing patterns (cognitive probes and subjects thinking aloud as they answered
questions);(5) with the subject’s consent, documenting, and reviewing notes;(6) writing a
test report; (7) reviewing results and making modifications as needed; and (8) carrying
out more testing and then reevaluating the questionnaire.
Concurrent probing and retrospective probing were used during the cognitive
interview process. Concurrent probing was a part of the actual interview and occurred
while the interview took place. Retrospective probing, however, occurred at the end of
the actual interview. The cognitive interview protocol was designed to evaluate the
analytic objective of the evaluation protocol and by extension of the action research
processes and protocols themselves. Several steps were taken to identify the analytical
objectives. First, the objectives were based on observations made during the Spring 2011
workshops. Second, the objectives were derived from CUE’s publications. Third,
theories in Chapter Two provided the basis for the kinds of questions to formulate.
86
During the interviews, extensive notes were taken to document participant responses to
the cognitive questions to make sure that no important details were missed.
Immediately after the interviews, my analytical notes were transcribed coded into
eight different deductive codes. These deductive codes expressed the workshop
participants’ attitudes/beliefs (A/B), knowledge (K), social interaction (SI) in activity
settings, reflection (R), problem identification (PI), experimentation/problem solving
(EXP), action (inaction)/ experience (A/E), or other (not coded).(Table 3.4). The
deductive codes were then analyzed for common themes. These common themes were
categorized using the Fishbein and Azjen (2010) framework which examines
participants’ personal behavioral beliefs towards equity minded or deficit minded
behavior, normative beliefs which revolve around how practitioners view other’s views
and what challenges exist if and when the views of others are challenged, and finally the
category of controlled beliefs that reveal practitioners’ perceived self-efficacy of how
instrumental they are to institutional change.
Phase Two: Action Research Activities and Data Collection
Patton (2002) describes program evaluation as “the systematic collection of
information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs to make
judgments about the program, improve program effectiveness, and/or inform decisions
about future programs” (p. 10). Evaluative-based research and measurement of the
effectiveness and impact of action research on learning and change among higher
education practitioners was conducted through the use of multiple data collection and
analysis. Throughout the action research project, reflections at each stage of the project
were conducted. In addition to reflection, evaluating the effectiveness of the project and
87
its goals were measured at regular intervals. Dialogue between CUE researchers and
other researchers from the collective study and data collected at different sites were used
to compare findings and interpretations. Through these dialogues and comparisons,
needed design changes were made along the way. Implemented plans were modified to
meet the needs of the project.
The next activity following the cognitive interviews was my presentation to the
Faculty Academic Senate. The presentation included a brief description of the project
design and how the evidence team, based on DCC’s disaggregated student success data,
had decided to participate in the Syllabus Review Project. The next step to the action
research process at DCC was the Early Adopters meeting to plan the next steps for the
project and the process that they would take to communicate to other faculty who would
be interested in participating in the Syllabus Review Project. The ultimate goal of Early
Adopters participation in the action research project was to disseminate the Syllabus
Review Protocol that they had used to make others in the campus community become
aware of equity issues. The protocol would be used to share knowledge as well as
communicate the goals of equity and standards by which the institution plans to improve
the rates of success for all students. Therefore, the Early Adopters agreed to a meeting in
early spring where the research study’s preliminary findings from the Early Adopters’
participation in the Syllabus Review Project could be presented. This meeting would also
introduce the Syllabus Review project to a new group of faculty, which will be identified
as the Late Adopter group.
88
Data Analysis Procedures
CUE’s action research tools posits that as practitioners engage in action inquiry,
existing knowledge and beliefs would be examined and reconstructed through social
interaction and reflection and that their roles can be remediated. It is through these
reflections that practitioners become aware of their beliefs, assumptions and behaviors
that impact their students’ successes. The CHAT activity setting framework is used to
show how the engagement in inquiry leads to changes in practitioner roles.
This study used observational data to analyze cultural artifacts such as language
and course syllabi 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 being equity mindedness. Figure 3.2 illustrates the
learning and change model informing CUE’s action research methods. This model guided
data analysis, and it is informed by the theoretical frameworks described in the previous
chapter, including practice theory and cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). Practice
theory calls attention to a cycle of inquiry among individual practitioners, as well as the
role of social interactions in shaping opportunities for practitioner learning and
experimentation with new educational practices. CHAT calls attention to the role of
social interaction and cultural artifacts in shaping practices which supports the
proposition that CUE’s action research tools remediate the roles of practitioners to
becoming change agents. Following each workshop, all notes were transcribed and
analyzed for shared categories.
89
In order for the transcripts to be analyzed, shared categories were used in an effort
to determine strong themes. The transcripts were coded according to eight different
deductive codes that express the workshop participants’ (Table 3.4) attitudes/beliefs
(A/B), (2) knowledge (K), (3) social interaction (SI) in activity settings, (4) reflection
(R), (5) problem identification (PI), (6) experimentation/problem solving (EXP), (7)
action (inaction)/ experience (A/E), or (8) other (not coded above).
According to Participatory Action Theory (PAR) the community or institutional
plane emphasizes the historical dynamics that involves “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 Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 459; Schein, 1985). When there is social
interaction, participants may learn that their beliefs may contradict the next person’s and
this dissonance may lead to an awareness of the differences. Through dialogue and
inquiry, participants were able to arrive at the problem, which then enabled them to
collaboratively formulate solutions. Therefore, the codes listed in Table 3.4 enabled the
researcher to classify and code qualitative data that supported the conceptual theory
discussed in the previous chapter. Any behavioral change that was documented suggested
that CUE’s tools contributed to the change.
90
Table 3.4 Deductive Data Analysis Codes
Code Category Examples
Attitudes/ Beliefs (A/B)
On a personal note, I don't think that the State needs to tell us
what we need to put on our syllabus.
Knowledge (K)
I had previously viewed the purpose of the syllabus as just
providing the facts and what students needed to know for the
class.
Social Interaction (SI)
We need to be clear about what is required to include and
what is optional.
Reflection (R)
How do we talk with students about inequity?
Problem Identification
(PI)
There is a need to send every student the message.
Experimentation/
Problem Solving (EXP)
I don’t have a detailed ADA statement. I will need to add
details to the statement when I revise my syllabus.
Action(Inaction)/
Experience (A/E)
Because I am waiting to see how all this unfolds, I did not
change it in my other class.
Other (not coded above)
The quantitative analysis included counting each code found in all the data
collected. Proportions were calculated to inform CUE’s research team of the most
frequent areas of impact. Qualitatively, all codes that were utilized, presented evidence of
impact of the design experiment using action research tool. The constructs represented
by the codes were characterized as weak or strong based on the frequency of the code
count relative to the total code count at each field site. Codes for each document were
qualitatively described.
91
This study researched the problem that exists today in higher education where a
large number of racial ethnic minority students are not persisting on to transfer from 2-
year community colleges to 4-year institutions or completing requirements to attain a
college degree. If practitioners do not have knowledge about their beliefs, then they
would not be willing to change their practices and agency to bring about institutional
changes as they address the achievement gaps that exist at their institutions.
At each field site practitioner’s attitudes toward action inquiry was examined as
the project revealed beliefs about the legitimacy of action inquiry and perceptions of self-
efficacy and collective efficacy to carry out projects. It was important to measure beliefs
and changes in beliefs because beliefs are important drivers of behavior (Fishbein, 2000;
Patton, 2011). Fishbein and Azjens’ (2010) framework was utilized to examine
practitioners’ behavioral beliefs (beliefs surrounding the consequences, positive or
negative or a behavior), normative beliefs (perceived norms or the expected approval or
disapproval from others), and control beliefs (beliefs about personal perceived self-
efficacy and environmental factors that aided or hindered the ability to carry out a
behavior).
Therefore, 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 failures. Also, there are situations whereby practitioners, because of institutional
policies or because they feel that they are not capable of introducing change, may reframe
from changing their behavior. Finally, pressure from others at the institution may also
stifle practitioners from changing practices because of the fear of reprisal. Thus, even if
92
practitioners are aware that they can do more to narrow minority achievement gaps, they
may still reframe from making changes.
After compiling information from planning meetings and cognitive interviews,
analytical memos were created to summarize results from revealed emergent themes,
tensions and unresolved issues that were gathered through the code categories in Table
3.4. Additional themes were added as part of the deductive process and were used to
categorize themes that arose during the data analysis that were not a part of themes
previously established by CUE. We proposed a hypothesis based on the literature which
suggests that Equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in “remediated” social
learning environments influence educator’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviors in regard to
equity in postsecondary education. The theory of developmental evaluation examined
and analyzed relationships between activity settings, practitioners and CUE’s researchers.
With CUE’s research team presenting institutional data, campus practitioners sought to
determine whether they had engaged in a cycle of inquiry which encompassed 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 examined institutional artifacts, such as language and discourse,
which shaped practitioners understandings, interactions and ability to take purposeful
action (Dowd & Bensimon 2009). The language and discourse that practitioners used
demonstrate how their beliefs, assumptions and values hinder institutions from
implementing polices that promote equitable outcomes. CUE’s central tenet is for
practitioners to learn through social interactions in joint productive activities. The
learning and change model was used to inform CUE’s action research methods (figure
93
3.1 & 3.2). As practitioners engage in action inquiry, existing knowledge and beliefs
were examined and reconstructed through social interaction and reflection (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2009). The work of Dewey (1958) suggests that individual learning cannot
take place without reflecting on our interactions (Dewey, 1958 as cited in Schön, 1988).
The study investigated if social interaction prompted reflections and conversations to
identify problems of equity, which in turn led to shaping opportunities for practitioners’
learning and experimentation with new educational practices.
The evaluation form analysis included basic descriptive statistics characterizing
(non-identifiable, pooled, site-and activity specific) respondent experiences. Participant
responses to evaluation questions indicated receptiveness to new concepts such as equity
mindedness, action inquiry and performance benchmarking.
Ethical Concerns
In research, ethical concerns are very important. In qualitative research,
participants may give very personal responses, and their privacy and rights are important
to maintain the integrity of the study (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 G) to inform them about the study and
provided contact information. Pseudonyms were used to protect the privacy of the
participants. Pseudonyms were used throughout this study to protect the individuals and
their respective institutions. In order to ensure human subject protection, all researchers
completed Institution Review Board (IRB) training and the study proposal was submitted
and approved before the research began.
94
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 over time and space. Their focus is on dialogue and interaction that reveal
the world as people see it. The focus is to understand how each person’s view or
perspective is based on his/her experiences and background and that it is through these
differences that he acts in everyday life. This phenomenon also includes how individuals
act in inquiry (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, Patton (2002) states that “Quality and
credibility are connected in that judgments of quality constitute the foundation for
perceptions of credibility” (p. 542), which means that if one does not find the study to be
of high quality, then it will cause one to question the study’s credibility.
Action researchers argue that generalizable knowledge through scientific
research fails to provide remedies or solutions to the problems that individuals
experience. Action researchers argue that generalized solutions cannot be applied to all
situations and that the dynamics of inquiry leads to finding solutions that can be applied
in particular contexts or settings. Therefore the primary purpose of systematic inquiry is
for individuals to experiment with solutions and to collect data to reflect and improve in
the cycle of inquiry that can help solve the problems individuals face. At the same time,
the inquiry will lead to evaluating the effectiveness of the tool in use.
95
Action researchers believe that, “the quality of the study has to be derived from
“credibility, impartiality, and independence of judgment; confirmability, consistency and
dependability of data; and explainable inconsistencies or instabilities (Patton, 2002, p.
93). Credibility is established when the researcher takes a neutral stance to the
phenomenon that is being studied. Therefore, as a qualitative researcher, the study
involves gathering data as it emerges and reporting the findings with no regard to an
ultimate conclusion. To prepare for data collection, the research team practiced
observing the process of action research as practitioners from varies institutions
participated in BESST and Syllabus Review workshops. Additionally, credibility was
reached when the researcher carefully reported data as it unfolded, whether it supported
or contradicted the study’s hypothesis. Establishing systematic data collection
procedures, rigorous training of observers and interviewers involved in the study,
collection of multiple data sources, and triangulation of sources added to the credibility of
the study (Patton, 2002; Stringer, 2007). When action researchers do not take a neutral
stance, they bring their own perceptions and interpretations to the problem that is studied.
This may lead to issues of trustworthiness in the researcher. To avoid this problem, the
researcher must state his 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, which then validates the study. Triangulation of
multiple data sources and the use of diverse sources increase the credibility of the study
96
by avoiding bias and distortion during data analysis (Patton, 2002; Stringer, 2007).
Triangulation can be accomplished using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Four types of triangulation exist that can establish credibility of a study: data
triangulation; investigator triangulation; theory triangulation; and methodological
triangulation.
Data triangulation involves the use of multiple data sources using the same
method. The data that was collected at different times or in different settings are cross-
checked for consistency. Cross-checking was conducted comparing observation and
interview data; comparing what participants see in public and in private; comparing what
was said over a period of time; comparing data collected from different stakeholders who
have different perspectives; and comparing for consistency between interviews and
documents or other written evidence (Patton, 2002). Investigator triangulation provided
credibility through the use of a number of researchers or investigators who gathered data.
Multiple observers and/or interviewers were involved in gathering data so as to reduce
bias that would have occurred if only one person observed or conducted interviews for a
study. Similarly there is analyst triangulation whereby several different people
independently analyze the data to arrive at findings. Analyst triangulation allowed
researchers to see data from multiple perspectives, without seeking consensus. A
variation of this form of triangulation is team triangulation which compares the results of
a goals-based team with a goal-free team. The goals-based team assesses the outcomes of
a particular program, and the goals-free team gathers data related to the problem and then
compares the data as it relates to the program. Action researchers use goals-free concepts
as they work off of hunches. The researcher is not evaluating an existing problem but
97
why those involved in the problem are unaware of what is causing the program to fail.
The goals-based approach assesses the stated outcomes or effectiveness of the program;
this is summative in nature (Patton, 2002). Developmental evaluation is focused
supporting on-going decisions that are made when changes are needed; it involves
thinking and acting as new reactions or discoveries are made by participants in an activity
setting. There is continuous and on-going development and rapid feedback involved in
developmental evaluation (Patton, 2011). Therefore, triangulating data gathered from a
goals-based team data and a goals-free team data can improve the credibility of the study.
Theory triangulation entails the use of multiple lenses or perspectives to interpret
data. Theory triangulation helps in understanding how different assumptions and
perspectives affect the findings and interpretations of the findings (Patton, 2002). Figure
3.2 of the Reflective Practice Model shows the various ways to look at what was studied.
For example, the activity setting in the figure identifies the culture that exists at the
setting. The Reflective Practice Model shows that a particular culture at the setting will
produce social interactions which create different results depending on the knowledge
and belief systems of the participants.
Finally, methodological triangulation uses multiple methods to study the problem
(Denzin, 1978). Usually, a study can be studied either quantitatively or quantitatively or a
combination of both. Multiple methods triangulation complements the data or shows
divergence in data which provides additional insights to the qualitative researchers. My
study used quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Quantitative data was
collected through evaluations questionnaires, and qualitative data was gathered through
observations, debriefing interviews and cognitive interviews.
98
Credibility was also be attained through referential adequacy whereby the study’s
results were drawn from the participants or stakeholders’ experiences and perspectives
and not interpreted from existing theoretical knowledge. Therefore, when concepts or
ideas in a study are supported, the evidence will reflect the participant’s perspective and
not what has already been grounded in the form of a theory (Stringer, 2007, p. 58). After
observation data were collected, follow-up cognitive interviews were conducted to
strengthen evidence that what was observed during the workshops was in fact what the
participants truly felt about the project activities and their objectives.
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, training on how to complete observations and cognitive interviews was
critical before actual research began. Training on how to conduct and use the observation
and cognitive interview protocols was conducted prior to field site visits. Several practice
sessions including three cognitive interviews were required before actual field site visits
were scheduled. Additionally, practice on how to document and complete 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 less challenging owing
to the rapport that had been established between CUE’s staff and the field site
administrators who had attended prior workshops. The field site administrators were then
tasked to select the project team participants based on institutional goals
99
Member check or debriefing involved participants being provided the
opportunities to verify that the data that had been gathered were accurate and 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 that could have clouded their initial
interpretations of the activities and the purpose of the study (Stringer, 2002).
Additionally, member check established credibility in the study as it documents that
participants were not coaxed or pressured to reveal incorrect information. The probing
technique involved in cognitive interviews, member check and debriefing confirmed that
the data collected were accurate.
Transferability
Nationally, higher education policy makers are concerned that the number of
minority students that they enroll and the number of minority students who earn degrees
or transfer from two- year institutions to four-year is disproportionate. Similarly,
California community colleges are working towards addressing the problem that a large
number of minority students are enrolled in basic skills courses. The low persistence and
retention rates for these students to progress on to college-level work or transfer to four-
year institutions has prompted community colleges to seek solutions to improve the
inequities that minority students experience. Many of these institutions are taking
measures to address these inequities by implementing action inquiry projects to study
their transfer and completion policies. The findings from previous action research studies
can be used to provide institutions the ability to extrapolate the findings from one study
to another context or group. Extrapolation allows for speculation that findings from one
100
study can possibly be applied to other similar situations which may not have identical
conditions. Therefore, findings from one study, even though they are contextual, may
provide potential for best practice applications. Transferability of findings from one
context to another can be achieved through descriptive narratives. The information-rich
samples and designs that were gathered in my study and the collective study can then be
used to target other similar research studies at other institutions. My study involved
documenting and describing all data collection methods and procedures, including
summarizing observations, debriefing interviews and cognitive interviews. Data analysis
procedures and reporting mechanisms were also described for transferability purposes.
For example, the tools that were used in my study, CUE’s Benchmarking Equity
and Student Success Tool (BESST) and Syllabi Review Protocol, involved using
individual institutional data to facilitate dialogue and decision making amongst
institutional practitioners. The data shown at the BESST workshop at DCC were used to
identify the number of students who had or had not taken the placement tests or had been
placed in basic skills Math and English classes. Based on the data, the various pipelines
of cohort students were easily seen. In the case of the Syllabi Review meeting,
practitioner syllabi were reviewed using a protocol template. At the conclusion of the
meeting, participants completed evaluation questionnaires to reflect on the Syllabus
Review activity. When vivid descriptions and details are available, other institutions can
use this information- rich sample to begin their inquiry projects. The setting too can be
replicated since the study can be conducted in any educational institution, as long as the
required institutional information is available to begin the process of inquiry. The inquiry
process will aid institutions of higher education in beginning their assessments on student
101
outcomes and also in addressing the accountability issues that stem from low student
outcomes. Similarly, participants, similar to those who were involved in the inquiry
process at DCC can be found at any institution. At DCC, the participants who were
involved in the workshops hold many roles and responsibilities and the data collected
from their interactions during the workshops provide other practitioners insights on how
they too can begin the inquiry process at their own institutions. Other action research
project conducted by CUE that can be used for transferability purposes are Bridging
Research Information and Culture (BRIC), Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) and Research and
Planning Group’s Bridging Research (http://cue.usc.edu/).
Dependability and Confirmability
Dependability of a study can be attained when a systematic approach to data
collection is conducted. This systematic approach can be completed using an inquiry
audit where the procedures are described in detail and the processes and procedures are
documented and available for review. Confirmability suggests that an audit trail is
present to show that all documents pertaining to the research study have been compiled
and are readily available to support the procedures that were actually conducted.
Audit trials essentially have a two-fold purpose. One is to establish the rigor of
the fieldwork and the second is to confirm that the data collected is accurate and that,
based on the data collected, bias can be reduced in presenting the findings. The audit trial
also improves accuracy and removes the researchers’ personal perspectives, which in turn
provides grounded empirical findings (Patton, 2002). Transparency, another manner to
establish dependability and confirmability, can be attained when all documents, data and
other evidence are compiled and available to support the validity of the study.
102
Documentation of the methods used and its rigor show that the high-quality study was
carried out.
Limitations
Several limitations existed within the study. I have only recently been involved in
field of inquiry and action. My participation in the action research was limited to four
workshops. As a researcher, my credibility was acquired through 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,
extensive reading on literature involving action and participatory research was conducted.
Another limitation to the study involved the observation data source. Participants
in the workshop, even though their activities were not recorded, may have felt
uncomfortable when unfamiliar faces were present in the setting. Therefore, they may not
have conducted themselves in a typical manner and the data that was collected may not
be accurate. Sampling too may be another limitation in the case of my one community
college case study. Limited sampling may affect the credibility of the study since small or
limited samplings as in the one community college case study or the limited selective
participants may seem bias for those who may not understand the reasons for the intended
design (Patton, 2002). However, the multiple member participants whom I interviewed
compensated for the one case study sampling. Time was another constraint when
coordinating interviews with the action research participants. Educators have busy
schedules teaching classes and attending to other faculty obligations like serving on
committees and participating in campus wide meetings. However, the participants in my
study did find time to participate in debriefing and cognitive interviews after their
103
participation in the action research activities. Additionally, administrators too have many
additionally responsibilities on and off campus that they are committed to that limited
their availability to be interviewed. Still others could have been afraid to be interviewed
since they may believe that these interviews may force them to divulge information that
they are not comfortable revealing and this too could have dissuaded them from being
interviewed.
Best practices and evidence based practices work best when implemented to
simple problems. However, in this case study, the research surrounded the belief systems
that exist with practitioners. In cases where practitioners were unaware that their belief,
values and assumptions affected the success of their students, there is not a simple best
practice that can be applied to address the problem. The context of the study will lead the
reader to understand the problem that was studied and the reasons for the study, and the
reader will then be able to interpret meanings to the study and how it can be significant to
his/her context (Patton, 2002; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Finally, the credibility of
findings relate closely to the credibility of the researcher. If the researcher is not trained
in the process and procedures used in data collection and the process developed to
analyze the data to lead to the findings, then the credibility of the findings will be
diminished (Patton, 2002). If methodological rigor is absent from the findings, credibility
then becomes an issue. Methodological rigor includes the methods used in fieldwork data
collection and the systematic and consistent method of data analysis. The method of
coding establishes a classification system where the researcher can carefully record all
findings based on establish themes which can be easily verified and explained. If the
method for data analysis is absent or is not clearly defined, the study will lack credibility.
104
Additionally, credibility limitations exist when fieldwork data derived from purposeful
sampling are not systematically analyzed to answer the research questions.
