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
/
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
(USC Thesis Other)
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING ON INQUIRY GROUP
PARTICIPANTS IN PROMOTING EQUITY AT A COMMUNITY COLLEGE
by
Martha Enciso
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Martha Enciso
ii
Acknowledgements
I would first like to thank my parents Raul and Guille and my sisters Kari and
Megan for their endless support throughout my pursuit of a doctorate degree. My parents’
love of education definitely inspired me to continue my education. I would also like to
acknowledge my friends and my coworkers who have encouraged me along the way.
Thank you for your patience and understanding.
I also thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Alicia Dowd, Dr.
Estela Bensimon, and Dr. Patricia Tobey for their support and guidance. Thank you Dr.
Linda Fischer for helping me with my writing as well. Finally I would like to thank the
members of my dissertation thematic group and cohort, especially Cristina Salazar-
Romo, Seema Gaur, Roberto Gonzalez, and Frank Gomez.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 13
Assessment as a Tool for Learning 14
Purpose of the Study 17
Research Question 18
Importance of the Study 19
Organization of the Dissertation 19
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework 21
Creation of the Action Inquiry Project 22
Overview of Organizational Learning 25
Elements of Organizational Learning 27
Observing Behavior 32
Awareness, Interpretation, and Action 33
Examining Language Use 46
Summary 48
Chapter 3: Methods 51
Chapter Overview 51
Research Traditions 52
Research Focus 53
Research Issues 53
Birch College 54
Participants 55
Methods 57
Observations 60
Document Analysis 62
Interviews 63
Ethical Concerns 65
Analysis of Data 65
Trustworthiness 67
Presentation of Results 68
Findings to Highlight 68
iv
Limitations 69
Implications and Conclusions 71
Usefulness of Findings 72
Chapter 4: Results 73
Inquiry Group Activities 75
Team Members 83
Lucy 83
Haley 83
Michael 84
Awareness 86
Interpretation 92
Action 97
Language 104
Findings 109
Moving from Deficit Minded to Equity-Minded Thinking 109
Feeling Uncomfortable 114
Chapter 5: Discussion 117
Significant Key Findings 120
Creating Opportunities for Dialogue about Equity 121
Uneasiness using Language about Equity 123
Obtaining Academic and Administrative Support 125
Implications 126
Recommendations 128
Conclusion 131
References 133
Appendix: Interview Guide 138
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Participants in an Inquiry Group Project-Team Members at Birch College 56
Table 2: Birch College Schedule-Action Inquiry Project 59
Table 3: Evolution of Comments on Equity or Issues of Equity 85
Table 4: Awareness of the Problem 91
Table 5: Interpretation of the Problem 97
Table 6: Further Action Inquiry Suggested to Address the Problem 103
Table 7: Reactions to Language in Project Reports 108
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Development of Themes 74
Figure 2: Development of Teaching Communities 120
vii
Abstract
This study examines the experiences of three participants involved in an inquiry
group project at an urban community college in Southern California. The participants
explored equity and issues of equity at their campus by focusing on the transfer rates of
Latino and African American students who began in basic skills courses. The purpose of
the study is to observe how individuals learn and understand equity and issues of equity
as a result of their participation in the action inquiry project. Over the course of eleven
months, the participants were observed throughout the inquiry group meetings and were
interviewed in order to see if they were able to apply what they learned about equity on
campus related to underrepresented students in their work. The learning was observed
through the conceptual framework of organizational learning. Learning in this study was
observed through changes in behavior as well as language.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background of the Problem
Community colleges provide open access to all interested in pursuing higher
education. Students enter the institution with various goals ranging from vocational
training to transferring to a four-year institution. Community colleges are “open-door
institutions, the clearest examples of inclusiveness and equity in a system that is
otherwise devoted to competitive entry, exclusiveness, and elitism” (Grubb & Badway,
2005, p. 2). However, the manner in which equity is viewed by Grubb and Badway
(2005) in terms of allowing equal access to the institution is not the only way to examine
equity at the community college. Equity, in this study, is defined as “focusing on
numerical parity across a range of key indicators (such as institutional graduation rates,
degree attainment in a variety of majors, and honors and awards)” (Bensimon, 2005b,
p.5). Inequities existing at an institution can inhibit the success of students in terms of
realizing their goals. Student success is monitored by community colleges but the rates
are not examined by race/ethnicity. By not disaggregating the progress of students by
race/ethnicity, the institution may be perpetuating inequities and preventing
underrepresented students from succeeding at the institution. The transfer process is one
area where inequities occur in terms of the number of underrepresented students who
transfer.
The transfer process involves having students enroll and complete courses that
meet minimum transfer requirements either according to the articulation agreements
between the community college and the university or to state laws governing the transfer
2
of credits (Horn & Lew, 2007, p. 1). In addition, students complete the admissions
application for their desired university as well as submit transcripts and letters of
recommendation. The process is often long and complicated. When focusing on
underrepresented students, students and their families are often cited as the problem
contributing to low transfer rates for minority students, rather than institutions
themselves, which have an institutional responsibility to assist students towards transfer.