Reporting Results
Field notes were collected and transcribed. Reporting the results took a variety of
forms, including descriptive text, tabular summaries focused on categorical data, and
thematic analysis based on emerging issues/new themes revealed by the data. Typical and
atypical data were reported, including the range of participant experiences. Observational
data were collected from a variety of activity settings that provided a contextual view of
the campus but were then narrowed to a core group of stakeholders. The contextual view
of the activity setting at DCC was obtained through presenting the BESST tool, Syllabus
Review Reflection Protocol, reviewing college policy documents, attending to the
discourse of the participants, and tabulating the evaluations of workshop participants.
Data were tabulated into categories that reflect distinct views or thought processes
that the workshop participants experienced while they worked with a CUE developed
tool, namely the BESST or Syllabus Review Reflection Protocol. For the first category of
attitudes/beliefs, it was vital to identify the attitudes and beliefs expressed through
emotive comments made by the workshop participants. Their knowledge was made
explicit since they verbalized it. Their social interaction in the activity setting was
established in the way they interacted with each other, their use of non-CUE mediating
artifacts (e.g., reports), the nomenclature used, the apparent roles, the cultural rules and
norms the workshop participants adhere to, the community itself, and the division of
labor. The next classification was that of reflection which is often, but not always,
exhibited in the form of questions. CUE’s tools were designed to encourage the workshop
105
participants to ask “what if” and reflective statements were essential for the next two
categories to occur—problem identification and experimentation/problem solving. These
final steps focused on the comments participants made 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. The final category was for
statements that were not coded which was an array of actions and statements that
revealed some shared themes and issues, such as leadership as well as policies of the
institution, state or nation.
106
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Overview
The focus of this study was to examine if the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of
practitioners change after they are involved in action inquire processes. As a
developmental evaluator, I investigated and examined the assumption that practitioners
become aware of their cultural beliefs, assumptions, and values as they participate in
action inquiry to bring about organizational changes. This assumption states that
participation in action inquiry affects practitioners’ beliefs about equity, and that these
beliefs subsequently affect their behaviors when addressing equity issues on their
campuses. To investigate and examine this assumption, I used the theories that ground
CUE”s work specifically and action research in general. This chapter will first illustrate
my findings that an inquiry process took place. Next I will show that a range of reactions
and a number of themes emerged from the practitioners’ involvement in the action
inquiry process. I will describe how these themes are supported by the outcomes that
arose from the inquiry process. I will also compare Dynamic Community College’s
results to one of the other sites in the collective study. Lastly, I will discuss how the
Syllabus Review Project impacted the participants at DCC.
CUE’s tools were used in the various workshops that were held at DCC. These
tools brought about collaboration between faculty, staff and administrators during the
action inquiry processes. During the action inquiry processes, practitioners in each
activity setting critically reflected on relevant data and these reflections took place during
their social interaction within the activity settings. CUE’s tools provided the opportunity
107
for practitioners to reflect and collectively assess issues of equity at their institution. As a
developmental evaluator, I was able to observe and interview the participants so as to
develop a means to track and record changes or outcomes that took place during the
action inquiry processes.
Figure 4.1 Activity Triangle Reflecting Changes
As a result of the inquiry process that CUE facilitated, the faculty at DCC became aware
of their roles and how their roles were instrumental in the change process. The results of
my study provide evidence to support the following conclusions about the impact of
CUE’s action research processes and tools on the beliefs of practitioners.
Figure 4.1 provides a roadmap which shows how the various activities, especially
the Syllabus Review Protocol were examined using the Activity Triangle Model. It shows
Mediating Artifact:
e.g. Syllabus/Syllabus
Review Protocol
Adding culturally responsive
pedagogy to promote student
success
Expertise to bring
about equity
More buy-in from
faculty/faculty from
across disciplines/
administrators
Change occurred within
the prevailing norms of
the institution
Faculty
Faculty went beyond
being content providers;
they facilitated student
success
108
how the subjects who were involved in the inquiry process used the Syllabus Review
Protocol to remediate previously held rules, norms and traditions. The Syllabus Review
Protocol allowed for introspection which initiated practitioners to remediate the way they
viewed their previous syllabi. The decision to include culturally responsive pedagogy into
their syllabi (object) suggests that remediation had occurred. Practitioners moved from
merely providing subject content to considering how they could communicate beyond
content to build upon skills their students bring to the class, which may ultimately
promote student success. There was a change in roles from teaching content alone to
showing students how to succeed. As one participant stated,
I have incorporated study skills not only in the syllabus but we talk about his
every time in class. Here is what we need to do. I make study sheets and so forth.
We talk about all this. We need a coach to learn how to study. I use the
athletic example. I am the coach and my students learn how to practice.
The statement above demonstrates the shift that had taken place. Students who are a part
of the community are now provided more than, “This is what you need to do,” but this is
how you can do it.
Institutional Context and Setting: A Campus that Values Professional Development
DCC has been actively involved with its community’s largely Hispanic
population. Additionally, it has been involved in several initiatives, one being its
involvement in a $5.9 million grant that is designed to increase the transfer rates of
Hispanic and other minority students to four-year institutions. The focus is to direct its
predominantly Hispanic student body to become involved in STEM related fields of
study, a field that does not have a large Hispanic participation. The following documents
reflect DCC’s commitment to improving student success and how DCC’s participation in
109
the inquiry process is aligned to its long range goals: the 2010-11 ESL/Basic Skills
Action Plan, January 21, 2001 Winter Convocation document, the 2010-11 vision and
goals for the district, the ARCC report, Presentation of the 12 Measures of Success,
Progress toward 2010-2011 Vision and Goals, Community Responses to Survey on
Board Vision and Goals and finally the approval of the 2010-2011 Vision and Goals by
DCC’s Board of Trustee.
The data collected from these documents, which were interpreted in this study as
artifacts reflecting the institution’s culture, provide evidence of an existing institutional
focus on equity and student success. The mission of the college identifies its commitment
to improving student success and student persistence. These documents were chosen for
data collection because they identified planned goals that the institution had set for the
campus as a whole, particularly for faculty. The 2010-11 Basic Skills Action Plan
describes the values of the institution and the institution’s focus on faculty professional
development to improve student success. CUE’s Syllabus Review Protocol mirrors
DCC’s efforts surrounding the institution’s goal to improve student success.
DCC is focused on addressing developmental education philosophy and strategies
designed to increase student completion and improve student success indicators. Its goal
is to establish a permanent site for a Teaching and Learning Commons that measures
outcomes for professional development and its impact on student success. This
permanent site would include a Faculty Academy program for new faculty. As part of the
Basic Skills Initiative, the institution is working towards redesigning the composition of
the taskforce to bring about broader faculty and administrative leadership. It is also
focused on designing and implementing class level research that improves data coaching
110
and evaluation research workshops, and assists faculty in assessing/evaluating their
implementation of evidence-based BSI effective practices that lead to improved student
success indicators. Noted in the institutional documents are the areas related directly to
faculty involvement and participation that support the use of CUE’s tools to meet the
goals of the institution.
CUE’S Action Research Tools Used at DCC
The action research project that took place at DCC included an initial planning
meeting that was held in early spring, 2011 where a number of participants were present
to start the project off. There was representation from faculty, staff, administrators, and
middle management staff. Throughout the 4.5 hour workshop, there were a minimum of
at least 20 participants. However, after lunch the numbers dwindled. The meeting took
place in a large conference room equipped with smart room capabilities. The workshop
participants were seated around an oval table. The mood at the meeting was lively and
many were enthusiastic about the presentation, especially with the BESST tool
demonstration that showed DCC’s student success data. Prior to the actual presentation,
two faculty members informed me that they were aware of the problems that existed at
their institution. One faculty remarked, “It is time to address the problems with data
driven research.” And another faculty stressed, “It so important to find new ways to
improve student retention and transfer. We have a lot of work to do on this at DCC.”
Many of the participants were familiar with CUE’s tools, especially the student affairs
administrator, who had previously been involved in another of CUE’s projects.
Figure 4.2 below shows the inquiry that took place at each activity setting where
participants were asked to analyze data that were presented to them by CUE or derived
111
by the participants themselves from their own syllabi that they used to reflect on and
make meaning of them from the perspective of equity. As noted in Chapter 3, Figure 3.3,
the activity setting at DCC included planning meetings, a BESST workshop, and Syllabus
Review workshop, presentations to faculty and administrators not directly involved in the
the inquiry research project. To show that within the larger Cycle of Inquiry there were
smaller inquiry activities that took place, the larger Cycle of Inquiry has been divided
into three segments. These three segments elaborate the different stages of action inquiry
that took place at DCC.
Figure 4.2 The Cycle of Inquiry at DCC
During the BESST demonstration, several evaluative questions were presented by
CUE’s team to stimulate dialogue amongst the participants. The BESST tool provided a
snapshot of DCC’s institutional data for students enrolled in the Math sequence. The data
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Beliefs
Social
Interaction
Reflection
Problem
Identification
Through Data
Analysis
Experimentation/Pr
oblem Solving.
Action/
Experience
Segment 2
Segment 1
Segment 3
112
presented to the workshop participants provided a snapshot of the fall 2005 aggregated
and disaggregated data of students moving through the Math pipeline, from
developmental courses to transfer ready courses.
Figure 4.3 Math Pipeline in BESST Tool
The data provided a starting point for reflection during the social interaction. CUE’s
action research design sought to be intentional in creating social interaction in response to
the data presented. CUE’s BESST tool is designed to create opportunities for participants
to ask “what if” questions, so they can explore answers to these questions.
Figure 4.2A Segment 1- Social Interaction Leads to Reflection and Change in Beliefs
Beliefs
Social
Interaction
Reflection
113
Segment 1 of Figure 4.2A shows the interactive process where the participants
identified where the problems were as they attempted to address ways to increase student
completion and persistence. After viewing the data, the participants asked several
questions: “Who were the students who enrolled in developmental classes?” “Who were
the students who were not successful in the course or did not proceed on to the next
class?” And “Where along the pipeline did the highest number of students drop out or fail
a particular course?”
The activity initiated dialogue and interaction amongst the participants as they
identified where in the pipeline the largest percentage of students was lost. However,
once the practitioners discovered where this occurred, several of them questioned if the
data used to analyze the deficiencies were accurate since they believed that it is difficult
to disaggregate data by race and ethnicity since Black and African American are different
and so is the large Asian population which is made up of Vietnamese, Chinese,
Cambodian and others who have different academic preparations, thus showing different
success rates. Reflections like these during the inquiry process provide insights into how
practitioners are willing to investigate topics that are unclear. Wanting clarity alone
shows that an inquiry process had begun. These kinds of reflections also suggest that
practitioners’ beliefs and attitudes and knowledge play heavily into the way they view
their students since they stated that it is difficult to group or categorize their student
population by race or ethnicity.
The following observations were documented during this workshop when CUE’s
BESST tool provided aggregated and disaggregated data to a group of faculty,
counselors, administrators, staff, and an institutional researcher. They will illustrate how
114
practitioners reflected on the data provided. Several of the participants voiced their
concerns as they reflected on the disaggregated data which showed that 70% of their
Hispanic students did not attain their goal. Student success data from 2005 showed that
there could have been many reasons why the success rate was so low. One point of
discussion during the reflection was that many students may have declared one goal when
they enrolled in college. The goal could have been to transfer, but later they could have
changed their goal or may not have transferred. Another reason discovered during this
activity regarding the low success rates was that there are occasions where students may
have identified that they want only a certificate and later on, they decide to take classes to
transfer. Therefore, not completing the declared goal denotes a lack of success. As the
participants reflected on these kinds of data, they considered additional factors that
affected their students’ success rates.
The reflections by participants were consistent throughout the workshop as most
of them were open to voicing their reactions to the data and affirming that they were
aware of the problem. Brian remarked, “Students take 6 years to transfer!” Another
practitioner, William, stated, “70% of the students did not attain the goal because these
students could have declared one goal when they entered and then changed and not
transferred.” An administrator added:
This is the number of students not achieving or attaining the goal of transferring
or completing their AA requirement because these students may have taken the required
course but did not obtain a certificate, or they took a course to earn requirement to meet
California State requirement and then they leave which registers as a drop out. These are
the unknown students.
115
The administrator continued, “Some students just depart from higher education.” A
faculty member claimed, “Some students graduate from DCC but do not transfer to a
California State university since admission has been cut due to budget constraints.” The
institutional researcher pointed out, “Looks like a lot of students persist after the first
year.” A Math faculty member stated, “The college goal is to get 68% of our students to
complete their requirement for AA degree or transfer.” An English faculty member
affirmed, “The lowest level, ESL students, has disparity of skills. A lot of ESL students
place in N50. They experience total shock in the class, so they drop or fail.” The
administrator suggested, “We could focus (direct more resources to) with some who
tested into the cohort. These cohort students take accelerated courses with a counseling
class; this looks like learning communities but is accelerated.”
Figure 4.2B Segment 2 – From Problem Identification to Experimentation and Action
Figure 4.2B – Segment 2 above shows the next stage of inquiry that took place in
the planning workshops where they participants discussed ways to address the problems
that the institution was attempting to address. The overall reactions to the disaggregated
Action/
Experience
Problem
Identification
through data
anlalysis
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
116
data provided by the BESST tool provoked further reflection about the problem and it
was during this reflection stage that the workshop participants discussed how they could
address the equity gap that existed with student success.
The BESST tool allowed participants to manipulate the data and to ask “what if”
questions when benchmarking or setting goals for equity. The participants manipulated
what improvements could be achieved if there was just 1% improvement in each
milestone of the pipeline. They realized that the 1% improvement could mean getting just
one student through each milestone to another. Once they discovered that moving one
student through the pipeline improve success rates, several of the participants stated that
they could easily make the 1% improvement within their classes. One faculty, remarked,
“This is doable!”
Once the participants found that the largest cohort of students who dropped out
during the developmental math and English pipelines were Hispanics, they discussed
ways to address the problem. One of the participant, Cynthia, stated, “We can use reading
apprenticeship to move students along.” A psychology faculty added, “Evaluate the class
using reading strategies; use the strategy on an experimental group and not use the
strategy on a control group; that way we can use evidence to interpret the findings.” A
math faculty said they could add additional strategies to improve student retention and
success. He stated, “Integrate Math 80 and 81 and use directed learning activity study
skill tools; assess and evaluate with and without interventions; then evaluate the findings
and expand to more classes or find other interventions to implement.”
During the inquiry process at this planning meeting, the reflections of the
practitioners demonstrated that a select number of the practitioners had knowledge and
117
awareness of the disparities that existed at the institution, yet there were a few who
seemed overwhelmed by the data. One practitioner jokingly stated, “Pass the cocaine!”
His response could demonstrate that he was overwhelmed by the disaggregated data
which showed the extremely low rate of students who were transfer ready and that there
was a lot of work that needed to be done to fulfill the goals set by the institution.
The BESST workshop provided the data that initiated practitioners at DCC to
move their focus from just becoming aware that there was a problem with students
completing their program goals and/or transferring to 4 year institutions but to turn their
focus to addressing problems within their classroom. The inquiry process that took place
at this first planning workshop prompted the participants to consider ways in which they
could directly be involved in making changes to address student success.
The Syllabus Review Project, which was based on the Syllabus Review Protocol
for Culturally Inclusive Pedagogy, a CUE action research tool, was presented in a way to
align the institution’s focus to increase course completion from 64% to 74% and to
increase persistence from 60% to 70%. These goals and plans focused on faculty
involvement and participation. In this way, the inquiry process facilitated by CUE was
intended to fit with the institutional culture and the inquire process was designed to assist
faculty and administrators at DCC as they began their effort to fulfill their 2015 goals.
A second planning meeting took place in late spring where CUE’s researchers
presented the Syllabus Review Protocol to a group of eleven participants. Of the 11, three
of them were administrators and the rest were faculty members from the areas of English,
ESL, Speech, Mathematics, Chemistry, and Counseling. The activity that was involved in
118
this workshop was an experiential review of the syllabus review tool that encompassed a
sample syllabus and a protocol (APPENDIX D) that was composed of a variety of
indicators reflecting culturally responsive pedagogy. The indicators in the protocol were
developed by CUE researchers who derived the protocol from literature involving
culturally responsive pedagogy. The indicators included respect for students, desire to
help students, information students need to successfully act on the information in the
syllabus, validation of racial diversity, validation of diversity in terms of ethnicity (shared
ancestry, language, national heritage, religious beliefs, community norms), validation of
other forms of diversity, validation of the value of differences in prior educational
experiences and several other indicators.
Additionally, two CUE research practitioners presented samples of their pre- and
post- syllabi, reflecting the changes that they had adopted after their participation in an
action research project. Following these presentations, the participants at DCC were
grouped into pairs and triads and asked to analyze their own syllabus using the Syllabus
Review Protocol. The participants examined their syllabus for completeness, clarity and
classroom policies. The exercise also allowed them to review their syllabus for equity-
mindedness; they then moved on to share their findings related to the discussion
questions found in the protocol. The dialogue that ensued provided exchanges between
participants. Each participant interpreted how he/she viewed each other’s syllabi and it
also provided each participant the opportunity to assess his/her own syllabus against a list
of equity-minded indicators, indicators that they had not considered prior to the
workshop.
119
The reflection during this inquiry process allowed the participants to become
aware of their roles in the classroom. Many of the participants claimed that they had not
thought about the message that they communicated to their students through their syllabi.
Cynthia said, “I need to do a better job on the tone of my syllabus. It would be
overwhelming to do all this in one day. Faculty will pick essentials from a list of different
things.” Kathy, another participant, added:
I did not include all of the culturally responsive indicators in her syllabus since
she teaches three different courses and they require three different styles. She
concluded, “It has to do with the subject and purpose of the course. That is why I
don’t see how the indicators apply to all of these courses. Now that I look at my
syllabus, it looks threatening. I need to change the whole thing.
One of the counselors stated, “There is a psychology behind the syllabus. What is the
message that is presented in the syllabus?” He added that he is warm and wants students
to come to him, so he asked what he could add to his syllabus so he could embrace his
students.
Cynthia said,
I had a lot of “No’s” on the questions. I have content and grading in my
syllabus. On my syllabus, I tell my students that they will need to improve their
listening skills, but I don’t provide explanations as to how. I think there are
benefits to add the other indicators but I don’t want to make it weighty.
The reflective exercise brought about other logistic questions that demonstrated that the
participants were afraid that the faculty as a whole, as a community, would not be
receptive to the idea of having a standard syllabus template that includes culturally
responsive pedagogy.
Brian said,
120
I have a bad feeling about taking it to the larger group to ask them if their syllabus
has the indicators listed. If they don’t then what is next? Should we then ask if
these indicators are needed on the syllabus; if yes, then where should they go? I
feel faculty will be threatened.
Brian’s reflection supports the community’s reliance on collaboration as being
instrumental to decision making.
These are several examples of topics that arose from the reflective exercise that
stimulated dialogue in the activity setting. The collaboration that took place during the
planning meeting set the stage for transparency whereby the practitioners themselves
determined how to proceed with the plan to implement the Syllabus Review Project on a
broader scale. Changes were made along the way, from one planning workshop to the
next, and modifications to the inquiry process were made as they answered questions that
came up during the social interaction. The solution to implement the Syllabus Review
Project as one measure to address DCC’s goal to increase student success and persistence
was an emergent process whereby practitioners evaluated the problem with the data
provided and then assessed the extent of their involvement in the project and how they
would disseminate the project to other practitioners on campus. The participants at this
meeting concluded that they would meet again in late summer to conduct their own self-
reflection on their syllabi using a modified Syllabus Review Protocol that was
constructed using their input from the second planning meeting.
The various activity settings provided the practitioners the opportunity to
contribute their reasons as to why the problems existed at DCC. The participants’
willingness to attend the workshops itself showed that they were motivated to analyze the
conditions that existed at their institution, which in turn would add to the knowledge that
121
they already possessed, thus creating new knowledge in the cyclical and ongoing process
of action research. CUE’s team’s desired outcomes was not to identify the framing of the
problem but to allow practitioners to be involved in dialogue as they reflected upon the
data that was presented to them. The interaction that took place at the activity setting
encouraged reflection amongst the participants, which in turn revealed the knowledge,
attitudes and beliefs that these participants brought to the activity setting. Faculty heard
from middle management and administrators heard from faculty. The dialogue that
emerged was catalyzed by CUE’s action research tools which brought different
institutional groups together to address an institutional problem.
Syllabus Review Project: Inquiry to Improved Classroom Practices
Figure 4.2c – Segment 3 below shows that after the participants were involved in
the inquiry during the Syllabus Review workshop, they were then able to apply the new
knowledge that they acquired through the dialogue and reflections that took place during
the first two stages of the inquiry process. Their display of adaptive expertise
demonstrates that they were able to recognize the problems that existed at their institution
that were related to student achievement and that they were able to arrive at effective
solutions to the identified problem (Schon, 1983, p. 15-16; Berliner, 2004, p. 203;
Tschetter, 2009).
122
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Figure 4.2C Segment 3 – Adaptive Expertise Leads to New Knowledge
Following the planning meetings, a group of 8 faculty members met in August to
participate in the Syllabus Review Project. The participants who were directly involved
in the August Syllabus Review Project were faculty members from the following areas:
Math, ESL, Speech, Chemistry, Physical Education, and Instructional Media. All eight
participants had an average of 20 years teaching experience.
The workshop was facilitated by the Project Leader, who had also participated
in the planning workshops. As the third person outside observer, I was absent from this
workshop because the group had preferred a setting facilitated by the Project Leader who
was familiar with the Syllabus Review Project and was comfortable facilitating the
workshop. The practitioners took on the role of researcher at this workshop. At this
workshop, the practitioners used the culturally responsive indicators to construct new
knowledge to change their syllabi to make them more “culturally inclusive,” which was
to achieve the outcome desired by CUE in asking practitioners to remediate their
practices with the goal of equity in mind.
123
Following the Syllabus Review Project workshop in August, I conducted several post
workshop interviews with six of the eight participants. The post workshop interviews
provided insights as I was able to gather each participant’s understanding and attitudes
towards the August workshop. From my post workshop debriefing interview, I
discovered that several key questions were raised that suggested that inquiry had taken
place at the August Syllabus Review Project workshop. The issues raised were:
1. How do we talk with students about inequity?
2. How can we engage students in the syllabus?
3. Is the legalistic language used in our syllabi required?
4. How can we use the syllabus to enhance student success?
5. How can we get students to value being in college?
6. How can we get students to understand that more is expected of them in
college than in high school?
Summary of Coded Data and Nature of the Inquiry
Table 4.1 below provides insights as to how participants reacted and behaved
during the action inquiry process. What was noted from coding the data that was gathered
from the observations and interviews were perceived control or constraints that presented
barriers for change, to intentions to behave and actual behavioral changes. Consistent
with an inquiry process and my conceptual framework and as shown in Table 4.1, the
data I coded was categorized across the steps of the inquiry process with a large amount
of data coded in certain ways which resulted in themes of findings that reflected
behaviors and constraints.
124
Table 4.1 DCC – Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data Analysis
(Frequency Counts)
Data From
Workshops
Data from
Interviews
Total # Total %
Attitudes/Beliefs
20 36 56 14 %
Knowledge
12 54 66 16.5 %
Social
Interaction
15 22 37 9.25 %
Reflection
39 47 86 21.5 %
Problem
Identification
19 39 58 14.5 %
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
16 31 47 11.75 %
Action(Inaction)/
Experience
18 32 50 12.5 %
125
Table 4.2 MSU – Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data Analysis
(Frequency Counts)
Data From
Workshops
Data from
Interviews
Total # Total %
Attitudes/Beliefs
33 33 66 26 %
Knowledge
23 19 42 17 %
Social
Interaction
18 4 22 9 %
Reflection
16 12 28 11 %
Problem
Identification
22 18 40 16 %
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
8 0 8 2 %
Action(Inaction)/
Experience
12 5 17 6 %
Table 4.1 and 4.2 are the distribution of the codes that were applied to data gathered from
DCC and from Monarch State University (MSU). The combined set of coded distribution
shows that an inquiry process had occurred.
Comparison of DCC Results to Collective Study
The results from DCC were compared with the results from one of the other field
sites of the collective study, Monarch State University (MSU). In the activity setting at
DCC where social interaction played a large part in the setting, many of the interactions
and dialogue that were recorded exemplified behaviors that fell into identified categories.
The most frequent code found at DCC was ‘Reflection’ (20.17%). The second most
frequent code was ‘Knowledge’ (16.5%) and the third most frequent code was ‘Problem
126
Identification’ (14.5%). ‘Social Interaction’ was found to be the lowest at 8.7% of the
total count (Table 4.1). The results from MSU also showed that the second and third most
frequent codes were ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Problem Identification’ (Table 4.2).
There was a difference in the most frequent code for MSU. At MSU it was found
that ‘Attitudes/Beliefs’ had the highest frequency compared to ‘Reflection’ being the
highest at DCC. The manner in which each developmental evaluator assigned the coding
labels contributes to the difference in coding frequency. However, the summary of the
data coding provides evidence that an inquiry process was initiated through the workshop
that CUE facilitated at DCC and MSU. It is less clear given the lower frequency of
coding for Experimentation/Problem Solving and Action/Inaction in MSU’s data that the
inquiry process extended beyond initial steps in the inquiry cycle. The truncated data for
MSU reveal that even though there is evidence that inquiry had taken place, follow
up interviews would be necessary to decide if remediation had taken place.
Since it is difficult to measure beliefs, we can make inferences about an
individual’s beliefs from the way he behaves or from the statements he makes (Schon,
1988). Therefore, emotive statements made during reflection which is often, but not
always, exhibited in the form of questions, may reveal an individual’s attitude and
beliefs. Therefore, the reflection category could easily be combined with attitudes and
beliefs. If this interpretation is used, then the results obtained from DCC and MSU are
similar, at least for the categories of ‘Attitudes/Beliefs/Reflection’, ‘Knowledge’ and
‘Problem Identification’. These practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs, intentions and behaviors
are instrumental to the way they view their students and to everything that they do in their
classrooms. Pajares (1992) claims that the knowledge that practitioners possess is not as
127
influential as the beliefs that they bring with them to the classroom and the way they
teach their students. If institutional changes are to take place, the process of self-inquiry,
self exploration, reflection, and self-improvement are paramount (Noffke, 1997;
Kumaravadivelu, 2001).
Emergent Themes Related to the Institution’s Culture
The themes that emerged from the coded data at DCC are further supported by
confirming and disconfirming statements as shown in Table 4.3.
The following themes arose from these observations and interviews:
1. Agency: in the classroom and institutionally
2. Uncertainty about how to include culturally responsive pedagogy
3. Wishing for broader institutional involvement and buy-in
4. Conformity versus Academic Freedom
5. Application of past beliefs and experiences to current context
Table 4.3 below shows that participants either confirmed or disconfirmed the
themes that emerged from the study. For example, five of the six participants confirmed
that they felt that they were able to become agents of change only in the classroom but
not institutionally. Four of the six participants stated that they were uncertain about how
to include culturally responsive pedagogy into their classroom practices. Five of the six
participants wished for broader institutional involvement and buy-in. Four of the six
participants discussed that they were apprehensive about the idea of that the institution
would require that a standard syllabus template be adopted by the faculty body, which
they believed would infringe on their academic freedom. Finally, five of the six
128
participants discussed issues related to their past experiences and compared their past
experiences to the current situation.
Table 4.3 Confirming and Disconfirming Data
THEME
Respondents (N) Providing Confirming and Disconfirming
Data
Confirming
Confirming
Disconfirming
Disconfirming
No Data
No Data
Agency: in the classroom and
institutionally
5 1 0
Uncertainty about how to
include culturally responsive
pedagogy
4 1 1
Wishing for broader
institutional involvement and
buy-in
5 0 1
Conformity versus Academic
Freedom
4 0 1
Application of beliefs & past
experiences to current context
5 0 1
Table 4.4 below highlights samples of specific quotes that were collected during
the interview phase of the study. For example, for the first theme, agency in the
classroom and institutionally, there were 5 participants who confirmed that they felt that
they had a strong sense of agency in the classroom but not institutionally. Table 4.4
provides sample quotes from the participants who confirm or disconfirm the theme.
129
Table 4.4 – Sample Quotes Illustrating Data Coded as Confirming or Disconfirming
THEME STATEMENTS:CONFIRMING OR DISCONFIRMING
Agency: in the
classroom and
institutionally
Confirming
Abigail: As a new teacher here, I can certainly do it only in my
classroom.
Brian: I am ‘AN’ agent, not ‘THE’ agent. Changing things
around here is a glacial process but we are heading in the
right direction. George: If I am not being buffeted by the
slings and arrows and having the choice to do what I can
and to be empowered. Each college has its own rules to
follow which restricts me from trying new things.
Abigail: It is somewhat unlikely that I would be able to impact
changes by myself but I could if I was part of a team.
George: I can hardly be able to make an impact.
Disconfirming
Nancy: I have done school wide professional development in
integrating study skills in classrooms to help them get
study skills to get the content.
Keith: There is a lot of cultural diversity in my class. I use
different ways. I bring in examples into my class.
Uncertainty about how
to include culturally
responsive pedagogy
Confirming
Keith: How do I find a balance between a contract and
something that is warm and fussy and supportive and
taking into cultural diversity?”
Abigail: I don’t know how to make that a statement for the
student population.
Brian: I am still not sure of the difference between ethnicity,
race and culture.
Brian: How do I talk with students about inequity?
Disconfirming
Keith: There is a lot of cultural diversity in my class. I use
different ways. I bring in examples into my class.
130
Table 4.4, Continued
Wishing for broader
institutional
involvement and buy-
in
Confirming
Cynthia: I am trying to move the culture of recognizing that
most of our students have developmental learning issue
and that they are not ready to work at a 4 year level and
that we need to recognize this.
Brian: It is all I can do but I feel very ill equipped to really make
a big of a difference as I wish as I am capable of doing
and less equipped to get many of my colleagues to be
involved.
Cynthia: I personally think that my main goal is to organize
these meetings to make sure they happen, make sure
people can come and draw other people out in these
discussions to exchange creative ideas.
Brian: Unfortunately I am (a change agent) and I say that I wish
I am not the person to drive the train but there are not
enough drivers.
Abigail: Our faculty as hard working and brilliant as they are,
they say they don’t have time to incorporate all this for
I can barely get through all that I need to get through.
Conformity Vs
Academic Freedom
Confirming
Brian: My colleagues are concerned; they are afraid that the
changes made (on their syllabus) may hold them liable.
Nancy: Who is going to decide what is optional and how much
academic freedom do faculty have?
Nancy: I am waiting to see how all this unfolds, so I did not
change it in my other classes.
Keith: On a personal note, I don't think that the State needs to
tell us what we need to put on our syllabus.
131
Table 4.4, Continued
Application of beliefs
& past experiences to
current context
Confirming
Nancy: You want them to know that what they are doing is very
important. They need to step up.
Kristen: Students aren’t prepared for how different college is.
Keith: They must know this is a different game.
William: When I started college I wanted to make a change for
myself. I knew what I had to do.
Kristen: Many are not demanding enough of themselves. They
just plan to continue doing what they have been doing.
Agency: In the Classroom and Institutionally
During the cognitive interview data collection phase, practitioners were asked if
they had a strong sense of agency surrounding equity issues on their campus. Of the six
practitioners, five of them stated that they definitely had a strong sense of agency which
means that they believe they, as Stanton-Salazar (2010) argues, are key agents to
institutional change who contribute or attempt to contribute to institutional changes that
pertain to student success. Several, however, qualified their answers by adding that they
felt strongly about being able to make these changes more so in their individual
classrooms and not so institutionally since there were other factors in place that prevented
them from making institutional changes. For example, Brian said, “I am ‘AN’ agent, not
‘THE’ agent. Changing things around here is a glacial process but we are heading in the
right direction.” Keith too felt that he would not be able to help change the institution’s
culture:
It seems like a big task to change culture even in my own classroom. It is all I can
do but I feel very ill equipped to really make a big of a difference as I wish as I
132
am capable of doing and less equipped to get many of my colleagues to be
involved. The people who are not informed, I don’t have the ability to bring them
along.
Brian and Keith’s comments are not isolated. Many of the practitioners interviewed felt
the same way. For instance, Abigail stated that it was somewhat unlikely that she would
be able to impact changes by herself but she could if she was part of a team. She added,
“I can do it in my classroom. Now that you have brought these tools to me, I can be
culturally sensitive and I want to have equity for everyone. I can certainly do it in my
classroom.” In reference to being an agent of change at the institution and having the
ability to impact significant changes surrounding equity issues at his institution, George
questioned, “Do you mean highly unable or able (to make changes)?” He further
qualifies, “Impact is measureable given the idea that there is real data. I can hardly be
able to make an impact.” The reference to knowing if he had made an impact reflects on
how practitioners value the idea of real data which is measurable.
George added that if he were “not being buffeted by the slings and arrows and
having the choice to do what I can and to be empowered,” he could feel that he had a
high sense of agency to bring about change. The question then is why was it that many of
the practitioners affirmed that they felt confident in making changes in their own
classrooms but not institutionally? George claimed that because each college has its own
rules to follow, he felt restricted to try anything new. Therefore the phrase ‘slings and
arrows’ denotes that conformity may be the acceptable way to behave if one does not
want to go against the established norms that are already in place.
The sense of agency that the practitioners expressed suggested that that five of the
six felt that they were confident in making changes in their classrooms. This reveals that
133
they have the confidence and ability to make small contributions to the larger institutional
cause of improving student success. However, what is revealed by these practitioners is
that their contributions do not transfer beyond their classrooms, which then contradicts
the 2015 goal which is to increase student completion and improve student success
indicators that apply to the institution as a whole. If each faculty is comfortable working
in his or her whole silo, then the 2015 goals have not received institutional buy-in from
all entities at DCC.
Uncertainty about How to Include Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Culturally inclusive pedagogy focuses on student learning and achievement
whereby the practitioner recognizes the student’s ability to learn based on the
practitioner’s recognition of the students’ prior knowledge and cultural assets that he
applies into his classroom practices. This pedagogy works on the premise that the
curriculum, which acknowledges racism and racial bias, promotes active questioning and
inquiry by the student without the student experiencing a conflict between his opportunity
to succeed and his ethnicity.
The Syllabus Review Project allowed practitioners to question their practices
which are derived from the beliefs and attitudes that they bring to their profession, but
five of the six participants reported that they were still unsure or unclear on how to use
culturally responsive pedagogy into their teaching practices. For example, Brian said that
he wanted to make changes but he did not know how to include culturally inclusive
pedagogy into his practices:
I am still ill equipped to do a lot of this even though it is my intentions to do
better at it. Most faculty have the best interest in helping their students but on the
most part we don’t know what to do. Tell me what I can do and I will do it. I am
134
doing all I can. We all agree that we need to do it but most of us don’t know how
so then what. Yeh! We need to help them. So, how? I don’t know how to teach
writing nor reading so that is where we get frustrated. We have moved along and
tried this and that but we feel that we are groping around in the dark as we hope
we will find something.
The lack of relevant knowledge especially surrounding racial and culturally responsive
pedagogy that some of these practitioners commented on demonstrated that awareness
alone is insufficient to improving minority student success. Several of the participants
stated that they wanted to make changes but as they attempted to incorporate culturally
responsive pedagogy into their classroom teaching to address the disparities that exist,
they were unsure as to how to approach the issue of race and cultural diversity which they
agree are strong indicators for student success.
During the cognitive interview phase of the research that was conducted using the
Syllabus Project Cognitive Interview questions, one of the participants, said that he
speaks a little Spanish and he occasionally uses Spanish to show his students that he has a
diverse family unit and that he has strong social relationships with them. His reason for
sharing this information with his students is to make them feel comfortable since he feels
that his students will not think that he is unable to understand their difficulties since he is
White. He further stated that he understands cultural diversity. Perhaps he is satisfied
with his students’ performances. Or perhaps he has a different definition for what is
culturally responsive pedagogy, and since a clear definition of this was not provided to
the participants, it would be premature to conclude that he lacked knowledge on how to
include culturally inclusive pedagogy. He, however, said:
We have a melting pot but again how do I find a balance between a contract and
something that is warm and fussy and supportive while taking into consideration
cultural diversity. It is a struggle to put all this into the syllabus.
135
He was comfortable talking about culture and race but he did not know how to
incorporate it into his syllabus. Here again, there is the uncertainty that arose about how
to include culturally responsive pedagogy in the classroom.
Brian also stated, “People think that when you think about things like this, they
think practitioners are to dilute their content to help minority students succeed, but we
need to think about providing more tools to meet the same standards.” Cynthia stated that
disparities existed at the campus since many of her peers teach just content without
spending time teaching students how to be good students. She said that many times
practitioners do not think about the student’s background and what fears they may have.
She suggested that practitioners could spend a little more time rethinking what additional
things can be structured into the class or syllabi to ease student fear.
The cultural norm that existed at DCC could be seen through Abigail’s analysis of
the syllabi that she had used when she first arrived on campus; she had gathered a few
syllabi from other veteran faculty so she could create her own syllabus. She said that the
syllabi that she had used as samples did not include culturally responsive pedagogy. In
fact, she stated:
The syllabus is not reflective of a supportive racial and ethnic equitable
environment. It is not there so far based on what I have reviewed in the last year.
Up to now I don’t think that we really gave it a thought. It is more about content
and we are going to learn these grammar terms and these writing structures and
we are going to read these stories.
Abigail commented that perhaps they did not know how create a “racial and equitable
environment,” just like she had not known until she participated in the Syllabus Review
Project. She wanted to make changes and believed that adding a diversity statement on
her syllabus would create the welcoming environment that she was seeking.
136
The only thing I struggled with is how to incorporate a diversity statement on my
syllabus. I don’t know how to phrase it and remember reading the quote that was
given and what they had and said and yet I don’t know how to make that a
statement for the population I teach.
This statement shows the struggles that practitioners, those who truly want to make
changes to improve student success, experience since they lack the relevant knowledge to
include culturally responsive pedagogy. This concern is often heard from ESL faculty
whose students feel alienated in their classrooms, and knowing how to incorporate
diversity statements into their syllabi may help to build a welcoming environment.
Nancy stated that she did not like the term racial equity; instead she liked using
just the term equity since she felt that she treats all of her students based on their needs
and not based on their race or ethnicity. She argued that a Vietnam veteran should be
considered even if he is White since he is disadvantaged. She asserted, “So rather than
discussing racial issues, we should be addressing equity issues without looking at
ethnicity.” Yet another participant commented during a planning meeting, “I treat all my
students the same. I don’t treat them differently.” The remarks by these two practitioners
demonstrate their lack of relevant knowledge, especially in terms of racial and culturally
responsive pedagogy. These remarks demonstrate that the participants are aware that their
students come with varying skills and backgrounds, yet they wish not to treat them
differently and do not emphasize their ethnic differences. This suggests that they have the
awareness, but they may not be empathetic to their students’ social backgrounds which
may not have provided them the same opportunities to succeed.
Several concerns were presented during the cognitive interview phase which
showed that these practitioners had good intentions to do good (praxis) for their students,
137
but if they are not equity conscious, then their good intentions to aid student to succeed
may not be achieved. Because relevant knowledge on how to act responsively is not
available, it has left several of these participants feeling helpless when wanting to make
necessary changes to their syllabus and subsequently to their teaching practices. Brian
stated, “I am still not sure of the difference between ethnicity, race and culture, so I am
uncomfortable to try to figure a way to approach the issue of using culturally responsive
pedagogy in his classes.” This statement exemplifies that Brian had good intentions to
help his students, but he lacked the confidence to incorporate culturally responsive
pedagogy into his classroom pedagogy.
If institutional changes are to take place, practitioners may need to change the
way they think about minority student achievement. Practitioners may need to reconsider
that their students may not have the required skill sets that practitioners want them to
have when they first arrive on college campuses. Once this understanding is accepted,
only then can inquiry lead to changes in practice and behavior. The social interaction that
took place in the various workshops at DCC simulated dialogue that pointed to changes
in cultural norms held by practitioners which promoted interest in the acquisition of
knowledge. Many wanted to know how to include culturally responsive language in their
syllabus. Brian asked, “How do I talk with students about inequity? Do we need to say,
‘You come with inequitable backgrounds’? Do we use squishy language?” Many of the
participants stated that they did know how to include culturally responsive pedagogy into
their teaching practices, especially about including culturally inclusive indicators on their
syllabus. For example, Keith stated that he understood that his class was a melting pot,
138
but he was not sure how to find a balance between a contract (a syllabus) and something
that is warm and fuzzy and supportive that encompasses cultural diversity.
Even as uncertain as they felt, Abigail was motivated to find ways to change her
syllabus. At the end of my study, during member check, Abigail provided me with the
diversity statement that she and Cynthia had developed for their classes:
I am excited to have you in this class. All students have an opportunity to succeed
in this class and at Dynamic Community College. We appreciate the richness of
your ideas and perspective, your cultural background, and your experiences. Take
advantage of this opportunity to improve your life and our community.
Wishing for Broader Institutional Involvement and Buy-in
Broader institutional involvement was echoed by five of the six participants.
They felt they could not make institutional wide changes by themselves and that greater
involvement needed to happen within their departments and divisions if the 2015 goals
are to be achieved. Collaboration within disciplines and across disciplines was what these
participants said was crucial to achieving the target goals of improving student success.
When asked what the institution could do to increase student success, Abigail
commented:
We all attended a workshop on embedding study skills in our curriculum given by
a Math teacher, but these study skills can be used in English classes too. Yet some
were saying that these are all good ideas but they were not just sure if they have
time to do all this. Institutional commitment comes not just from the president,
but it is from the counselors, from faculty all the way to the board. It takes a
village. As an institution, we need to involve everyone, from the Academic Senate
to the BSI task force to the teaching and learning committee; we need to all get
together to address this and only then can we bring about something like that. I
can certainly do it in my classroom.
This same sentiment, expressed by Abigail, was voiced by four other participants. They
wished for broader institutional involvement and buy-in so as to aid in promoting
139
institutional change. Institutional buy-in builds solidarity within the institution’s
hierarchy and helps to bridge and build upon practitioners’ resources. The participants
stated that time constraint was one of the main factors that did not facilitate frequent
collaboration amongst their colleagues. They added that they have so many
responsibilities to fulfill that they are not able to find the time to participate in any new
initiative that is implemented at DCC. The participants suggested that this past norm may
have also created a culture that does not promote changes in practitioner roles to improve
student achievement.
The Project Leader articulated the need for institutional buy-in when she said that
her primary goal was to organize these meetings to make sure the meetings happened, to
make sure people could attend the meetings, and to draw other people out in these
discussions to exchange creative ideas. She said that her role as the Basic Skills
Coordinator was to try to move the campus culture to recognize that most of our students
need more help to prepare them to achieve their desired plan of study or to be transfer
ready, and that DCC’s as a whole needs to recognize this and that they need to have more
emphasis in basic skills courses.
Essentially what the Project Leader was attempting to do was to get more
involvement from other practitioners so purposeful dialogue could take place to bridge
the hierarchy of resources that exists at the institution. She added that all faculty at
DCC’s need to realize that they must be responsible for teaching basic study skills to
their students. She said that there has been resistance from other faculty not wanting to
recognize this need, but now they see the light. Involving faculty in making these kinds
of changes has apparently been difficult for her and the other project participants.
140
The Project Leader’s statement confirms that more faculty participation and
involvement is necessary to begin the change process, “I took on the role as Basic Skills
coordinator because no one else will do it and it was important to do it.” Brian and Keith
both concurred with the Project Leader that more of their colleagues need to be involved
in the move to improve student success. Brian claimed, “Unfortunately I am (a change
agent) and I say that I wish I am not the person to drive the train but there are not enough
drivers,” and Keith acknowledged:
Primarily, it is necessary to educate faculty to the need for them to think about the
racial and cultural inequities that our students are coming in with and thinking of
how they can modify what they are doing in the class to help those student to be
successful.
George felt that more needed to be done in regards to the roles faculty played. He said:
We need to do better on this because we have faculty that want to teach only the
content and make no connection with the students. They want the students to
make the connection. Everyone is in a different silo.
One of DCC’s goals is to redesign the Basic Skills Initiative taskforce to include
broader faculty and administrative leadership/coordination so as to bring together the
entire institution to participate in their efforts to achieve institution’s goals. In the March
planning workshop, several administrators were present when the meeting commenced.
However, as time went along and the meeting proceeded, several of the administrators
took leave from the meeting and only one administrator remained till the end. The
administrators’ intentions to be involved were certainly apparent; however, their
behavior, taking leave from the meeting, may prove to be unfavorable, which may point
to faculty and staff that the administrators’ roles are merely administrative and their sole
purpose is to delegate various tasks to meet institutional goals and that the bulk of the
responsibility to meet the 2015 goals lies with faculty and staff.