The manner in which individuals at an institution view equity and the importance of
creating equitable educational outcomes for underrepresented students may influence the
manner in which students are treated and assisted in the transfer process. Examining
equity within the transfer process, particularly when focusing on Latino and African
American students, requires going beyond focusing on student and family responsibility
and instead analyzing how individuals working at the community college learn about
equity and issues of equity.
Community colleges often attract a large number students, particularly in
California where almost “73% of public undergraduates attend a community college; in
contrast, 18% attend an institution from the California State System (CSU) and 9% an
institution from the University of California system (UC)” (Melguizo, Hagedorn, &
Cypers, 2008, p. 401). In a study of nine community colleges in the Los Angeles district,
Melguizo, Hagedorn, and Cypers (2008) reveal that about 60% of the students who
transferred were Latino or African American. Although more than half of the students
transferring are underrepresented students, Latino and African American students “arrive
at the community college with high remediation needs that force them into a long and
3
costly path that only a small minority succeed in navigating” (Melguizo, Hagedorn, &
Cypers, 2008). Therefore, greater attention into the inequities within the basic skills
courses is an area community colleges might address in order to promote the success of
such students.
While the community college often attracts a larger number of minority students,
many of these students require remedial education. Bensimon (2005b) asserts that there is
“a major disparity between the total number of minority students who transfer from the
community college to each type of four year institution” (p. 7). For example, in 2000 the
enrollment at an urban community college in Los Angeles was as follows: White 35%,
Latino 41%, Asian 13%, and African American 7%, (Bensimon, 2005b). Latinos have a
larger share of students enrolled but their share of transfer students to either state colleges
(37%) or elite research universities (23%) is less than half. Only ten percent of African
American transferred to state colleges and even fewer (5%) went to elite research
universities. Nearly half (48%) of all White students transferred to elite research
universities while the percentage of students transferring to a state college was slightly
higher than Latinos (38%). A greater percentage of Latinos (14% difference) and African
Americans (5% difference) are transferring to state colleges rather than elite institutions
while the reverse is true for other racial/ethnic groups. Based on the aforementioned
statistics, there is a gap between the number of Latino and African American students
that transfer to elite institutions compared to other ethnic groups. The gap is of interest
since the largest ethnic group at the urban community college is Latinos. A greater
proportion of White and Asian are transferring to elite institutions with an increase of
4
10% and 6%. However, Latinos are still transferring to both state colleges in California
and elite institutions in lower numbers than other ethnic groups. Additional insight into
what elements are contributing to the low success rate and gap in outcomes in minority
students transferring to four-year institutions is needed. Therefore, an issue of
institutional performance such as the low number of Latino and African American
students transferring to colleges and universities is a concern community colleges are
encountering as greater numbers of students continue to enroll at two-year institutions.
Accountability within the community college has focused on performance
indicators such as transfer rates and the transfer process. There has been great pressure
for community colleges to examine the current transfer systems that limit students’ ability
to transfer from the community college to a four-year institution (“A test of leadership,”
2006). The Spellings Report (2006) emphasizes that transfer credit policies tend to
present conflicting information causing students to waste time, money, and enroll in
unnecessary classes. Accrediting agencies and policy makers are attempting to hold
individuals working at the community college accountable for spending and student
success as measured by examining student learning while students and their families
continue to evaluate the quality of their educational investment (“A test of leadership,”
2006).
Individuals working at the community college can evaluate the role of
institutional responsibility to improve inequities within the transfer process. Upon
entering the community college, students take entrance exams and prerequisites in order
to obtain placement into a particular course, this placement process perpetuates inequities
5
at the institution from the onset (Moore, Shulock, Ceja, & Lang, 2007; Brown & Niemi,
2007). Not all community colleges have the same entrance exams; therefore, trying to
link high school coursework to community college testing requirements presents a
challenge. Although entrance exams provide students and academic counselors with
information regarding the courses in which students are best fit to enroll, students are not
guaranteed a spot in the course. As a result, some students remain at the community
college for a longer time than intended since not enough spots or courses are available for
students who need the course to advance in the transfer process. In addition, the validity
of the placement tests have been questioned, which means students may be placed in
lower level classes, and required to take more classes, than is appropriate.
Beyond the exams and prerequisites, additional inequities arise once the student is
ready to transfer. Obtaining admission to the university presents another challenge since
the requirements differ depending on the type of institution, from public to private, as
well as on the state university system such as the University of California or California
State University. The transfer pathway presents an additional challenge for students who
are unsure of transferring to a university. Students labeled as transfer ready based on their
enrollment of a minimum of 60 transferable units and earning a 2.0 grade point average
are not all necessarily transferring to a university. Since the courses required for transfer
are not the same requirements needed to obtain an associates degree, students who decide
not to transfer after attending the community college can even exit the institution without
receiving a degree reflecting their time spent at the college (Moore et.al, 2007).