141
To further support the need for broader institutional involvement and buy-in,
George added, “Culturally responsive pedagogy is a multilevel issue. Pedagogy is not
written by one faculty or department. We certainly want administrators behind us. We
take the effort seriously in the various governance bodies.” This faculty views
institutional changes as difficult to attain if there is limited support from higher up and
that more support or buy-in is needed at every level of the institution. Additionally, the
issue of buy-in also arises within the faculty as a whole. For example, George asserted
during the interview, “We do have issues as an institutional culture along the lines of
community. We have the challenge of separation between adjuncts and full-timers.” The
lack of social interaction between part-time and full-time faculty suggests that
institutional buy-in may be affected since each group has its identified role. The
separation that exists between the two groups may be an unspoken institutional norm.
The disconnection seen here between full-time and part-time faculty may ultimately
affect institutional buy-in.
Brian adds, “We are a loose knit group of the usual suspects who are leaders of
their areas and domain and then there are those of us who have come into that
circulation.” This yet again suggests that those who have had prior leadership roles are
the ones who are familiar with the institution’s goals and if someone, who has not been
involved in a previous institutional project, becomes involved, it is purely by chance.
This according to Brian is a good thing since it provides faculty future opportunities for
professional growth and eventually gets buy-in from faculty.
Noted again is the same sense of practitioners not being a part of the larger
community that is working to meet the same goals set forth by the institution. The
142
community’s role and division of labor at DCC is separated by who is responsible for
certain institutional roles and who has what position or stature at the institution rather
than the roles being shared equally. According to the respondents, not all at the institution
have taken on the role to change the institution’s culture as it has evolved as the student
population has changed.
The last two goals identified in the Basic Skills Action Plan were to design and
implement a Faculty Academy program for new faculty and designing and implementing
classroom level research and participate in data coaching and evaluation research
workshops aimed at assisting faculty in assessing/evaluating their implementation of
evidence-based BSI effective practices leading to improved student success. These goals
were being met at least when we consider practitioner involvement in the Syllabus
Review Project; however, the issue of faculty buy-in was not seen across the board. For
example when looking at the team that was involved in the project and those who had
attended the various CUE workshops, the community of practitioners was limited. Those
who participated and those who had continued on to complete the project were the ones
who were also involved in leadership roles. Additionally, those who were involved in the
inquiry project were either past or current faculty leaders or members of key governance
committees. It is apparent that the same faculty leaders are the ones participating in the
inquiry process. George stated that he had personally taken the initiative to participate in
other projects or groups. He stated that he was glad to be part of the larger faculty group.
“The Syllabus Review Project meeting came at a very good time. In terms of professional
development, I have been fortunate to participate in several initiatives, including this with
143
CUE.” Keith’s also affirmed that data coaching and evaluation workshops are in place for
faculty. He stated:
We are taking very great steps and recently we had data coaching workshops that
have been specifically about trying to beef up individual faculty’s understanding
of how to do inquiry and how to have a planned study or intervention or others so
to collect data and have that as our planned action.
The on-going measures in place to bring about continued inquiry into enhancing faculty
participation into the inquiry process and improvement toward teaching strategies is
continuous. The BSI Action Plan to establish a Center for Learning and Instruction for
the new faculty may again suggests that other faculty, especially the faculty who have
been employed for a longer period, may not have the same resources that new faculty
may be provided. This again may lead to disenfranchising veteran faculty from being a
part of the institutional efforts to improve student success.
Conformity versus Academic Freedom
Academic freedom is categorized as individual academic freedom that evolves
from the internal culture of the faculty and administrators. Individual academic freedom
gives faculty the freedom to select textbooks of their choice and it provides faculty the
freedom to create an independent syllabus for each course that conforms to established
objectives set by faculty themselves (Standler, 2000). Nancy stated:
How are we going to handle the syllabus as a campus since every department or
division seems to have a different policy about the syllabus? Is the goal of the
syllabus protocol to adopt a department policy or one that the academic senate
supports adoption or is the goal to have college-wide adoption? Will there be
academic freedom? Who is going to decide what is optional and how much
academic freedom do faculty have.
As the quote indicates, Nancy was looking for a consensus from other faculty suggesting
that if other members of the faculty agreed to a standard for all faculty to follow, then
144
there would be support from each other. During one of workshops when the practitioners
reviewed the Syllabus Review Protocol indicators, several of the practitioners questioned
if the institution was seeking to adopt a standard syllabus template. Even though the
purpose of Syllabus Review Protocol was to analyze their own syllabi, several of the
participants became apprehensive that the inquiry activity was designed to adopt a
standard syllabus template. Brian said that before they begin the adoption of a standard
syllabus template, there needed to be buy-in from faculty before they proceed with its
implementation. He said, “My colleagues are concerned; they are afraid that the changes
made (on their syllabus) may hold them liable.” An administrator responded to Brian’s
concern by stressing the importance of the course/syllabus overview. She said, “The
course syllabus/overview is the document that I stand on in case of a student complaint.”
Even though Nancy had concerns that the institution was working to adopt a
standard syllabus template, she said that she had made some changes to her syllabus, but
she did not do more. She stated, “I am waiting to see how all this unfolds, so I did not
change it in my other classes.” It seemed as if Nancy, and perhaps from previous
experience, was reluctant to continue making further changes to her other syllabi since
she feared that going ahead, without knowing if there will be campus-wide support,
would not be the best approach. This sentiment was also noted earlier when Brian
reiterated that faculty were apprehensive to make changes because they may be held
accountable for any changes they make. The idea of change, even if it is a minor change,
was questioned by faculty. This in turn shows that inquiry into the benefits of a standard
syllabus template would not be received well by the faculty as a whole. The final
recommendation made at the last planning workshop was to bring the Syllabus Review
145
Project to the Academic Senate for faculty buy-in, which meant wanting broader
involvement from faculty before any new measures were to be implemented.
Another example where the participants sort to conform to what other faculty
believed was about requiring the drop date be placed on the syllabus. It was Nancy who
referenced what was a common practice, “Everyone was saying that this is not what we
want. It is better not to put this on the syllabus and to place high expectations for the
students to have them excel.” Based on these responses, there is a strong sense of wanting
conformity with regards to what should or should not be on a syllabus. Responses like
those above suggest that faculty rely on what other faculty members say or do. Breaking
away from the norm is not viewed favorably by these participants which suggests that
conformity is the accepted norm.
One other reaction about academic freedom was noted when Keith articulated,
“On a personal note, I don't think that the State needs to tell us what we need to put on
our syllabus.” Keith did not say that he disapproved of a standard template for the
campus to adopt; however, he felt that the idea of having external accountability agencies
interfering with faculty’s academic freedom by mandating what goes on each syllabus is
an infringement of faculty’s academic freedom.
Application of Past Beliefs and Experiences to Current Context
The theme related to practitioners applying their past beliefs and experiences to
current context is supported by the notion that individuals’ past experiences through
social interactions become ingrained as deeply held personal theories (Pajares, 1992).
Additionally, practitioners’ past experiences as learner themselves also sets the tone for
their current view of their students, and their expectations of their students are grounded
146
through their own personal theories of how students should conduct themselves in college
settings.
William stated that when he started college he wanted to make a change for
himself and he knew what he had to do. He asked, “How do we help students understand
this?” Nancy too recalled how she felt when she first entered college:
The best teachers you had where you felt a little bit tensed but you also knew that
you could do it and also you knew that they were offering you so much that you
could grab on to. However our students are not coming with the same feelings and
background.
She added that it was not necessary to be touchy feely with the language but to make the
students feel comfortable and excited about college. “You want them to know that what
they are doing is very important. They need to step up.” She added that she believed she is
able to relate to her students since she too had to overcome many obstacles along the way,
and she encourages her students to appreciate the opportunities they have. Similarly,
Kristen expressed, “Students aren’t prepared for how different college is. Many are not
demanding enough of themselves. They just plan to continue doing what they have been
doing. They must know this is a different game.”
These practitioners may view their students through the lens that they wore
when they were learners themselves. However, they may not be considering the era that
they were students and what cultural backgrounds they came from and the various role
models that existed in their schools and families who had set good examples for them to
follow. Cynthia added that a lot had changed at the institution in the last few years.
But our whole campus of course is definitely aware of culturally responsive
pedagogy. We have a lot of people of color in staff and faculty but way fewer in
students. I noticed 4 or 5 years ago, the color of our students was brown; not
many pale white faces like me.
147
Cynthia’s statement acknowledges that changes that have taken place, yet many of the
faculty continue to worry about how their students are not functioning at the same
standards that they worked under when they were college students themselves. The
student population has changed, yet the culture communicated to students at DCC has not
changed. This may suggest that the institution’s culture has not kept up with the changing
population. If the institution’s culture is not changed, then the institution’s 2015 goals to
increase student success may not be met.
Promoting Institutional Change through the Syllabus Review Project
Through the Syllabus Review Project, practitioners who used CUE’s protocol
indicators discovered several areas that they could change to better address the needs of
their students, especially when considering the goal to increase course completion from
64% to 74% and to increase persistence from 60% to 70% by 2015. CUE’s Syllabus
Review Project allowed practitioner to reflect on their attitudes and beliefs. Introspections
like these promote “greater self-knowledge and fulfillment in practitioners’ practices,
deeper understanding of their practices and development of personal relationship through
research as team members” (Noffke, 1997, p. 306). CUE’s tool provided these
practitioners the vehicle to bring about inquiry and reflection through social interaction
and collaboration
The impact on practitioners’ attitudes and beliefs was seen after they used the
Syllabus Review Protocol, and this impact produced several behavioral changes. These
changes can be noted in practitioners wanting to incorporate culturally responsive
pedagogy into their classroom practices. Several participants who once thought that their
two sided syllabus could not encompass all of the indicators made several changes to
148
their documents. Nancy’s revised syllabus was no longer the two sided course syllabus
that she asserted was the standard for all Math and Science faculty. Her previous syllabus
had the schedule of activities on the second side of her 2 page syllabus. Her revised
syllabus provided more details for the required material/text section and a new added
section explaining the contract and student requirements, which included opportunities
for students to raise their grade by earning extra points for each exam that they took. This
essentially set the tone for the class by expressing to the students that she, as the
instructor, was eager to help students succeed and that she understood that external
factors exist in everyone’s life which may cause students to not do well on one or more
occasions.
Additionally, the second page of the Nancy’s revised syllabus now contained a
schedule of activities clearly set up and not squeezed onto 1 page with the rest of the
information. Separating the schedule from other pertinent information shows that the
focus of the class and the instructor is student success and that a clear schedule of
activities is being provided to students so they can keep abreast of their requirements
without falling behind. Brian too made changes to his syllabus. His previous syllabus was
a two-sided document. After participating in the Syllabus Review Project, he changed
several things. One was to move away from the 1 page document; his revised syllabus is
now 3 pages long.
Several participants also added welcome and diversity statement to their syllabus.
Nancy, for example, had not thought about including a welcome paragraph on the
syllabus for her on-campus class. Nancy’s syllabi prior to attending the Syllabus Review
Project workshop, according to her “sounded harsh” and lacked the welcome paragraph
149
that she already had for her online course. This simple addition of the welcome paragraph
changed the tone that she had wanted for her class.
On Nancy’s revised syllabus, under the “Cheating” section, she added a statement
that read: “Live your life with integrity – why would you want to cheat yourself out of
your education?” This statement was absent in her previous syllabus. The addition of this
statement brings a humane touch to the syllabus which allows the instructor and student
to address social issues at a personal level. This shows a remediation of the professional
role from technocrat to humanist.
Brian has also changed the tone of his syllabus from “here is what you need to
know” to “let me describe what the class is about.” He added more narratives, which in
his own words is not what Math and Science faculty frequently adopt in their syllabus.
He also had indented one liners that were bolded to draw attention to the specific things
students would need to know to succeed. An example of this is, “Having sufficient time
to study is an essential ingredient for your academic success!” Adding these kinds of
statements changed the tone of the class from “this is what you need to do” to “here are
some things that you need to know to help you succeed.” Another addition that Brian
had on his revised syllabus was letting his students know that the syllabus is a contract
for, not only the students, but also it is a contract for the instructor. To create a
relationship with his students, Brian added, “I (Brian) expect myself to be present and on
time as well as prepared for all lecture and laboratory sessions and I also expect the same
of you.” He has now created a new community, whereby he is expressing his respect for
his students. The addition and revisions that Brain made confirms that he has
reconsidered the reasons for the syllabus and has moved away from the notion that all
150
students are well aware of the intentions of a syllabus and that all students come to
college with the same understanding and preparation. The intent for change is shown in
the revisions, which shows that there was a shift in beliefs and attitudes that may not have
happened if Brian had not participated in the inquiry project. Cynthia too reflected that
she changed the tone of her syllabus.
I used ‘us’ rather than “you must complete the lab hours.” At first the tone
on my syllabus was very cold and intimidating to students who come to
school for the first time with language barriers, so I had to soften things
and I did so.
The effort to change the tone of her syllabus suggests that she remediated her role to, not
only as a content provider, but to become an agent who is communicating to her students
the respect and care that they deserve as they negotiate their new environment. This
change in her role demonstrates that she views her students differently.
Abigail too made a similar discovery about the tone of her syllabus and wanted to
change how she addressed classroom protocol. As a way to motivate her students to keep
their cell phone turned off in class, she tells them that if they she fail to follow the
guidelines, she would make them bring cookies for the whole class each time their cell
phones goes off in class. This she claimed will help change the discomfort that her
students may feel about their new environment.
A few of the participants found that some of the most basic pieces of information
that would be helpful to students were left out of their syllabi. For example, Nancy said,
“I never once thought about how important it was to put the name of the college on my
syllabi,” She just assumed that students will know where they are. Keith too discovered
that the Syllabus Review Project helped him realize that faculty take so much for granted.
151
He stated:
In my previous syllabus for this course, there was no Dynamic Community
College listed, and no objectives and classroom location either. If they registered
for the class, they should know where to go. But on the revised one, I have all
these listed. I never thought about this before that these kinds of essential
information are necessary for students.
The behavioral changes that were observed in the study reveals that participation in
action inquiry affected practitioners’ beliefs about equity and their behaviors to address
equity issues on their campuses. Participation in the Syllabus Review Project prompted
practitioners to reflect on available data as they identified existing problems. The
problem solving or experimentation that occurred following the identification of the
problem was continuous through the collaborative process that culminated to the
implementation or action phase of the inquiry process. The inquiry, however, did not stop
here. It continued on to more collaboration in another social setting where participants
reflected on their previous plans of action to assess if their plans had been successful and
if changes were required to improve on the previous solution.
Discussion
The purpose for the study conducted at Dynamic Community College was to
investigate if the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of practitioners change after they are
involved in action inquiry processes. The assumption is that participation in action
inquiry affects practitioners’ beliefs about equity in their behaviors to address equity
issues on their campuses. During the various action inquiry processes at DCC, CUE’s
tools were used to bring about collaboration between faculty, staff and administrators. In
each activity setting there was social interaction that allowed practitioners to critically
reflect on relevant data. CUE’s facilitation of these activities provided opportunities for
152
the practitioners to reflect and collectively assess issues of equity at their institution. The
process undertaken during the inquiry process included practitioners’ reflection on data,
planning steps involved in addressing the problem, implementing action/inquiry plans
such as the Syllabus Review Project, presenting to the Faculty Academic Senate, and
further assessment of planned remedies. CUE’s Syllabus Review Project allowed for
introspection of their attitudes and beliefs so as to promote “greater self-knowledge and
fulfillment in practitioners’ work, deeper understanding of their practices and
development of personal relationship through research as team member,” (Noffke, 1997,
p. 306).
The inquiry processes that was conducted at DCC and facilitated by CUE
produced significant findings. Greenwood and Levin (2005) argue that action research is
valid only if practitioners act on what they have learned during their participation in the
inquiry process. Acting on what they have learned will provide practitioners opportunities
to increase institutional knowledge and pedagogical expertise. The developmental
evaluation study that I conducted contributed to this outcome. Overall, the inquiry
process that took place through the use of CUE’s Syllabus Review Protocol revealed to
the practitioners that they had not previously considered what their syllabi communicated
to their students. Practitioners had viewed the syllabus as a legal document that provided
students information that they needed to know for the course. They had not recognized
that the syllabus, a cultural artifact, communicates a message that conveys the behaviors
and dispositions of practitioners and the institution as a whole. The data collected through
my research revealed that changes did take place. Many of the practitioners who
153
participated in the inquiry process chose to include several culturally inclusive indicators
into their syllabi as they took steps to remediate their classroom practices.
As discussed in Chapter Two, practice theory calls attention to a cycle of inquiry
among individual practitioners, as well as the role of social interactions in shaping
opportunities for practitioner learning and experimentation with new educational
practices. Cultural Historical Action Theory (CHAT) too calls attention to the role of
social interaction and cultural artifacts in shaping practices. Following each method of
data collection and data analysis, several themes emerged. The themes revealed that
practitioner beliefs, assumptions and behavior affected their participation in the action
inquiry process. These practitioners were willing to be involved in the inquiry process
and their participation demonstrated their desire to increase the success rates of their
students. Secondly, their involvement in the inquiry process allowed them to recognize
that how they communicate to their students has a great impact on their students’ success
and that their behavior and self-efficacy are, therefore, instrumental to institutional
change.
The Syllabus Review Project prompted these practitioners to become involved in
a collaborative effort to look for planned actions and remedies that would bring about
changes in behavior and intentions at the activity setting. Changes in organizational
settings can be advanced through co-constructed knowledge that is acquired through
practitioners’ understanding of the historical and cultural practices that emerge in the
context (Gutierrez & Vossoughi, 2010). It has been posited that when practitioners work
“side-by-side” in the activity setting, they construct and co-construct knowledge during
their interactions (Erickson, 2000; Bensimon, 2012). The two quotes below reveal how
154
participants worked side-by-side with their peers as they looked to co-construct new
knowledge.
How do I include culturally responsive language in my syllabus? I include culture
in my daily classroom interaction, but how and where do I include this
information?
My syllabus is only a 2 sided document and if I add all this stuff in my syllabus, it
will be too long. When students see a long syllabus, they will be scared away. I do
not want to lose my students on the first day of the semester.
As practitioners discussed their views regarding what should appear in their syllabi, they
exposed their beliefs and attitudes to each other. Keith’s prior view, that a longer syllabus
will turn students away, a suggestion that he may not have felt that his students had the
capability to be challenged, changed after he was involved in the Syllabus Review
Project. Nancy’s inquiry about how to include culturally responsive pedagogy suggested
that there was a desire to change her current practice so as to increase student success.
Engaging in this kind of dialogue within the setting promotes open, “intense,
transformational and incremental improvement” (Engeström, 2008) that allows for sense
making, synthesis, reflections, and mediated practices which ultimately leads to action
and change. Therefore, purposeful dialogue promoted during action research enhances
and builds upon personal relationships that promote “positive social change” (Noffke,
1997) through the process of identifying historical roots of both individual and collective
belief systems which then lead to practitioners becoming aware of personal beliefs and
attitudes, which either hinder or promote institutional changes (Noffke, 1997). Through
action research, practitioners may change their deficit mindedness through self-inquiry,
self-exploration, reflection and self-improvement through action research (Noffke, 1997;
Kumaravadivelu, 2001). This process of inquiry through action research may become
155
instrumental to aiding practitioners as they begin addressing existing institutional
problems related to minority student success.
The Syllabus Review Protocol and Project proved to be valuable mediating tools
that allowed project participants to reflect on how effective or ineffective their current
practices are and then to implement improvement strategies as required that would
promote the idea of cultural inclusiveness. The reoccurring themes that emerged from the
analyzed data identified important findings that recommend further inquiry and
discussion. These recommendations will be discussed in Chapter Five.
156
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
This study was part of CUE’s larger action research and evaluation agenda that
was based on the five major research and action initiatives that began in 2004. CUE has
worked with over sixty colleges and universities to develop institutional Equity
Scorecards which involve “data analysis, institutional inquiry, and problem-solving into a
comprehensive assessment process in which data and institutional practices are addressed
by a representational team of campus practitioners” (http://cue.usc.edu). CUE’s larger
research agenda involves developing multi-discipline approaches to provide institutions
“accountability, inquiry and benchmarking tools for assessing progress toward closing
racial achievement gap in college completion” (http://cue.usc.edu). The institutions that
participated in the developmental evaluation study conducted by CUE in 2011-2012 were
all California public higher education campuses.
Some of the projects previously conducted by CUE included the Diversity
Scorecard, Equity for All, 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, 2009). This study’s design experiment was part of a collective
developmental evaluation study of action research that was conducted at four field sites,
one California State university and three California community colleges, and the research
conducted at these field sites contributes to CUE’s larger agenda. The primary groups of
higher education professionals who will benefit from this study’s results are CUE
researchers and other higher education researchers who are involved in action research
157
projects with the focus of addressing racial and ethnic inequities to improve
organizational learning and innovation as institutions of higher education. Action
research projects promote social interaction in structured activity settings where inquiry,
reflection and collaboration are fostered. The results from this study will inform better
designs of action research tools and processes (Noffke, 1997; Kumaravadivelu, 2001).
Another group of professionals who would benefit from this study’s results would be
practitioners from community colleges who are seeking to close the wide achievement
gaps that exist amongst minority students who make up almost half of the student
population in California’s 112 community colleges (retrieved from
http://www.ccleague.org/files/public/FF2012). Additionally, the results from this study
will provide community college practitioners’ insight into the workings of action research
and how inquiry and analysis create opportunities for professional accountability.
This study was conducted to investigate why the number of minority students who
enroll and the number of minority students who earn degrees or transfer from two- year
institutions to four- year is disproportionate to the number of White students who earn
degrees or transfer from two- year to four-year institutions (Dowd, 2003; Shulock &
Moore, 2005; Carter et al., 1991). Similarly, stakeholders at California community
colleges are concerned that a large number of minority students are enrolled in basic
skills courses. Because the persistence and retention rates for these students to become
transfer ready are low, community colleges are seeking solutions to improve this gap.
Since the 80’s extreme measures have been taken at the state and national levels to create
evaluation and accountability systems to address student outcomes. However, even with
158
these measures in place, the number of minority students earning four-year degrees has
not increased (Shulock, 2004). Additionally, external accountability bodies such as state
education departments and accreditation agencies hold institutions accountable for
various achievement indicators. The main types of outcome indicators that external
accountability agencies use as achievement measures of progress involve “completion of
courses, programs, credentials, licenses; transfer rates to subsequent education or
employment rates” (Grubb & Bradway, 2005). In this study, these types of accountability
data were used as catalyst to practitioner inquiry.
To meet state and national accountability standards, institutions of higher
education, including community colleges and four-year universities, are taking steps to
address these inequities by implementing action inquiry projects to study their retention
and completion policies ((Bensimon, 2007; Dowd, Malcom, Nakamoto, Bensimon, 2007;
Rueda & Marquez, 2007). Scholars argue that participation in these types of collaborative
action inquiry activities provide opportunities for practitioners to increase institutional
knowledge and pedagogical expertise (Bensimon, 2007; Bensimon, Polkinghorne,
Bauman & Vallejo, 2004: Dowd, 2005; Dowd &Tong, 2007; Greenwood & Levin, 2005;
Polkinghorne, 2004; Reason, 2005; Stringer, 1999). This study examined in what ways
the benefits of action inquiry activities are (and are not) achieved. CUE is not the only
higher education organization to facilitate action research inquiry. Thus the results of my
study are of broader interest.
Several inquiry-based initiatives are in place to meet state and national
accountability standards. An example is Pathways to Results (PTR), a current initiative
159
that focuses on using research and evaluation designed to improve policies, programs and
practices to enhance college transition for diverse learners from high schools to
community colleges, transition from community colleges to four-year institutions,
transition from community colleges to careers
(http://occrl.illinois.edu/projects/pathways). PTR is an action inquiry project that uses an
equity-guided process that focuses on the outcomes of diverse learners. PTR builds upon
the collaboration between team members and partners who examine student data to
identify gaps that exist in racial and ethnic groups. Team members reflect on student data
and arrive at solutions that are shared between the groups to address the gaps in student
outcomes. The results from these activities are then applied to other programs of study
requiring improvement (http://occrl.illinois.edu/projects/pathways). Another initiative
that utilizes inquiry, and can be informed by my study, is Bridging Research,
Information, and Culture (BRIC) which focuses on research and evaluation. BRIC aims
to improve California community colleges’ efforts to build a culture of collaboration and
inquiry. This initiative was designed to build a culture of inquiry where institutional
stakeholders who are engaged in dialogue analyze their institutional data and practices.
The engagement in these kinds of structured inquiry activities which build on a culture of
inquiry and evidence are designed to enhance student success
(http://www.rpgroup.org/projects/BRIC.html).
The research questions that guided this study were designed to investigate
practitioner reactions in their engagement in action inquiry and what they learned and did
through their engagement. A secondary research question that guided this study was to
investigate if their participation in action research/inquiry project affected their behavior
160
and self-efficacy in bringing about organizational changes. Similarly, my study was
aligned to CUE’s research agenda and current initiatives that address institutional
accountability for closing college completion and transfer amongst minority students.
Since there is a strong push to closing college completion and transfer gaps, this study
sought to inform other institutions of higher education who seek to narrow achievement
gaps in their minority student population. The inquiry will support literature that argues
that engagement in action research projects contributes to changes in behavior and self-
efficacy that are instrumental to organizational changes. This study involved
documenting and describing all data collection methods and procedures, including the
summary of observations and cognitive interviews. For the purpose of transferability,
data analysis procedures and reporting mechanisms were also described. Hence, the
findings of this developmental evaluation of the action research project that was
undertaken through CUE are relevant to institutions of higher education who are seeking
to meet local and federal accountability standards. Transferability of findings from one
context to another can be achieved through the description of the study’s design. The
design’s description gives practitioners from other institutions a trustworthy account of
the study and its findings. The design’s description of the participants, the activity setting
and the specific tools used in the study can then be used to inform designs of other
similar research studies at other institutions (Patton, 2002). Even though the findings are
contextual, extrapolation of findings from one study can provide potential for best
practice applications at other similar institutions. Extrapolation of findings from existing
studies supports innovative steps that higher education scholars can take at the local level
to address current institutional problems (Patton, 2002). Penuel et al. (2011) argue that
161
through further collaboration on existing tools, educators can become co-designers of
solutions for other designed-based implementation research projects conducted to remedy
existing problems. Successful design-based research projects that have made significant
impact to institutional accountability can be further expanded through collaboration and
inquiry to meet and support new research practices (Penuel et al., 2011).
This study’s design and findings support the tenets of design-based
implementation research. One of the tenets is the commitment to developing an iterative
and collaborative design and then implementing the design through systematic inquiry
(Penuel et al., 2011). The design and the results of this study could inform other
institutions of higher education with the understanding that existing studies can be used
to co-design new solutions through collaboration and inquiry. Similarly, participants like
those found at DCC who were involved in the inquiry process can be found in any
institution of higher education. At DCC, the participants involved in the inquiry process
hold many roles and responsibilities, and the findings obtained from this study about their
interactions during the workshops provide insights for practitioners from other
institutions of higher education.
This study’s results can provide participants at other institutions a roadmap on
how to conduct an inquiry process at their own institutions as they begin their
assessments on student achievement and equity in outcomes. The Syllabus Review
Project facilitated by CUE is one such inquiry project that provides potential for best
practice applications at other similar institutions. The project encouraged practitioners to
become actively involved in a reflective process. Even though DCC had already been
involved in creating a culture of inquiry, the action inquiry activities facilitated by CUE
162
provided additional opportunities for practitioners to become involved in a cycle of
inquiry. In the Syllabus Review Project, DCC’s practitioners were able to critically
analyze their own syllabi against a set of culturally inclusive indicators developed by
CUE. This inquiry activity provided practitioners a structured activity that allowed them
to reflect on their documents and to arrive at ways they could change a primary
institutional artifact that is used to communicate the institution’s culture to their students,
i.e. the syllabus. The descriptive narratives of the action research study at DCC, the
description of the field site that was selected for the study, the study’s designs and the
findings of the study can be used to develop similar research studies at other institutions.
Summary of Findings
The cycle of inquiry model (Figure 5.1) was utilized as a framework to study
practitioner beliefs, assumptions and behaviors which helped to frame the stages of
inquiry that involved the Syllabus Review Project. Engeström (2008) argues that the
engagement in dialogue enables practitioners to synthesize, reflect, and mediate their
practices to fit the context.
163
Figure 5.1 The Cycle of Inquiry
DCC’s practitioners were engaged in dialogue during their social interaction in
the inquiry process, yet it was unclear through observation alone to what extent
behavioral changes had taken place. Analysis of the observational data as well as data
from subsequent interviews conducted with the participants after their participation in the
inquiry process resulted in five findings. The findings suggest that perceived behavioral
changes and intentions to behave had occurred which were demonstrated through their
engagement in the Syllabus Review Project and the revisions that they subsequently
made on their syllabi to include culturally responsive pedagogy. However, their
behavioral changes and intentions were limited by perceived lack of institutional support
and limited knowledge related to culturally responsive pedagogy which presented barriers
for change to occur. The results and findings of my study are summarized through the use
of themes that emerged from triangulated data collection. The themes that arose were:
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Beliefs
Social
Interaction
Reflection
Problem
Identification
Through
Data Analysis
Experimentation/
Problem Solving.
Action/
Experience
164
agency: in the classroom and institutionally; uncertainty about how to include culturally
responsive pedagogy; wishing for broader institutional involvement and buy-in;
conformity versus academic freedom; and application of past beliefs and experiences to
current context.
The study’s first finding is that the practitioners involved in the action research
project felt they had the ability to make changes in their classroom practices; however,
they did not feel confident when it came to making changes outside of their classrooms.
The findings support the notion that these practitioners had pushed past merely looking at
diversity as they worked towards addressing achieving gaps. Instead, these practitioners
were working towards become equity minded. They focused on their institution’s policies
and practices which affected the unequal outcomes for minority students. They looked at
various institutional policies and artifacts to explore equity minded practices that focused
on holding the institution accountable for its policies and practices as they moved past
becoming color-conscious to becoming equity-minded. As they became color conscious
and worked towards becoming equity minded, they affirmed the existence of institutional
racism, whether it is conscious or unconscious, and acknowledged that institutional
racism has promoted unequal practices based on race and ethnicity. Becoming equity
minded leads to identifying the basis for the unequal practices and developing equity
based practices that foster equitable outcomes for minority students (Bensimon, 2007).
These practitioners no longer placed the burden on their students and were now
considering ways in which to remediate their own roles and practices to produce
equitable educational outcomes for their students.
165
A second finding was that even though these practitioners felt that they could
change their classroom practices, they still felt ill equipped to make substantial changes
to their practices that reflected becoming equity mindedness. For example, they felt
uncertain about how to include culturally responsive pedagogy into their syllabi. The
finding suggests that even though the practitioners at DCC were working towards equity
mindedness, they were still unsure about how to create a more culturally inclusive
environment; they still felt that they lacked the knowledge regarding culturally
responsive pedagogy. The second finding reflects that even though the participants
acknowledged the unequal structures that existed because of institutional racism, they
still lacked the knowledge and ability to apply culturally responsive pedagogy into their
classroom practices so as to produce equal outcomes for minority students.
The Syllabus Review Protocol that was used at DCC to promote equity
mindedness provided practitioners the opportunity to acknowledge that their syllabi did
not promote a culturally inclusive environment, where the students felt inclusive of the
new environment. This led them to incorporate several of the indicators that were present
in the Syllabus Review Protocol. The protocol provided a number of indicators that
practitioners could use to measure if their syllabi included culturally responsive
pedagogy. There were twenty-one indicators in the Protocol that practitioners used to
evaluate their own syllabi. For example, an indicator found in the Protocol asks if their
syllabi communicated respect for their students and, if their syllabi did not communicate
this characteristic, how could they then include this characteristic. Many of the
practitioners changed the pronoun use of ‘you’ to ‘we’ as a way to show respect to their
students.
166
However, they were unsure how they could validate several of the other indicators
that related to diversity in terms of ethnicity, especially in terms of shared ancestry,
language national heritage, religious beliefs, community and norms. The indicators that
related directly to ethnicity were exceptionally difficult for them incorporate. Since they
did not have sufficient knowledge about their students’ culture, their prior experiences
and the performance styles of their diverse students, they did not feel comfortable
discussing these indicators, nor were they comfortable making changes that were related
to racial ethnic equity concepts. Although these practitioners were conscious of their
students’ differences and how institutional racism has promoted unequal outcomes for
minority students, they were still unsure of how to produce a culturally inclusive
environment for their students. Based on my analysis of DCC’s participants’ revised
syllabi after their participation in the Syllabus Review Project, I found that the
participants were not fully engaged in weaving the racial ethnic equity concepts into their
revised syllabi. According to Gay (2000), “culturally responsive teaching is using the
cultural knowledge, prior experiences, and performance styles of diverse students to
make learning more appropriate and effective for them; it teaches to and through the
strengths of these students”(p. 29). However, the tenets of equity mindedness suggest
that accountability exists with the policies and practices of the institution and the various
institutional agents, and therefore the responsibility rests on practitioners to address the
unequal outcomes of minority students.
The third finding suggests that the participants felt they did not have broader
support or buy-in that they required to be able to make institutional changes. They wished
for broader institutional involvement and buy-in as they felt that not all stakeholders at
167
their institution were involved in efforts related to improving student outcomes. The
fourth finding was that those who were involved in the change process felt that the
institution was infringing on their academic freedom by mandating certain behaviors in
their classrooms, suggesting that they feared conformity to certain institutional standards.
And the fifth finding implies the resistance to making changes, either in the classrooms or
institutionally, which could infer that practitioners are working off of past beliefs and
experiences that may have worked in the past but not in the current context where the
social context has changed over the years. They place certain expectations on their
students without considering the different skill levels of their students, and when their
students do not meet their expectations, practitioners blame the student rather than
looking at what they can do to address these difficulties.
The findings from my study at DCC reveal that inquiry had occurred. During the
social interaction that took place during action research activity, the participants in the
activity settings reflected and analyzed institutional data using the Syllabus Review
Protocol to identify the problems that existed at the institution. Part of the cycle of
inquiry was to use the indicators found in the Syllabus Review Protocol. The syllabus
analysis came as a result of their engagement in the analysis of their institutional data
conducted during the BESST workshop. Once they discovered that they could initiate
changes within their classrooms to improve student outcomes, the inquiry team decided
on the next steps to take and in this case, the participants decided to participate in the
Syllabus Review Project so as to acquire new knowledge that they could use to change
their classroom practices. The review of their syllabi represents an important action that
they took place as a part of the cycle of inquiry. The data collected through my research,
168
which, included pre and post syllabi, revealed that changes had taken place. To remediate
their classroom practices, the practitioners who were involved in the action research
process chose to revise their syllabi with the goal of the syllabi creating a culturally
inclusive and welcoming environment for their students.
Recommendations to DCC to Improve Practitioner Involvement for Change
The study’s results confirmed that behavioral changes had occurred in terms of
practitioners wanting to be involved in the action research project and wanting to make
changes in their classroom practices. The finding highlighted the sense of agency that
DCC’s practitioners expressed after their involvement in the inquiry process. They stated
that they were confident in making changes in their classroom, thus denoting that they
were able to make small contributions to the institution’s larger goal of improving student
outcomes. However, they felt that that they were not capable of making any substantial
impact outside of their classrooms.
To address improving the sense of agency, a recommendation to community
colleges and institutions of higher education is to implement mentorship programs and to
do so in ways that build on inquiry. According to Bandura (1982) self-efficacy
determines how practitioners think about their abilities. The efficacy beliefs that
practitioners hold about their abilities predict their motivation and behavior (Fishbein &
Azjen, 2010; Schunk, 1991). Scholars also claim that mentoring continues the
development of one’s personality development (Erikson, 1963; Levinson et. al, 1978). As
a result, mentoring provides faculty the potential for professional growth and an avenue
for social interaction with their peers as they communicate and exchange their
professional expertise. Through these cooperative exchanges that arise from engaging in
169
mentorship programs, practitioners may develop increased self-efficacy about the
potential impact they have on their students as they become instrumental in recognizing
what funds their students have and tapping into those assets. Practitioners, however, must
be willing to be engaged in social interaction if they want to improve their self-efficacy.
Mentorship
Through mentorship activities based on inquiry, the role that practitioners assume
changes from being content providers to becoming more involved in thinking of ways of
providing their students additional tools to succeed. Mentorship activities can also be
developed to increase practitioner self-efficacy. For example, for practitioners who are
unfamiliar with culturally responsive pedagogy and how to incorporate this pedagogy
into their classroom practices, they can become involved in mentorship programs which
are designed to pair faculty who are familiar with culturally responsive pedagogy, like
faculty in the disciplines of sociology or ethnic or intercultural studies, with others who
lack knowledge on culturally responsive pedagogy. They can work collaboratively in
inquiry projects that are related to improving classroom practices, i.e. inclusion of
culturally responsive pedagogy. These kinds of collaborative activities or joint productive
activities (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) have shown to be beneficial in improving self-
efficacy in faculty (Bandura, 1982). Research shows that beliefs can be changed through
practice and engagement in joint activity that involves dialogue and exchange of teaching
philosophy between mentor and mentee (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). These planned
mentorship activities may influence a change in belief, thus causing behavioral changes
to long-held classroom practices that could have presented obstacles to student success.
MENTOR, National Mentoring Partnership, provides a step-by-step guide on how to
170
design and develop mentoring programs suited to each institution. These kinds of
mentoring programs that are designed to promote inquiry through collaboration provide
practitioners the opportunity to participate in data-driven inquiry to espouse the beliefs,
assumptions and values that they hold regarding their students. Collaborative activities
through mentorship provide practitioners the opportunities to improve cognitive skills
and learning through collaboration, (Vygotsky, 1997), and through a learner and tutor
model (Wertsch, 1998), practitioners can learn to change their personal beliefs,
assumptions and values regarding their minority students’ cognitive skills.
Through mentoring activities, practitioners become aware of their students, their
backgrounds, and their needs. These collaborative efforts provide practitioners settings
for joint activity to take place as they reframe how they think about their students and
what they can do to change their classroom practices as they attempt to improve minority
student achievement. The process of reframing practitioners’ beliefs, assumptions and
values relates to becoming equity minded whereby practitioners acknowledge that their
students bring different experiences to the classroom.
Co-Mentoring
Practitioners’ lack of self-efficacy could also be improved through the
implementation of co-mentoring programs that utilize inquiry where interactions between
mentor and mentee are promoted to enable them to synthesize, reflect and mediate their
classroom practices (Engeström, 2008) which would lead to improved student success.
The designed co-mentoring program will involve faculty in a particular discipline
collaborating on specific facets of their instruction. For example, two writing faculty, one
teaching a literature course and the other teaching a critical thinking course, may
171
collaborate on a joint assignment related to a particular theme that emerges in a reading
used in both courses. A particular reading that could be used in both courses is A Modest
Proposal by Jonathan Swift. The two faculty members collaborate to, not only address
various literary elements and critical thinking components, but they can collaborate and
incorporate relevant contemporary elements to their assignments that will draw students
to the reading. An example of this could be to draw on issues related to deadbeat dads,
irresponsible parents, single mothers, high rates of incarceration, housing discrimination
and other current issues related to the students’ lives. The two faculty will be involved in
a joint activity through social interaction during the development stage of the activity.
Both faculty provide their own understanding of how to coordinate the assignment which
includes their students’ culture and background. The collaborating faculty will research
their students’ culture and background related to the students racial diversity, ancestry,
language, national heritage, religious beliefs, community, norms, sexual orientation,
immigration status, and differences in prior educational experiences as they formulate the
assignment. The use of these racial ethnic diversity indicators will promote faculty’s
validation of their students and the experiences that they bring to the classroom. The
faculty could use indicators similar to the ones found in the Syllabus Review Protocol
that relate to validation of their students’ culture and background as they work
collaboratively to design their assignment topics/prompts.
The findings in the study indicate that some behavioral changes had occurred and
there were intentions to change; however, there were barriers that were present that
prevented some changes from taking place. The changes that had taken place are
indicated by practitioner willingness to be engaged in the Syllabus Review Project and
172
the interaction that ensued during the project which promoted reflection of issues related
to student outcomes. The participants reflected on how their syllabi was void of several
practices of culturally responsive pedagogy and their reflection and acknowledgement
that their students would benefit from their course if an inclusive classroom environment
was created. Through the cycle of inquiry, the participants acted on revising their syllabi
and considered several changes to their syllabi. However, the actions taken by the
participants in the Syllabus Review Project did not allow the participants to include all of
the indicators found in the Syllabus Review Protocol. The participants were comfortable
including several of the indicators but not the ones related to racial ethnic equity
concepts. A separate protocol could be developed that can be used in another
collaborative joint activity where just two faculty are involved in intimate discussions
that promote ease in disclosing personal beliefs and assumptions that they bring to the
discussion. This joint activity may allow for the two faculty to become comfortable in
their discussions of racial ethnic equity concepts.
Collaboration would need to be a critical part of the inquiry process where
practitioners collaborate on developing new classroom practices that incorporate
culturally inclusive pedagogy. Another co-mentoring activity that could be designed
would include practitioners reviewing and revising their syllabi to produce one that
includes culturally responsive pedagogy. These kinds of action research activities that
involve inquiry into past practices and discovering the lack of culturally responsive
pedagogy in their syllabi may promote changes in classroom practices. The faculty
collaborate and reflect on the purpose for their inquiry activity and discuss ways in which
they could improve upon their syllabi in an effort to change the traditionally adopted
173
syllabus which may be devoid of culturally responsive pedagogy. The study’s findings
support the notion that during the Syllabus Review project, when practitioners were
involved in an inquiry project, they were able to analyze their syllabi and through their
reflection and analysis of their syllabi, they were able develop a syllabus that promoted
culturally inclusion.
CUE’s tools for action research has provided colleges and institutions of higher
education opportunities to involve practitioners from different disciplines to partake in
the inquiry process so as to improve self-efficacy about the potential impact they have
within their classrooms. When practitioners are confident with the changes that they have
made within their classrooms, they are more likely to communicate their new practices to
their colleagues. CUE’s work and the tools that it has developed promote these kinds of
interactions which improve practitioner self-efficacy. Increased practitioner self-efficacy
has been shown to positively impact student success (Schunk, 1991). Austin & Baldwin
(1991) conclude that collaborative learning is “knowledge that is socially constructed,
created by communities rather than individuals … knowledge that emerges from ongoing
dialogue and social interaction among groups.” These kinds of interactions may bring
about conscious or unconscious changes in practitioner beliefs, assumptions and values
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Roth & Lee, 2007). Therefore, practitioners’ involvement in
reflection, problem identification, experimentation and action lends to improving
practitioners’ efficacy beliefs which subsequently contributes to practitioners’
professional expertise. Similarly, CHAT’s premise states that social interaction and
cultural artifacts are instrumental in shaping practices (Guiterrez, et al., 2009). CUE’s
use of the CHAT’s theory supports the assertion that practitioners’ interactions in joint
174
activity promote reflection and exchange of knowledge and co-construction of new
knowledge which lead to changes in beliefs and behavior.
Additionally, CUE’s current research and related projects rely on the social
cultural theory (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Roth & Lee, 2007) which emphasizes faculty
collaboration when reflecting on institutional data. Social interaction that takes place in
the activity setting can be designed as professional development activities or workshops
with specific goals in mind. For example, CUE’s Syllabus Review Protocol could be used
in a structured professional development activity where faculty meet to reflect on their
current syllabi. The activity could lead to further inquiry in terms of structuring
subsequent activity settings where faculty could collaborate on modifying their syllabi to
reflect the needs of their students. An example of such an activity could be to develop
diversity statements or welcome statements that can be added to a syllabus so as to make
the students feel more included in the new environment. Practitioners from within the
institution who have been involved in diversity and equity projects or those who have
expertise in culture and equity could be solicited to provide the necessary literature
related to developing welcome/diversity statements. These practitioners could present
relevant literature related to racial and cultural diversity at an action research activity
setting where faculty collaborate to develop their own diversity and welcome statements
which will communicate a culture of respect for their minority students (Nasir & Hand,
2007; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lee, 1995; Scribner & Cole, 1973; Gutierrez & Rogoff,
2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Additionally, the workshop could also create
opportunities for faculty to develop inquiry groups related to other issues related to
student outcomes.
175
Two collaborative models that create opportunities for constructing knowledge
are when faculty collaborate on class activities and when faculty team teach. A
recommendation for community colleges and institutions of higher education is to use the
most common method of collaboration which involves the learning community where
faculty members collaborate to link content from two or three different disciplines with a
common theme. The emphasis here is to concentrate on getting the content of the courses
to the student (McDaniels & Colarulli, 1997; Kezar, 2006). In my study, it was found that
all of the participants revised their syllabi to include information that not only directed
student to the content of their course but the revised syllabi detailed information that
promoted a more inclusive and caring environment. The revised syllabi included
narratives that gave students information on how to be successful in the course. Inclusion
of these kinds of information supports the assertion that practitioner engagement in an
action research project promotes concerted efforts by practitioners to make changes in
their classroom practices. Therefore, rather than concentrating on content delivery in
team teaching, a team of practitioners can engage in coordinated efforts to look at
incorporating culturally responsive pedagogy into their teaching practices. This
coordinated effort emphasizes developing teaching practices that take into account the
cultural variance of students found at institutions of higher learning.
Recommendation to DCC to Construct and Co-construct New Knowledge
The finding related to the lack of relevant knowledge surrounding racial and
culturally responsive pedagogy experienced by practitioners at DCC suggests that they
are aware of the outcome gaps that exist at their institution. Additionally, they
acknowledge that validation of diversity in terms of ethnicity, shared ancestry, language,
176
national heritage, religious beliefs, community norms and the value of differences in prior
educational experiences are strong indicators for student success. However, they are still
unsure about how to incorporate these racial ethnic equity concepts into their classroom
practices.
A recommendation to address the uncertainty related to incorporating racial ethnic
equity concepts into classroom practice would be to coordinate workshops specifically
designed to improve on faculty’s understanding of the value of incorporating culturally
responsive indicators. Workshops with such a design would allow practitioners to
collaboratively construct new practices whereby they learn to successfully incorporate
culturally responsive pedagogy into their syllabi and classroom practices. The change that
occurred with the participants in my study after their involvement in the Syllabus Review
Project was that they revised their syllabi in ways that reflected a culturally responsive
pedagogy; this also confirmed that behavioral changes had occurred. The changes they
made following their involvement in the inquiry activity demonstrate that practitioners
were willing to change their classroom practices as they took steps to impact student
outcomes. Similarly, Salazar Romo (2009) study’s findings show that practitioners’
involvement in an inquiry project supports my findings. Her findings showed that when
practitioners were involved in remediation of their course syllabus, their behavior
changed. She found that once practitioners were able to identify the problem, they
remediated their teaching practices to include sharing their own academic experiences
with their students; they also changed their teaching practices to becoming advocates for
their students.
177
Another recommendation for promoting an equity minded environment where
practitioners become more aware of social inequities so as to eliminate deficit
mindedness is to bring in different cross cultural experiences into the classroom that
would promote a culture of inclusiveness (Gutierrez et al., 2009). Scholars argue that one
way to promote a culture of inclusiveness is to introduce culturally responsiveness and
culturally relevant pedagogy into classroom activities as a way to change organizational
culture (Nasir & Hand, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lee, 1995; Scribner & Cole, 1973).
Including culturally responsive pedagogy into course syllabi and into the classroom
provides new ways to aiding groups of minority students who have been marginalized
(Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003)). The tenet for culturally inclusive pedagogy (CRP) focuses
on the practitioners’ ability to recognize what their students bring to the classroom, their
cultural background, and their ability to learn (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Considering the
culture and experiences of the marginalized group supports a culture of inclusiveness.
Knowing how to include the culture of the student population necessitates that faculty
learn the cultural differences of their students and how they learn. Once faculty learn
about their students, their teaching practices change. Learning how to include culturally
responsive pedagogy will affirm the identities of minority students and subsequently
helps to improve student success (Good, 2008).
LeMoine (2001) argues that the problem is not with students and their learning
capabilities, but it is related to the problem of practitioners not knowing how to teach or
not knowing how students learn. LeMoine further states that teachers who do not learn
the culture of their students negatively contribute to academic failures of their students.
She argues that the best practitioners are those who continue to be learners. Similarly Gay
178
(2000) states that reforms to improve minority student success have failed because these
reforms profess “cultural neutrality." Rather than taking into account culture and
ethnicity and students’ personal experiences, these reforms address academic
performance devoid of these factors. Culturally responsive pedagogy involves studying
the difference of the students’ culture and affirming the differences by adjusting to the
students’ needs by making relevant changes to instruction, which may reflect changes to
teaching techniques and curriculum content (Lindsey et. al, 2003).
Recommendation to DCC for Unified Institutional Efforts
Findings from the study specify that more institutional support and buy-in is
sought by the practitioners at DCC which supports the notion that broadening and
improving institutional efforts is not the role of a single group of people. One faculty
member in my study said it best when she stated,
Institutional commitment comes not just from the president, but it is from the
counselors, from faculty all the way to the board. It takes a village. As an
institution, we need to involve everyone, from the Academic Senate to the BSI
task force to the teaching and learning committee; we need to all get together to
address this and only then can we bring about something like that (‘that’ refers to
the inclusion of study skills into all courses).
DCC’s faculty who participated in the inquiry project echoed that they wanted broader
institutional involvement from their peers. The institution as a whole has the
responsibility to change its organizational structure in order to meet the institution’s
mission. Therefore, rethinking or refreezing institutional structures, which include
defining “new job roles, new reward systems, and changes in leadership style” (Bess &
Dee, 2008, p. 385) become the driving force to meeting institutional goals.
179
CHAT looks at how individuals in an activity system are influenced by internal
and external factors which ultimately mediate their interactions, and the IT theory looks
at how these interactions are based on values and habits developed by institutions
(Ogawa, et al., 2008). Therefore, a recommendation to DCC for improving organizational
changes would be for the institution to investigate the institutional values and habits that
have been affected by internal and external factors. For example, there was a wider range
of participation in the first two workshops held at DCC. However, the participation in the
Syllabus Review Project was limited to only eight faculty members. Also the eight
participants who were involved in Syllabus Review Project were those who had been
involved in previous leadership positions. Faculty involvement related to institutional
change had occurred; however, the practitioners involved in these measures represent
only a small group of stakeholders. Therefore, wider participation in similar action
research projects should be encouraged if institutional goals are to be met.
Recommendation to DCC for Renewed Professional Development
Improved professional development designed to provide faculty tools on how to
improve student success corresponds to the recommendations outlined in the report by
the California Community Colleges Student Success Task Force titled Advancing Student
Success in California Community Colleges. Recommendation six of the report states,
“Community colleges will create a continuum of strategic professional development
opportunities, for all faculty, staff, and administrators to be better prepared to respond to
the evolving student needs and measures of student success.” The task force delineates
that a clear focus is required to develop ongoing professional development for
community college faculty and staff so as to bring about fundamental systemic changes
180
to increase student success. The task force adds that professional development may
produce changes in the way practitioners reconstruct how they think about student
success and how they plan for students to succeed.
The findings of my study support the assertion that participation by practitioners
in an action research project and their willingness to collaborate with peers to identify
existing problems related to student success lead to changes in practitioner attitudes. As
the demographics of community colleges changes, continued and ongoing assessment of
plans that are in place for faculty and staff will prove beneficial to continuous
improvement of student outcomes. These ongoing assessments can be developed through
inquiry activities that allow for reflection of previously implemented plans and how
effective they are. If the previously implemented plans have not produced the desired
outcomes, then practitioners can reevaluate and modify the plans as they see fit.
Recommendations for CUE
CUE’s Syllabus Review Protocol addresses the inclusion of culturally responsive
pedagogy, while LeMoine (2001) and Gay (2000) argue that faculty need to learn the
culture of the students to be able to contribute to their students’ success. However, CUE’s
Syllabus Review Protocol has limitations. Therefore, the current protocol may need to be
further developed to show faculty how to teach minority students by studying the cultural
differences and to show faculty what they need know to adjust to these differences.
CUE’s tool stops at identifying the lack of culturally responsive pedagogy in a syllabus
and what kinds of indicators should be considered. It does not go on to show faculty how
they can adjust their teaching methods to incorporate the differences that their students
bring to the classroom. The participants in my study valued diversity but they were still
181
not sure about how to incorporate racial ethnic equity concepts into their syllabus or
classroom practices; however, they stated that they bring in discussions related to racial
ethnic topics into their classrooms. Therefore, the missing piece is that if they become
familiar with culturally responsive pedagogy and are then able to incorporate this
pedagogy into their syllabus, how then do they go to the next step to show how they
validate their students’ cultural differences by addressing issues of social and structural
inequities and empowering students to do the same?
To address the question of validation that is indicated in CUE’s Syllabus Review
Protocol, a series of workshops is recommended that would be designed to provide
practitioners new knowledge on how to bring about a sense of inclusiveness in their
classrooms. These workshops designed to promote social interactions amongst
practitioners will promote inquiry, even if it merely promotes awareness of the cultural
differences that exist in the classrooms. A five part inquiry project could be a start to
address the difficulty in incorporating culturally inclusive pedagogy. These workshops
will bring practitioners to the activity setting to exchange their understandings of their
students, their students’ cultural backgrounds and their needs which could be
instrumental for practitioners as they better understand their students and what they can
do to aid in tapping the funds of knowledge of their students. Scholars argue that learning
about “household knowledge” of various ethnic groups involves learning about students’
cultures and becoming aware of how to use this knowledge to support student
achievement (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Moll, 2000; Stanton, 2010). However, it
has been found that many times practitioners are uncomfortable exploring or discussing
182
issues related to race and inequities because they are fearful that racially laden language
may prove to be unfavorable in their educational setting (Dowd et al., 2012).
One of the workshops in the five-part inquiry project could be a workshop that
elicits discussions on historical inequities, even though these discussions create
uneasiness amongst practitioners. Discussions related to past beliefs and practices will
encourage practitioners to learn about the household knowledge of their students and how
historical racism is the primary factor leading to inequitable outcomes for minority
students. According to CRT scholars, unequal structures that affect ethnic/racial groups
can be addressed through action research which promotes self-inquiry, self exploration,
reflection, and self-improvement (Noffke, 1997; Kumaravadivelu, 2001). Action research
promotes inquiry, reflection and collaboration during these structured workshops. The
inquiry process leads to discussions on how the students’ culture and background affect
student achievement. The interaction that takes place between practitioners at these
workshops and the discussions that ensue promote learning. When practitioners are
involved in discussions related to race and racism, they are able to unpack long held
beliefs that they bring to their practices and they then seek to remediate their own
practices rather than seeking to change their students’ deficits (Bustillos et al., 2011)
CUE’s current research and related projects rely on the social cultural theory
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Roth & Lee, 2007) which emphasizes faculty collaboration
when reflecting on institutional data. Social interaction that takes place in the activity
setting can be designed as professional development activities or workshops with specific
goals in mind. A recommendation for CUE would be for CUE’s Syllabus Review
Protocol to be used in a structured professional development activity where faculty meet
183
to reflect on their current syllabi. The activity could lead to further inquiry in terms of
structuring subsequent activity settings where faculty could collaborate on modifying
their syllabi to reflect the needs of their students. An example of such an activity could be
developing diversity statements or welcome statements that can be added to a syllabus so
as to make the students feel more inclusive of the new environment. Practitioners from
within the institution who have been involved in diversity and equity projects or those
who have expertise in culture and equity could be solicited to provide the necessary
literature related to developing welcome/diversity statements. These practitioners could
present relevant literature related to racial and cultural diversity at an action research
activity setting where faculty collaborate to develop their own diversity and welcome
statements which will communicate a culture of respect for their minority students (Nasir
& Hand, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lee, 1995; Scribner & Cole, 1973; Gutierrez &
Rogoff, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Additionally, the workshop could also create
opportunities for faculty to develop inquiry groups related to other issues related to
student outcomes.
CUE’s tools are designed to bring about collaborative efforts to begin the inquiry
process. CUE aids institutions to structure evidence teams, where team members become
researchers themselves. CUE facilitates, using its action research tools, discussions and
actions that help practitioners ask the right questions as they evaluate the community they
serve, and it facilitates the discussion for practitioners as they develop plans to improve
student success. The process that CUE has designed and the tools that it has developed
complement the vision and efforts that DCC and similar institutions are taking to improve
student outcomes. The findings from my study are aimed at providing CUE, through
184
developmental evaluation, feedback on its action research tools and how to modify and
improve its tools for future action research project.
CUE’s Syllabus Review Protocol, an action inquiry tool, has provided
practitioners the opportunity to change the manner in which they communicate their
institution’s culture. However, the tool has limitations. Currently, the tool provides
practitioners culturally responsive indicators that they can use to revise their syllabi that
would make their students feel more inclusive; however, merely remediating the syllabus
may not be sufficient since students may need other tools to motivate them during the
semester and also faculty may need additional tools to become change agents. A
recommendation to CUE is to develop an additional action research tool. The tool would
be a protocol for practitioners as they review their course assignments/topics. Faculty
could use this protocol when they revise and design assignments/topics that relate to their
students’ everyday experiences, so these assignments become relevant to their culture and
background. For example, during the inquiry reflection stage, practitioners reevaluate
meanings of artifacts such as assignment topics/prompts and establish values associated
with these artifacts. For instance, an English instructor may have traditionally provided a
writing prompt that reads, “If you could change three things in your life, what would they
be?” Through an action inquiry project and with the use of an action research protocol,
the instructor could collaborate with other practitioners, i.e. in a series of mentorship
workshops, to refine the prompt where it ties the purpose of the expository writing to the
students’ cultural background so it becomes meaningful to them. CUE could develop a
protocol that includes indicators similar to the Syllabus Review Protocol that would assist
practitioners to reflect on their current assignment topics/prompts through the action
185
inquiry process. The objective for this tool would be to motivate instructors to relate the
content of the course to their students’ everyday experiences. The practitioners who are
the subjects collaborate in the action inquiry process in an activity setting within the
organization to mediate the artifacts which are the existing assignment topics/prompts
(Ogawa, et al., 2008; Engeström 1999, 2001). The outcomes of the social interaction are
to create meaningful topics/prompts for their assignments and to begin the change in
practitioner beliefs and to provide the funds of knowledge to help students make
meaningful connections between academic content and their lives (Stanton-Salazar,
2010).
Recommendations for Community Colleges and Institutions of Higher Education
The efforts to increase the number of students attaining college degrees is
becoming harder for it is becoming increasingly difficult for students to fulfill their
degree requirements because course offerings are limited owing to funding constraints,
increased tuition fees, and financial resources to aid students in enrolling and completing
their college education have been reduced
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/education/05protests.html). Additionally, tuition
increases further impact minority students who are already affected by their lack of
financial resources. The lack of funding ultimately impacts access to higher education,
which impedes minority students attaining a college education. These obstacles add to the
difficulties institutions face, so more deliberate efforts will need to be in place as
institutions work to improve minority student success. At community colleges efforts to
move students through the pipeline to complete their AA/AS degrees and/or transfer to
four year institutions will become the priority.
186
To close the current equity gaps, national and state initiatives have put into place
several strategies. Two of these strategies are to promote diversity/multiculturalism and
promote practitioner role and inquiry
(www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/documents/bauman_et_al.). To promote
diversity/multiculturalism, there is a need for active, intentional and ongoing engagement
in diversity that encompasses all areas of institutional operations. The study’s findings
affirm that faculty involvement in action research projects brings brought about social
interaction that lead to inquiry, reflection and collaboration; faculty inquiry groups that
are actively engaged in issues related to diversity and multiculturalism are therefore
instrumental in to improving minority student success. These inquiry groups will be
involved in inquiry, reflection and collaboration as they work to design and implement
plans to establish new transfer paths, local funding resources, programs that reduce the
time taken to complete developmental courses to become college ready, and modify or
revise curriculum to increase degree completion while considering the diverse student
population and its backgrounds. Scholars argue that when practitioners are involved in
inquiry related projects, they become aware of the inequities that hinder minority student
success, and their involvement in the inquiry process will provide them the opportunities
to unlock their past beliefs and attitudes that they bring to their classroom practices
(Bensimon, 2007; Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman & Vallejo, 2004: Dowd, 2005;
Dowd & Tong, 2007; Greenwood & Levin, 2005; Polkinghorne, 2004; Reason, 2005;
Stringer, 1999).
The findings in this study further support the notion that when practitioners are
collectively involved in inquiry through action research, they participate in developing
187
new knowledge, practice and policies that address institutional educational inequities
(Lee & Loeb, 1996; Bensimon, et al., 2007; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Bourdieu, 1986). The
findings reveal that practitioners, after their involvement in the Syllabus Review Project,
worked together to revise their syllabi; thus they created new knowledge pertaining to
creating a more inclusive environment. Institutions that are involved in collective inquiry
processes promote “ongoing initiatives” that are designed to provide practitioners
knowledge on how to address institutional problems and, through the inquiry process,
they are able to analyze and integrate their meanings to these inequities. When all
institutional stakeholders adopt the culture of inquiry, they are able to systematically
analyze and reflect on available student outcome data so as to arrive at action plans that
are designed to narrow the achievement gaps of minority students (Dowd, 2005; Bauman,
2005).
A recommendation for institutions of higher education is to design and implement
structured inquiry projects similar to the one undertaken at DCC involving the inclusion
of culturally responsive pedagogy to promote diversity/multiculturalism and collective
practitioner role and inquiry that fosters systematic inquiry at institutions. Hence,
institutions of higher education will need to come together in a systematic inquiry of
collecting data and reflecting on data through action research which will enable
institutions to experiment with solutions when addressing minority student achievement
gaps.
Even though my study does not support findings that systematic inquiry will lead
to evaluating effectiveness of institutional accountability plans, I recommend that
extended studies be conducted to study if inquiry activities will enable institutions to
188
evaluate the effectiveness of accountability measures/plans that institutions of higher
education have in place. The study would entail evidence teams coming together to
evaluate existing plans, reflect on existing data and identify if the data supports
institutional goals for student outcomes. If the data does not support institutional goals,
then the team could identify ways to attain institutional goals. The team will reevaluate
institutional data during scheduled intervals. Each time the team meets to reevaluate data,
team members apply adaptive expertise that builds on new knowledge. On-going cyclical
evaluation promoted through action research initiates changes in practitioner beliefs,
assumptions and values which bring about institutional changes.
Recommendation for Future Research
Since CHAT describes language as an artifact, it would be necessary to look at
the language and discourse associated with culturally responsive pedagogy. Therefore, a
recommendation would be that more research involving culturally responsive language
and how culturally responsive language can be used would be useful for practitioners
who are working towards becoming equity minded. Additionally, understanding the
nuances of different cultures and learning the differences that exist in cultures will aid
practitioners to better communicate with racial minority students. These efforts are
essential since the composition of teachers in our nation is largely White while the
nation’s student population continues to be culturally and racially diverse (Good, 2008).
As a faculty leader who handles student complaints, I see in my own work the complaints
that I receive from students who complain that their instructors do not communicate with
them in a manner that makes them feel inclusive. Research that looks to improve the
manner in which practitioners communicate with their minority students could help bring
189
about changes in the way practitioners use inclusive language to motivate their students,
not just at the beginning of the semester, but during the semester. The inquiry to discover
how to communicate effectively with minority students should begin by practitioners
creating inquiry teams at their institutions to reflect on ways to gather data that would
provide practitioners feedback about how students view faculty communication with their
students. They can gather data from student grievances or from student surveys. These
documents would provide data about the manner in which instructors communicate with
students in the classroom. Once the data are compiled, practitioners can reflect on the
data to identify if a problem exists. The evidence team can then discuss action plans that
they can implement to address how to use culturally responsive language in their
classrooms so as to promote an inclusive environment.
An additional recommendation is for institutions to rethink the way their
stakeholders are involved in planning institutional goals. For example, the emergent
change model relies on the framework that all stakeholders at the institution respond to
on-going changing conditions. The focus for the emergent change model is on innovation
and creativity and developing a culture of trust (Bess & Dee, 2008), which brings about
change. A change in the way all stakeholders become included in the institutional
planning for change supports CHAT’s premise that social interaction and cultural
artifacts are instrumental in shaping practices (Guiterrez, et al., 2009). This notion is also
supported by CUE’s action research approach that social interactions within the activity
setting, where multiple cultural and historical interactions exist, promote inquiry and
reflection of current practices. Hardy et al., (2003), believe that when faculty and staff
are not a part of the development of planned changes, the vision to achieve these changes
190
may not take place. If more stakeholders, including faculty, staff, and community leaders
and are not defined as key participants of the planned change, then the culture of trust
may not be developed (Bess & Dee, 2008). Therefore, top administrators may want to
restructure the way in which initiatives to improve student success are aligned to the
internal grassroots efforts of faculty who are working to change their classroom practices
by incorporating culturally responsive pedagogy. However, the alignment between
external initiatives and internal grassroots efforts may not be possible if institutional
participants have not acquired the relevant knowledge required to improve minority
student success. Aligning these efforts meets the needs of multiple visions that are in
place at institutions of higher education. If this restructuring does not take place, the lack
of broader institutional efforts will persist because faculty may not see that their efforts
are woven into the larger institutional efforts to meet external initiatives (Henderson et
al., 2010; Gess-Newsom et al., 2003; Luft et al., 2004; Romano et al., 2004). Hence, to
increase broader institutional involvement, professional development activities that
promote inquiry can become instrumental in aligning faculty change efforts and
institutional change efforts. Through these inquiry activities, faculty will become aware
that their grassroots efforts are aligned to the institution’s goals and this again will
promote broader institutional participation.
Conclusion
Accountability measures are in place at the state and national levels to address
student success; however, even with these measures in place, the numbers of minority
students transferring to four-year colleges and earning four- year degrees have not
increased. Improving student outcomes by selective student recruitment, implementing
191
one-size-fits all solutions, and increasing access for minority students has not provided
equitable outcomes for minority students. Furthermore, as demographics changes and
more and more students come with different cultural backgrounds and different levels of
preparation, racial-ethnic inequities that continue to exist because of unequal structures at
institutions of higher education and the K-12 systems will widen, causing a large number
of minority students not to persist on to transfer from 2-year community colleges to 4-
year institutions or completing requirements to attain a college degree. Therefore,
practitioners’ involvement in a cyclical culture of inquiry may provide them the
opportunities to become involved in organizational changes thus enabling institutions to
improve minority student outcomes.
Many times I have heard faculty stating that their students, “Just don’t get it”
Often, faculty place the responsibility on the students, or they claim that they have done
all that is required. The belief that a large number of faculty have can best be summed up
by the statements made by a participant in my study. He said, “Students aren’t prepared
for how different college is. Many are not demanding enough of themselves. They just
plan to continue doing what they have been doing. They must know this is a different
game.” The question that arises is “How would these students know that college is
different today? And “how could they know that college is a different game?” These
statements are based on practitioners’ past experiences as learner themselves. The
statements reflect practitioners’ current views of their students, and their expectations of
their students are grounded through their own personal theories of how students should
conduct themselves in college settings.
192
Frequently faculty assume that students today are mature, independent, motivated
and have knowledge, so they should know how to become successful students. On the
other hand, faculty also claim that their students are not prepared to work hard, thus
faculty should not to be blamed for their students’ failures. When faculty bring their past
beliefs and experiences, they impart deeply held personal theories into their classroom
practices (Pajares, 1992) and the practices then become ingrained in the way they interact
with their students. Faculty may believe that remarks like those listed above are harmless
and are not intended to devalue their students’ abilities, but they reflect the way faculty
view their students and their abilities. Practitioners’ deficit minded views, where
practitioners disregard students’ culture and background, may affect student outcomes.
According to Bensimon (2012) these kinds of views, “… are harmful to all students, but
most particularly to students of color as they often, albeit unconsciously, reinforce
stereotypical judgments of race-based deficits (p. 5)” Furthermore Bensimon adds that
placing certain kinds of academic expectations on minority students promotes yet again
the cycle of racial inequity. Rather than practitioners focusing on ways to improve
minority student success, practitioners from community colleges and institutions of
higher education may be focusing more on student deficits instead of reflecting on the
factors that exist at their institution that may be hindering minority student success.
My study provides an example of a campus where practitioners are committed to
meeting the needs of their community. The institutional goals identified at DCC to
increase course completion from 64% to 74% and to increase persistence from 60% to
70% by 2015 show institutional commitment to making changes to student outcomes.
Their commitment is shown through their involvement in various grassroots effort to
193
improve student outcomes. An example of this was their involvement in the Syllabus
Review Project and various other initiatives, including one called the “Adelante
Program” which is a partnership between DCC, the college’s K-12 district, and the
neighboring four-year institution. The program provides graduating high school students
a variety of educational services to aid their successful entry into the community college
system and then to transfer to the four-year institution.
Community colleges and institutions of higher education have provided access
and support to diverse student population to participate in college, yet minority college
students are 50% less likely to graduate within six years from four-year institutions
compared to 33% of their White counterparts (Museus & Quaye, 2009). While pedagogy
that includes equity, culture and socialization has been introduced into the curriculum,
there are still degree completion and transfer gaps at public higher education institutions
that exist within the minority population (Gay, 1992; Banks et al., 1993). Today’s
students, especially minority students, come from low income neighborhoods and from
poorer K-12 school systems. These deficit factors have already had a negative effect on
them even before they set foot on the college campus. Robert Gabriner, a professor at San
Francisco State University, states, “Essentially, where students are placed in the course
sequence is their destiny – if you’re placed three levels below in math, eight percent
make it up to college-level math,” (Oldham, 2010). Why is this? Research suggests that
these students have low motivation and feel alienated in their new environment.
Therefore, rather than suggesting that these students are not demanding enough of
themselves, the responsibility needs to shift to those who have the knowledge and ability
to make changes that will empower our minority students to succeed. Therefore,
194
practitioners at higher education institutions must become aware and responsive to the
particularities of the current situations and the contexts that they are in (Dowd & Tong,
2007) as they transform themselves to become researchers in the inquiry process. The
ultimate purpose for the call to become aware and responsive to current inequities is to
bring about changes in the individual, in the organization and in society as a whole
(Bensimom et al., 2004; Kaur, 2009).
195
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alford, R. R. (1998). The craft of inquiry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Angen, MJ. (2000). "Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and
opening the dialogue." Qualitative Health Research. 10(3), 378-395.
ARCC/AB 1417 Fact Sheet (updated 2/13/07). Retrieved May 30, 2011 from
http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/TRIS/research/ARCC/air_2008_paper.pdf
Austin, A. E., & Baldwin, R. G. (1991). Faculty collaboration: Enhancing the quality
of scholarship and teaching. ASHE ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7.
Washington, DC: The George Washington University School of Education and
Human Development.
Ball, D. (1989). Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics. (Issue Paper
88). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teaching.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37, 122-147.
Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (1993). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bauman, G. L. (2005). Promoting Organizational Learning in Higher Education to
Achieve Equity in Educational Outcomes. New Directions for Higher Education,
131:23 -36.c.
http://www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/documents/Bauman_et_al.pdf
Bauman, G. L., Bustillos, L.T., Bensimon, E. M., Brown, M. C. & Bartee, R. D. (2005).
Outcomes with all students: The institution’s roles and responsibilities.
www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/documents/bauman_et_al.pdf
Benjamin, R., & Carroll, S. (1998). The implications of the changed environment for
governance in higher education. In W. Tierney (Ed.), The responsive university:
Restructuring for high performance (pp. 92-119). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
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.
Bensimon, E.M. (2012). Chapter 2: The equity scorecard: Theory of change. Stylus Press.
196
Bensimon, E. M., & Dowd, A. C. (2009). Dimensions of the “Transfer Choice” Gap:
Experiences of Latina and Latino students who navigated transfer pathways.
Harvard Educational Review, 2009.
Bensimon, E.M., Dowd, A.C., Daniels, J.E. & Walden, D. (2010). College Bound:
Strategies for Access and Success for Low-Income Students. USC Office of
Government and Civic Engagement.
Bensimon, E.M., Hao, L. & Bustillos, L.T. (2003). Measuring the state of equity in public
higher education. Paper presented at the Harvard Civil Rights and UC Conference
on Expanding Opportunity in Higher Education: California and the Nation:
Sacramento, California.
Bensimon, E.M., Harris III, F., & Rueda, R. (2007). The meditational means of enacting
equity-mindedness among community college practitioners. Presented at the
association for the study of higher education: Louisville: Kentucky.
Bensimon, E. M. (2006). Learning equity-mindedness: Equality in educational outcomes.
The Academic Workplace, 1(17), 2-21.
Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D. E., Bauman, G. L., & Vallejo, E. (2004). “Doing
research that makes a difference.” The Journal of Higher Education, 75/1, (Jan.
/Feb. 2004), 104 – 126.
Bergerson, A. A. (2003). Critical race theory and white racism: Is there room for white
scholars in fighting racism in education? Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(1),
51–63.
Berliner, D. C. (1991). “Educational Psychology and pedagogical expertise: New
findings and new opportunities for thinking about training.” Educational
Psychologist, 26:2, 145-155.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J.R. (2008). Understanding college and university administration
(Vol. 1: The state of the system. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Chapter 9: Organizational
Change in Higher Education.
Biden announces college completion tool kit (2011).
http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/Pages/Academic-Programs/Biden-
announces-college-completion-tool-kit.aspx
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory
and research for the sociology of education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
197
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of
Learning. Educational Researcher, Vol. 18(1):
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1176008.
Bowman, B.T. (1994). Cultural Diversity and Academic Achievement.
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/le0bow.htm
Building American Skills through Community Colleges.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education/building-american-
skills-through-community-colleges. Retrieved on April 2011.
Burdman, P. (2009). A Societal Imperative: Changing the way we think about
community colleges. National Cross Talk, Vol. 17:2.
Burke, J. C. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving
accountability in higher education. (pp. 1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bush, P.D. (1987). The Theory of Institutional change. Journal of economic issues. Vol.
XXI, 3. Studies in Education, 16:1, 51-63.
Bustillos, L.T., Rueda, R., & Bensimon, E.M. (2011). Faculty views of underrepresented
students in community college settings: Cultural models and cultural practices. In
P.R. Portes & S. Salas (Eds.), Vygotsky in 21st century society: Advances in
cultural historical theory and praxis with non-dominant communities. (pp.199-
213). New York: Peter Lang.
California Community Colleges Student Success Task Force (2012). Advancing Student
Success in California Community Colleges.
http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/StudentSuccessTask
Force/SSTF_FinalReport_Web_010312.pdf
Carter, D.J. & Wilson, R. Ninth Annual Status Report on Minorities in Higher Education.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1991.
Center for Urban Education. (2009). About CUE. Retrieved from www.usc.edu.
Chronicle of Higher Education (January 23, 2011). http://chronicle.com/article/Table-
RaceEthnicity-of/124393/http://www.city-data.com
Coello, M., Casanas, J.A., & Rocco, T.S. (2004). Understanding Critical Race Theory:
An analysis of cultural differences in healthcare education. http://www.rt-
image.com/1206critical
198
Closing the Achievement Gap in Higher Education: An Organizational Learning
Perspective. www.uwsa.edu/edi/equity/.../closingtheachievementgapinhighered.
Retrieved June 8, 2010.
Creswell, JW. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five
Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, critical race-
gendered epistemologies: recognizing students of color as holders and creators of
knowledge. http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/105
Demonstrators in Sacramento on Thursday protested education cuts.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/education/05protests.html).
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. 2
nd
. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, NK. (1978). Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
De Valenzuela, J. (2006). "Sociocultural views of learning." The SAGE Handbook.
Dowd, A.C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond
saga” towards outcome equity. Harvard Education Review.
Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission
of community colleges. Annals of the American Association for Political and
Social Science, 586, 92-119.
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., Bishop, R., Bensimon, E. M., & Witham, K. (2012). Accountability for
equity in postsecondary education. In K. Gallagher, R. Goodyear & D. Brewer
(Eds.), Introduction to urban education: New York: Routledge.
Dowd, A. C., Cheslock, J., & Melguizo, T. (2008). Transfer access from community
colleges and the distribution of elite higher education. Journal of Higher
Education, 79(4), 1-31.
Dowd, A. C. & Bensimon, E.M. (2009). 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.
199
Dowd, A. C. & Bensimon, E.M. (2009a). CUE frameworks for action, research, and
evaluation. Los Angeles, University of Southern California.
Dowd, A., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L.T. (2003b). Measuring the state of equity in higher
education. In Gandara, P., Orfield, G., & Horn, C. (Eds) Leveraging Promise and
expanding opportunity in higher education. Albany: Sunny Press.
Dowd, A. C., Malcolm, L.E., Nakamoto, J., & Bensimon, E.M. (2012). Institutional
researchers as teachers and equity advocates: Facilitating organizational learning
and change. In Bensimon, E.M., & Malcolm, L. E. The Equity Scorecard, Stylus
Press.
Dowd, A. C., & Tong, V. P. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship of
"best practice". In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of Higher Education (Vol. 22, pp.
57-119). New York: Springer Publishing.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
development research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1999) Innovative learning in work teams: analyzing cycles of knowledge
creation in practice, in: Y. ENGESTRÖM et al (Eds.) Perspectives on Activity
Theory, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 377-406.
Erickson, F. (2006). Studying side by side: Collaborative action ethnography in
educational research. In G. Spindler & L. Hammond (Eds.), Innovations in
education ethnography: Theory, methods and results (pp. 235-257). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
FAST FACTS 2012: Community College League of California.
http://www.ccleague.org/files/public/FF2012.pdf
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Fry, R. (2002). Latino/as in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate.
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice, New
York: Teachers College Press.
Gess-Newsome, J., Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Woodbury, S. (2003).
Educational reform, personal practical theories, and dissatisfaction: The anatomy
of change in college science teaching. American Educational Research Journal,
40(3), 731–767.
200
Grant, C. A. & Sleeter, C. E. (1986). Race, class and gender effects in education: An
argument for integrative analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56, 195-211.
Ginorio, A., & Huston, M. (2002). Characteristics of communities affecting
participation/success. In the Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 543-583.
Greenwood, D.J. & Levin, M. (2005). Reform of the social sciences and of universities
through action research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (3
rd
ed., pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Grubb, W. N., & Bradway, N. N. (2005). From compliance to improvement:
Accountability and assessment in California community colleges: Higher
Education Evaluation and Research Group.
Grubb, W.N., Bradway, N.N., & Bell, D. (2003). Community colleges and the equity
agenda: The potential of noncredit education. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science. Vol. 586.
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.
Gutiérrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or
repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.
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.
Harbour, C.P. & Day, O. (2009). New directions for community
colleges.www.interscience.wiley.com. Retrieved on April, 19, 2011.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011) Facilitating Change in Undergraduate
STEM Instructional Practices: An Analytic Review of the Literature, Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 48 (8), 952-984.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D.F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology
of Education, 70(4). 324-345.
Jackson, F. R. Seven Strategies to Support a Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Journal of Reading , Vol. 37, No. 4 (Dec., 1993 - Jan., 1994), 298-303.
201
Javier, M.J. (2009). A dissertation: Math faculty as institutional agents: Role reflection
through inquiry-based activities.
Jonassen, D. H. & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for
designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.
Jones, C.P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretical framework and a gardener’s tale.
American Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212-1215.
Journal of Higher Education, 75 (3), 249-284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838816.
Retrieved June 20, 2010.
Kaur, Seema. (2009). Dissertation: An examination of collaboration amongst student
affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities (1998).
Returning to our roots: Student access. Washington, DC: National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Kezar, A. J. (2006). Redesigning for collaboration in learning initiatives: An examination
of four highly collaborative campuses. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5),
804-838.
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st
Century. www.jcu.edu/academic/planassess/.../organizationalchange.pdf
Retrieved April 16, 2011.
Kilgore, S.B. & Pendleton, W.W. (1993). The Organizational Context of Learning:
Framework for Understanding the Acquisition of Knowledge, Sociology of
Education, 66(1), 63-87.
Kirst, M W. & Venezia, A. (2004). Ed. From high school to college: improving
opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a Postmethod Pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.
35(4), 537-560.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy: American
Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), 465-491.
American Educational Research Association Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1163320 Accessed: 24/10/2008 15:28
202
Lantolf, J.P. & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language learning.
In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams, (Eds.), Theories in second language learning (pp.
201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Lee, C.D. (1995). .A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African
American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research
Quarterly Vol. 30, No. 4 (Oct. - Nov. - Dec., 1995), 608-630
www.jstor.org/stable/748192
LeMoine, N. (2001). Language Variation and Literacy Acquisition in African American
Students (p. 169-194). Chapter in Harris, J., Kamhi, A., & Pollock, K. (Eds)
Literacy in African American.
Lee, V. E., & Loeb, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on
gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of
Education 104: 103-47.
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. A., & McKee, B. (1978). The
Seasons of a Man's Life. New York: Knopf.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Lindsey, R., Robins, K., & Terrell, R. (2003). Cultural Proficiency, A Manual for School
"Leaders. Corwin Press, Inc.: Thousand Oaks".
Luft, J. A., Kurdziel, J. P., Roehrig, G. H., & Turner, J. (2004). Growing a garden
without water. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 211–233.
Lumina Foundation for Education (February, 2009). A Special Report: A stronger
nation through higher education – How and why Americans must meet a “big
goal” for college attainment. www.luminafoundation.org.
McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2002). The role of empathy in teaching culturally
diverse students: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(5), 433-443.
McDaniel, E.A & Colarulli, G.C. (1997). Collaborative Teaching in the Face of
Productivity Concerns: The Dispersed Team Model. Volume 22 (1), 19-36.
Margolis, J. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). "Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in
qualitative research." BMJ. 320(7226), 50-52.
203
Missing 87: A Study of the “Transfer Gap” and “Transfer Choice”. A Collaborative
Report by Long Beach City College and the Center for Urban Education. Funded
by William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. November, 2007.
Museus, S.D. & Quaye, S.J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and
ethnic minority college student persistence. Review of Higher Education, 33(1),
67-94.
Nasir, N.S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspective on race, culture,
and learning. Review of educational research, 76(4), 449-475.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts.com.
Retrieved June 8, 2010.
Noffke, S.E. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research.
Review of Educational Research, 22, 305-343.
Ogawa, R. Crain, R., Loomis, M. & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward conceptualizing
learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37(2),
83-95.
Ogbu, J.O. (1987). Minority School Performance: A Problem in Search of an
Explanation: Explaining the School Performance of Minority Students
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312-334.
Oldham, J. (2010). Community college students mired in basic skills classes. The
Hechinger Report. http://hechingerreport.org/content/community-college-
students-mired-in-basic-skills-classes_4397/
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.
Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy
Construct. Review of Educational Research, 62: 307-332.
Parcel, T.L., & Dufur, M.J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on child social
adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65 (2): 232-47.
Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P.T. (2004). First-
Generation College Students: Additional Evidence on College Experiences and
Outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75 (3): 249-284.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838816. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
204
Patton, MQ. (1999). "Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis." HSR:
Health Services Research. 34 (5) Part II. (pp. 1189-1208).
Patton, MQ. (2001). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd Edition).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Polkinghorne, D.E. (2004). Practice and human science: the case for a judgement based
practice of care. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2000). Psychological Inquiry and the Pragmatic and Hermeneutic
Traditions. Theory & Psychology 10(4): 453-479.
Promoting Organizational Learning in Higher Education to Achieve Equity in
Educational Outcomes.
www.aacu.org/inclusive_excellence/documents/Bauman_et_al.
Retrieved June 8, 2010.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
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.
Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2001). Handbook of action research: Participative
inquiry and practice. London: Sage Publications.
Rendón, L.I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a model of learning
and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51.
Rendón, L.I. (2002). Community college Puente: A validating model of education.
Educational Policy, 16(4), 642-67.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of community learners. Mind,
Culture & Society, 1, 209-220.
Romano, J. L., Hoesing, R., O’Donovan, K., & Weinsheimer, J. (2004). Faculty at mid-
career: A program to enhance teaching and learning. Innovative Higher
Education, 29(1), 21–48.
Roth, W.M., & Lee, Y.L. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical
activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
205
Rueda, R., & Marquez, A. (2007). Reconceptualizing institutional impact: A case study
from a successful institutional partner in a university-based intervention project
on equity. Presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education
(ASHE), 32nd Annual Conference, Louisville, KY, November 9, 2007.
Salazar-Romo, C. (2009). Dissertation: Remediating artifacts: Facilitating a culture of
inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and
access.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2010). A Social Capital Framework for the Study of Institutional
Agents & Their Role in the Empowerment of Low-status Students & Youth.
University of Southern California. http://cue.usc.edu/tools/publications.
Schein, E.H. (1985). How to uncover cultural assumptions in an organization. In
Organization Culture and Leadership (pp. 112-135). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schmidtlein, F & Berdahl. R. (2005). Autonomy and accountability: Who controls
academe? In Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O., & Gumport, P.J. (Ed). American
higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic
challenges. (pp. 71-90). Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Schön, D. A. (1988). “Coaching Reflective Teaching” in P. Grimmett & G. Erickson
(1988). Reflection in Teacher Education (pp. 19-29). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Perseus Books.
Schunk, D.H. (1991). Goal setting and self-evaluation: A social cognitive perspective on
self-regulation. In M.L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 85-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Scott, M., Bailey, T. & Kienzl, G. (2006). Relative success? Determinants of college
graduation rates in public and private colleges in the U.S. Research in Higher
Education , 47-3, 249-279.
Sengupta, R & Jepsen, C. (2006). California community college students. California
counts: population trends and profiles. Vol. 8:2.
Shulock, N. (September 3, 2004). No less than a cultural shift. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51(2), B6-N10.
206
Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (2005). Diminished access to the Baccalaureate for low income
and minority students in California: The impact of budget and capacity constraints
on the transfer function, Educational Policy, 19(2), 418-442.
Sirota, A. (2010). Closing Graduation Gaps in Higher Education.
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/
Standler, R.B. (2000). Academic Freedom in the USA. http://www.rbs2.com/afree.htm
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
The National Research Council - http://nationalacademies.org/
The Research & Planning Group for California Community Colleges
http://www.rpgroup.org/projects/BRIC.html
Tierney, W.G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: cultural integrity
versus cultural suicide. The Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 80-91
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H., (2005). Understanding and
sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain
Science. Cambridge University Press. 28, 675–735
Top 10 Higher Education State Policy Issues For 2011.
http://www.aascu.org/uploadedFiles/AASCU/Content/Root/PolicyAndAdvocacy/
PolicyPublications/PM-Top10for2011.pdf
Trueba, H.T. (1988). Culturally based explanations of minority students' academic
achievement. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3, 270-287.
Blackwell http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195834
http://www.congressweb.com/aascu/docfiles/PM-Top10for2011.docx.pdf
Tschetter, S. (2009). Dissertation: Developing Adaptive Expertise Among Community
College Faculty Through Action Inquiry as a Form of Assessment.
Villegas, A.M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers:
Rethinking the Curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education. http://jte.sagepub.com
Vygotsky, LS (1987) in R. Rieber (Ed) The Collected Work of LS Vygotsky, Volume 4,
The History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions, New York, Plenum
Press.
207
Weiss, K.R. & Nguyen, T. (2009). Almost half of cal state freshmen lack skills.
Retrieved September 26, 2009 from aarticles.latimes.com/1998/mar/27/news/mn-
34354.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Willis, Gordon B. (2005) Cognitive Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.
208
APPENDIX A
Introduction to the Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool™ (BESST)
The Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST) was designed to enable Evidence Teams
to easily view an entire cohort of students, as well as disaggregated racial-ethnic groups of students, to
identify equity gaps that occur as students progress through key curricular milestones. The BESST also
allows your team to manipulate the data and ask ‘what if…’ questions when benchmarking and setting
goals for equity. Here’s a quick introduction to what you’ll see in the BESST:
Starting Cohort: The
defined group of
students whose progress
and success is being
examined.
Milestones: Designated
points that mark a
college student’s
progress towards a
degree. Teams
determine which
milestones to examine
during the project.
Success Rates: The rate of success or persistence
as students progress from one milestone to the
next. On the All Students tab, this represents the
average success rate.
Successful: Students who progress from the previous
milestone. The accumulated number of successful
students is shown in the lower (blue) portion of the
“End” bar.
Not Successful: Students
who do not progress from
the previous milestone.
The accumulated loss of
students across all the
milestones is presented in
the top (red) portion of the
“End” bar.
Cohort Enrollment:
The number and
proportion of students of
those in the Starting
Cohort who successfully
complete all of the
milestones to reach a
valued academic End
point.
View Tabs: There are three View ‘tabs’ for viewing the
BESST: The Baseline tab, the Equity Goal tab, and the
Baseline vs. Equity Tab. Each provides a different look
into data and the institution’s state of equity.
Milestones (M1, M2, M3): Key points in a
student’s progress towards a valued outcome, such
as a certificate, transfer, or a degree. Milestone
definitions pop up when M1, M2, or M3 are
touched by the computer cursor.
209
Racial-Ethnic Group Tabs: All of the information contained in this tab, which
represents All Students, is presented in separate tabs (located across the top) for
each racial/ethnic group at your institution. This allows you to quickly identify
those milestones that pose the greatest challenge—and the most promising
opportunity for intervention—for each group of students on your campus. The
disaggregation of data also allows you to easily set specific, concrete equity
goals for sub-groups based on specific points of intervention and measurable
benchmarks.
210
BESST: Application, acceptance, and enrollment rates
for First-Year Students (all races/ethnicities), Fall 2010
(Excludes The Women’s College and University College)
Definition
Success
rate for
milestone
Percent of
original
cohort
Number of
students who
successfully
reach milestone
Starting Cohort
Students who submitted a complete application for
admission
-- 100% 9,337
Milestone 1 Students who were admitted 72% 71.6% 6,683
Milestone 2 Admitted students who enrolled in fall 2010 18% 13.0% 1,216
End
Cumulative success rate and number of successful
students
-- 13.0% 1,216
How to Read the BESST Baseline Tab:
211
Starting Cohort: A total of 9,337students submitted an application for admission in Fall
2010.
Milestone 1: Of the 9,337 students who submitted an application, 6,683 (72%) were
admitted.
Milestone 2: Of the 6,683 students who were admitted, 1,216 students actually
enrolled, which represents 13% of the original 9,337 students who submitted an
application, and 18% of the students who were admitted.
212
BESST: Application, acceptance, and enrollment rates
for First-Year African American Students Fall 2010
Downtown College and University College)
Definition
Success
rate for
milestone
Percent of
original
cohort
Number of
students who
successfully
reach
milestone
Starting Cohort
Students who submitted a complete application
for admission
-- 100% 260
Milestone 1 Students who were admitted 49% 49.2% 128
Milestone 2 Admitted students who enrolled in fall 2010 23% 11.2% 29
End
Cumulative success rate and number of
successful students
-- 11.2% 29
How to Read the BESST Baseline Tab:
213
Starting Cohort: A total of 260 African American students submitted an application for
admission in Fall 2010.
Milestone 1: Of the 260 students who submitted an application, 128 (49%) were
admitted.
Milestone 2: Of the 128 students who were admitted, 29 students actually enrolled,
which represents 11.2% of the original 260 students who submitted an application, and
23% of the students who were admitted.
USING THE BESST FOR INQUIRY
Your answers to the questions above will define the BESST “models” for your Evidence Team. Your
team’s discussion of the data in each BESST model helps to define the problems of equity on your campus,
as well as to highlight bright spots in institutional performance in supporting equal outcomes among racial-
ethnic groups. The table below illustrates the inquiry questions that can be answering using the BESST
data.
Sample Inquiry Questions for an Evidence Team’s Discussion of BESST Data
Sample Milestones Sample Inquiry Questions
Milestone 1: Completed
application
Milestone 2: Admitted
Milestone 3: Matriculated
Applications and admissions:
What are the patterns of success in students’ rates
of application, admission, and matriculation at our
institution?
What are the differences in these rates between
different racial/ethnic groups?
Milestone 1: Earned 30 credits in
1 yr
Milestone 2: Earned 60 credits in
2 yrs
Milestone 3: Earned 90 credits in
3 yrs
Milestone 4: Completed a degree
in 4 yrs
Credit accumulation and completion:
How many students achieve critical “momentum
points” in credit accumulation such that they
make timely progress towards on-time
completion, such as earning 30 credits within 1
year, 60 credits within two years, and complete
within four years?
What are the differences in rates of success
between different racial/ethnic groups?
Are there any points at which we seem to be
losing more students from one racial/ethnic
group than others?
214
APPENDIX B
DCC Syllabus Review Reflection Evaluation Questionnaire:
August 16
th
, 2011
CUE’s focus on culturally responsive pedagogy is relevant to my institution.
Not At All Somewhat Definitely
I expect CUE’s syllabus reflection protocol to help facilitate inquiry into how my
institution’s culture is communicated to students.
Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
A syllabus is an artifact of my institution’s attitudes towards students.
Not At All Somewhat Definitely
A syllabus is reflective of a supportive racial and ethnic equitable environment.
Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
CUE’s indicators of culturally responsive pedagogy are effective in assessing what is
being communicated to students about my institution’s classroom environments.
Not At All Somewhat Definitely
An institution’s commitment to racial/ethnic equity should be prioritized as…
215
Not a priority Low priority Moderate priority High Priority
I have a strong sense of agency surrounding equity issues on my campus.
Not at all Somewhat Definitely
At my institution, significant changes surrounding ethnic/racial equity are…
Unnecessary Somewhat Necessary Necessary Extremely Necessary
Incorporating an equity focus to my daily activities on campus is…
Useless Fairly Useless Fairly Useful Useful
My ability to impact significant changes surrounding equity at my institution is…
Highly Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Likely
I facilitate discussions about racial issues with my colleagues.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
https://survey.qualtrics.com/SE/?SIDSV_bIu97or37ZmALKA
216
APPENDIX C
Syllabus Review Reflection Cognitive Interview Protocol(DCC)
Instructions for Interviewer (Willis, 2005):
1. Review the questionnaire to make sure you can “get through it” and determine
probes to ask.
2. To start the interview, read the instructions to subject either verbatim or
paraphrased.
3. When you start, make sure to enter the start time.
4. Make sure the subject isn’t reading the questionnaire as you administer it (i.e.,
make sure he or she is only listening to you).
5. If you do not complete your protocol in the allotted time, mark where you ended.
If something is difficult to administer or you can’t figure out exactly how to read
a question, make a comment to the effect that it is a problem, and ask it the best
you can.
6. Use the suggested probes that are written in and other probes you can think of.
Don’t feel you need to probe every question extensively.
7. Enter comments, under each question, about problems or issues that come up. Try
to make them readable because they will be used as data.
8. When you are done. Enter the end time.
9. Look back over the questionnaire and add other comments as appropriate.
10. Save each commented protocol so that later you can pool these into one version
that covers all the interviews you conduct.
217
Instructions to be Read to the Participant (Willis, 2005):
“Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. Let me tell you a little more
about what we will be doing today.”
1. We’re evaluating the survey items you completed regarding CUE’s Syllabus
Project.
2. I’ll ask you questions and you answer them, just like a normal survey.
3. However, my goal here is to get a better idea of how the questions are
working. Therefore, I would like you to think aloud as you answer the
questions, in other words tell me everything you are thinking about as you go
about answering them.
4. At times I’ll stop and ask you more questions about the terms or phrases in the
questions and what you think a question is asking about. I will also be taking
notes.
5. Please keep in mind that I want to hear all of your opinions and reactions. Do
not hesitate to speak up whenever something seems unclear, is hard to answer,
or doesn’t seem to apply to you.
6. Finally, we will do this for 30 to 40 minutes, unless I run out of thing to ask
you before then.
7. Do you have any questions before we begin?
Cognitive Interview Protocol
Date: Interview # : Interviewer initials:
Start Time of Interview:
“For each following statement, you were asked to circle the response that best
reflects your opinion and experiences. Please try and ‘think aloud” this time, as you
answer each question.”
218
1. CUE’s focus on culturally responsive pedagogy is relevant to my institution.
Not At All Somewhat Definitely
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “culturally responsive pedagogy,” in this item?
What do you think is meant by the term “relevant to your institution,” in this item?
Additional notes:
2. I expect CUE’s syllabus reflection protocol to help facilitate inquiry into how my
institution’s culture is communicated to students.
Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
219
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by “facilitate inquiry”?
What do you think is meant by the term “your institution’s culture” in this item?
Additional notes:
3. A syllabus is an artifact of my institution’s attitudes towards students.
Not At All Somewhat Definitely
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “institution’s attitude” in this item?
220
Additional notes:
4. A syllabus is reflective of a supportive racial and ethnic equitable environment.
Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “equitable environment” in this item?
Additional notes:
5. CUE’s indicators of culturally responsive pedagogy are effective in assessing what is
being communicated to students about my institution’s classroom environments.
Not At All Somewhat Definitely
221
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
At your institution, specifically?
Additional notes:
6. An institution’s commitment to racial/ethnic equity should be prioritized as…
Not a priority Low priority Moderate priority High Priority
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term an “institution’s commitment” in this item?
222
What do you think is meant by a “High Priority”?
Additional notes:
7. I have a strong sense of agency surrounding equity issues on my campus.
Not at all Somewhat Definitely
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “sense of agency” in this item?
What do you think is meant by “equity issues” specific to your campus?
223
Additional notes:
8. At my institution, significant changes surrounding ethnic/racial equity are…
Unnecessary Somewhat Necessary Necessary Extremely
Necessary
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “significant changes” in this item?
What do you think is meant by “necessary”?
224
Additional notes:
9. Incorporating an equity focus to my daily activities on campus is…
Useless Fairly Useless Fairly Useful Useful
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “equity focus to my daily activities” in this item?
What do you think is meant by the term “Useful”?
225
Additional notes:
10. My ability to impact significant changes surrounding equity at my institution is…
Highly Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat Unlikely Likely
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term your “ability,” in this item?
What do you think is meant by “likely”?
Additional notes:
226
11. I facilitate discussions about racial issues with my colleagues.
Never Rarely Sometimes Often
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term your “facilitate discussions,” in this item?
What do you think is meant by “racial issues”?
Additional notes:
227
APPENDIX D
Syllabus Review Reflection Protocol
Purpose: The syllabus reflection protocol facilitates inquiry based on one of the
most important documents students receive as they begin a course. A syllabus
generally communicates the information we would expect: course content,
requirements, grading and attendance policies, etc. As artifacts of the classroom,
syllabi also reflect attitudes towards students, teaching styles, and the learning
environment of a course.
Faculty members are asked to reflect on the extent to which course syllabi
incorporate a culturally responsive pedagogy by using the indicators on the
following pages as prompts. This process, combined with supportive dialog in a
community of practice committed to racial and ethnic equity in student success,
generates changes in the syllabus itself, in approaches to teaching, and college-
wide practices for faculty development in curriculum and pedagogy.
Structure: This protocol is composed of two parts.
Part I prompts review of the syllabus using indicators of culturally
responsive pedagogy and areas for jotting notes about potential revisions
to the syllabus.
Part II provides reflection questions for discussion in a group setting with
peers.
Process
228
1. Review a sample syllabus provided to assist you in gaining familiarity
with the indicators on the syllabus review protocol. Circle text that jumps
out at you and label it as “data” for discussion of each section of the
protocol (e.g. II.1 for “communication of high expectations”). The purpose
of this is to treat the syllabus as a source of evidence for document
analysis, suspending judgments about the instructor’s intent, teaching
style, personality, and values. Keep in mind that instructors use other
forms of communication to let students know about course content,
expectations, assessment, activities, etc. It is important to focus on specific
ways the syllabus reveals cultural assumptions and common educational
practices rather than to critique individual faculty members.
2. Discuss what you observe about the sample syllabus with a professional
peer group, answering the question, “What does this syllabus
communicate about the culture of the course and classroom?”
3. Now turn to your own syllabus, working quietly on your own. Use the
sections of the protocol to guide your attention to different aspects of your
syllabus. Highlight text as data as in step 1. Again, keep in mind that the
purpose is not to blame or critique oneself or others, but to foster
professional development for culturally responsive pedagogy.
4. Pair up. With your partner take turns listening to what each of you has
discovered about your own syllabus.
5. Through discussion with your partner, identify two to three changes you
would like to make on your syllabus to support racial and ethnic equity in
student success.
6. Plan to share what you have learned and what steps you will take as a
result of this inquiry process with faculty colleagues.
Course Title and Number:
Number of times you have taught this course?
Next time you will teach this course?
Part I: Indicators of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
229
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
1. Respect for students
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
230
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
2. Desire to help students
succeed
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
3. Information students need to
successfully act on the
Yes / No/Somewhat
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
231
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
information in the syllabus. If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
If No, Why not?
steps:
If No, Why
not?
4. Validation of racial diversity
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
232
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
If No, Why not?
If No, Why
not?
5. Validation of diversity in
terms of ethnicity (shared
ancestry, language, national
heritage, religious beliefs,
community norms)
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
233
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
6. Validation of other forms of
diversity,
such as:
Gender
Socio-economic status
Sexual orientation
Immigration status
Age
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
234
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
If No, Why not?
If No, Why
not?
7. Validation of the value of
differences in prior educational
experiences
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
8. Validation of the value of
differences in prior life
Yes / No/Somewhat Yes / No Yes / No
235
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
experiences
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
9. Expectation that student
success will be a collaborative
effort among the student, peers,
faculty, administrators,
counselors, students’ families
and communities
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
236
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
10. Belief that all students are
capable of obtaining high
educational goals.
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
237
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
revised to communicate this?
If No, Why not?
If No, Why
not?
11. Expectation that students
will be empowered as agents of
social and community well
being through their education
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
238
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
12. Expectation that the
educational community will
engage in respectful discussion
of the history and
contemporary experiences of
discrimination, racism, and
marginalization
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
13. Recognition that aspects of
the educational experience are
239
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
challenging, but attainable
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
14. Expectation that learning
takes place in authentic
application and engagement
with real-world problems
Yes / No/Somewhat
Yes / No
Yes / No
240
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
15. Expectation that education
starts from students’
experiences and builds upon
those experiences to expand
student learning
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
241
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
16. Course point/grade
distribution given to various
types of activities (e.g. papers,
tests, projects, homework, etc.)
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
242
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
17. Communication that
students will acquire some
combination of knowledge,
experiences, and skills that can
be used in future courses or
professional development
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
Yes / No/Somewhat
Yes / No
Yes / No
243
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
18. Acknowledgement of
varied learning and teaching
styles (e.g. seminar style, power
points, lectures, student
presentations, etc.) to address
various learning styles
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
19. Accountability on the part
of the instructor and the
student (both have
responsibilities to take on in
order for the course and
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
244
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
student outcomes to be
successful)
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
If No, Why not?
If No, Why
not?
20. Connection between
subject areas (course relates to
other subjects and ties in these
aspects)
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
245
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the syllabi
in your sample could be
characterized as
comm un i ca ti ng …
Based on your review of
your syllabi, would you say
that the syllabi can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be
willing to make
changes to the
syllabi materials you
reviewed?
Would you be
able to make
changes to
the syllabi
materials you
reviewed?
revised to communicate this?
21. Diverse readings (in type of
author, perspectives, sources,
years published, etc.)
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible
steps:
If No, Why
not?
246
Part II: REFLECTION QUESTIONS:
1. Based on the impressions you gathered from reviewing your syllabus, what do
you believe it communicates to students about what you care about most?
2. If you were a student faced with these syllabi on the first day of class, how would
you feel about the instructor and the course?
3. Think again about how you would respond to the previous question, but this
time as if you were a student from an underrepresented racial-ethnic group that
has experienced discrimination in higher education. Would any of your
thoughts/ feelings change?
4. Do you consider a diverse group of students when compiling your syllabus? If
so, how? If not, why not?
5. What support would you need from your colleagues or from your college to
implement the changes in your syllabus that you identified as desirable in the
worksheet above? What changes can you make on your own?
247
APPENDIX E
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)
248
Behavioral Intentions
(expressed next steps, plans,
norms)
Environmental
Constraints
(expressed concerns or
hopes, perceived limitations
of self, team or resources)
Reflection/Analysis
249
APPENDIX F
Syllabus Content and Organizational Checklist
The checklist below provides a content and organizational guide as you revise and organize
your syllabus. This tool is intended as a supplement for use with CUE’s Syllabus
Reflection Protocol.
Yes No SYLLABUS COMPONENT
List of assignments/projects and due dates
List of books, readings, and/or other required materials
Ways to contact the professor
Grading scale/information (e.g. all the ways that student grades are determined (tests,
papers, attendance, participation, outside projects, etc.)
Is the font clear and easy to read?
Are certain items presented in BOLD or italics for emphasis?
Are assignments/important dates presented in a calendar or offset from the other material
presented in the syllabus?
Class Title
Semester/Quarter and Year
College name
Department name
Course units
250
Yes No SYLLABUS COMPONENT
Location of class
Hours of the class
Course description
Prerequisites
Course Objectives/Outcomes
Assignments
Methods of Evaluation
Absence Policy
Late/Missing Assignment Policies
Course materials are labeled required or optional
Last date to withdraw or drop the course is included
Instructor Contact Information
Teaching Assistant Contact Information (if Applicable)
Information regarding incompletes
Academic Accommodations (e.g. disability services)
251
Instructor’s Policies
Syllabus Content and Organizational Checklist
1. Are there any unique physical qualities of the document? If yes, please describe
(e.g. images, interesting fonts used, quotations, etc.)
2. What is the purpose of this syllabus?
252
APPENDIX G
Dear Colleague Letter
(Recruitment Text and Ethical Commitments for Interactions with Human Subjects)
Dear Colleague,
The Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California is currently
conducting a developmental evaluation study. The study has two main goals. First to develop our
evaluation capacity by improving the validity of the inferences we draw from our workshop
evaluation forms and other evaluative processes and, second, to improve our effectiveness in
conducting action research for the purposes of improving equity in higher education. Therefore, we
are interested in gaining a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of workshop participants
and Equity Scorecard evidence team members who engage with us in action research projects.
As a participant in a CUE workshop or evidence team, you may be asked to take part in an interview
or a focus group conducted by a doctoral student who is part of the CUE Evaluation Study research
team. The doctoral students will also collect observational data at workshops and team meetings.
You can decline to participate in an interview or a focus group, or request to be omitted from the data
collected during workshop and team observations.
That said, I am hopeful you are willing to support and contribute to CUE’s developmental evaluation
study and our goal of better understanding you and your colleague’s reactions, experiences,
reflections, and action steps and the extent to which these were facilitated through our action
research processes and tools.
In conducting this study, we make the following commitments:
• To respect your professionalism and privacy by conducting the study in a confidential and ethical
manner.
• To use your time wisely and well, and to minimize the “response burden” on any one individual.
• To report findings anonymously to external audiences, for example in dissertations or evaluation
reports.
• To share findings with you and your colleagues in ways informative to your learning process. We
will not report findings in ways that would reveal the experience of any one individual (for
example based on his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or position). Instead, we will draw on findings
from multiple participants on your campus or aggregated across different field sites to
communicate themes or issues that are pertinent in your setting.
Should you have any questions or concerns, or should any arise as we conduct this study, please
contact me by phone or email: 213.740.5202, alicia.dowd@usc.edu.
Thank you for your consideration!
Yours sincerely,
253
Alicia C. Dowd
Associate Professor
Co-Director
Center for Urban Education
University of Southern California • Rossier School of Education • Waite Phillips Hall, Suite 702
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4037 • T 213.740.5202 • F 213.740.3889 • http://cue.usc.edu
254
CUE’s Developmental-Evaluation Study—At a Glance
Q. If I participate in this study, what would I be asked to do?
A. You would be asked to do one or more of the following:
• Complete an evaluation form at the conclusion of a workshop or evidence team meeting in
which you were a participant (approximately 15 minutes)
• Participate in one or more individual telephone or in-person interviews following a
workshop or team meeting (approximately 40 minutes each)
• Participate in a focus group (approximately 1.0 to 1.5 hours long)
• Provide non-confidential materials from your work to illustrate professional practices on
your campus (e.g. a syllabus, an application form, an assessment form, a campus report)
and changes that take place over the course of the study.
Q. What if I participate in one of the activities indicated above, but don’t want to participate in the
others.
A. That is fine. You may decline to participate at any time.
Q. What methodology are you using?
A. Our study is best characterized as developmental evaluation
1
, a methodology that is appropriate
when the organization conducting the study operates in a complex, dynamic environment and is
interested in developing innovative and responsive processes that will function well in those
environments.
Developmental evaluators use a variety of methods, data, and analysis techniques. We will triangulate
data from evaluation forms, observations, interviews, focus groups and documents. The interviews
will take a particular form called “cognitive interviewing.” These are “think aloud” interviews where
you explain how you interpreted and answered the questions on the evaluation form. This will enable
us to improve the quality of the data we collect from this simple and quick evaluation tool.
Q. Who else is involved in this study?
Currently, faculty, administrators, and counselors at twelve community colleges, two state
universities, and two liberal arts colleges (all in California) are being invited to participate. We
anticipate having 10 to 30 participants per site at 10 of these sites, with the number depending on the
total number of participants in CUE workshops or evidence teams. It is not necessary for everyone
who has participated in a workshop or team meeting at a particular campus to participate in the
evaluation study.
1
See Patton, M. Q. (2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use.
New York: Guilford Press.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study investigates whether practitioners’ involvement in an action inquiry project promotes changes in their beliefs, assumptions, and values. The study involved the use of CUE’s action research tools at an urban community college to study the beliefs, assumptions and values that practitioners bring to their institution which may affect or facilitate organizational change. The tool that was involved in the action inquiry process was the Syllabus Review Protocol. The inquiry project represented an experiential self-assessment using the Protocol that encompassed a sample syllabus and a list of indicators reflecting culturally responsive pedagogy. Using these culturally responsive indicators, practitioners compared their syllabi to a sample syllabus and the list of indicators to analyze what is communicated about the institution’s culture through their syllabi. ❧ The ultimate goal of the study was to provide practitioners the opportunity to become aware that the beliefs, assumptions and values related to race and ethnicity that they bring to the classrooms may affect the way they view their students and their students’ ability to succeed. The study revealed that when practitioners were involved in the inquiry process using the Protocol, their interaction in an activity setting promoted reflection and exchange of knowledge and co-construction of new knowledge. These kinds of social interaction within an inquiry process led to changes in their beliefs and behavior. This study contributes to the body of knowledge about practices that other community colleges and universities could use to investigate their institution’s culture as they work to develop equity minded plans for improving student outcomes.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
PDF
Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions
PDF
Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices
PDF
Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research
PDF
Equity for students of color through practitioner accountability
PDF
Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access
PDF
Developing adaptive expertise among community college faculty through action inquiry as a form of assessment
PDF
How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors
PDF
Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's equity scorecard tools on practioner beliefs and practices
PDF
Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university
PDF
A multi-perspective examination of developmental education: student progression, institutional assessment and placement policies, and statewide regulations
PDF
Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges
PDF
Navigating a way out of program improvement: a case study analysis
PDF
Reframing the role of transfer facilitators: using action research methods for new knowledge development
PDF
Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Subramaniam, Thamizhchelvi
(author)
Core Title
A developmental evaluation of action research as a process for organizational change
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/25/2012
Defense Date
03/19/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
developmental evaluation,equity,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Dowd, Alicia C. (
committee chair
), Jaffe, Barbara (
committee member
), Rousseau, Sylvia G. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
csubramaniam@elcamino.edu,thamizhs@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-66727
Unique identifier
UC11289959
Identifier
usctheses-c3-66727 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Subramania-1004.pdf
Dmrecord
66727
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Subramaniam, Thamizhchelvi
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
developmental evaluation
equity