6
Providing clarity within the transfer process may assist individuals working at the
college in eliminating inequities at the institution regarding transfer. By focusing on
institutional inequities, individuals working at the college can aid students’ future beyond
the transfer process. Students who transfer to universities and colleges benefit by having
access to graduate and professional schools and possibly by obtaining leadership
positions in community organizations (Melguizo & Dowd, 2007). Obtaining a bachelors
degree ultimately benefits a student in “higher earnings and greater social mobility, and
society more generally may benefit from a cadre of highly educated professionals with
experience of and commitments to disadvantaged populations living in poor
communities” (Melguizo & Dowd, 2007, p. 30). Therefore, inequities in the transfer
process at the institution impact a student beyond degree attainment as well as society as
a whole. A number of structural solutions have been proposed in order to address current
inequities at the institution regarding transfer, some institutions are focusing on
institutional assessment as a means of being institutionally responsible.
A suggestion for addressing inequities in completion rates is for the state to create
a ‘transfer associate degree’ that clearly illustrates a pathway for students who want to
transfer to a university in the University of California or California State University
system. Another method for community colleges to assist students in the pathway
towards the university is to make the transfer path and process simpler in addition to
requiring students who are pursuing a degree to enroll in a major by a given time
(Shulock, Moore et.al, 2008). Currently community colleges do not monitor the progress
and success of students by race/ethnicity (Shulock, Moore et.al, 2008; Dowd 2007). But
7
all of these strategies to improve transfer access and equity will require community
college practitioners in the role of counselors, administrators, and faculty to communicate
these structures and opportunities to students, as well as to raise degree aspirations.
Institutional assessment is defined as “an institutionally-designed mechanism of
accountability that aims to improve learning and teaching in a higher education
institution” (Dowd & Tong, 2007, p. 73). Assessment in higher education has
traditionally focused on improving instruction and evaluating programs; however
institutions are now using assessment as an accountability device (Ewell, 1987). As a
result, higher education utilizes assessment as a tool for addressing accountability and
accreditation demands, which will be discussed in a later section.
The current focus on student success is color-blind. Color-blind assessment does
not explore student success amongst various minority groups; it is not color-conscious.
For example, data are not disaggregated. Being color conscious involves individuals
“noticing and questioning patterns of educational outcomes that reveal unexplainable
differences for minority students” (“Characteristics,” 2008). Solely examining student
success without disaggregating data by race and ethnicity could not possibly uncover
existing inequities. Due to color-blind assessment practices, inequities within the transfer
pathway revealing the low number of Latinos and African Americans transferring to
universities remain largely hidden. The Institute for Higher Education Leadership and
Policy in Sacramento and others report transfer rates disaggregated by race and ethnicity
to clarify focus on transfer and or transition to completion. The completion rate for all
degree seeking students at California Community Colleges is 24% with the racial
8
breakdown as follows: Asian 33%, White 27%, Latino 18%, and Black 15% (Shulock,
Moore, Offenstein, & Kirlin, 2008). The completion rate of Latinos and Blacks, which is
similar in percentage, is dramatically different from the rates of Asians and Whites. The
percentage gap in terms of equity amongst racial/ethnic groups of students who are
pursuing a degree is an issue for individuals working at California Community Colleges.
To the extent equity has been assessed, the focus has centered on students without
fully considering institutional responsibility. As previously mentioned, poor transfer rates
for minority students, particularly Latino and African American students, continue to
occur at community colleges. Latino and African American students have “lower rates of
college completion…compared to White and Asian students” (Moore, Shulock, Ceja, &
Lang, 2007, p. 10). Students and family responsibility are often the focus when assessing
inequities at the institution. According to Moore, Shulock, Ceja, and Lang (2007),
Latinos in particular have additional barriers due to cultural values of staying close to
home and adapting to a new academic culture for first generation students. However, this
view can be countered by studies summarized by Bennet (2001) that “suggest that there is
differential treatment and lower teacher expectations of racial and language minority
students, compared with teacher behavior toward their nonminority peers” (p. 206). The
tension between the views of institutional responsibility and student responsibility are
revealing issues of equity in community colleges and all of higher education. By
examining the way individuals at the institution learn about equity and issues of equity on
campus through behavior and language, higher education institutions can begin to explore
aspects of institutions which are contributing to existing inequities.
9
A problem contributing to inequities of transfer access as mentioned by Dowd and
Tong (2007) are “institutional barriers to student attainment [that] are conceptualized as
stemming from socially constructed beliefs, held consciously or unconsciously by faculty
administrators, about lack of student ability, motivation or aspiration, particularly among
African American and Latino students” (p. 88). By assessing inequities in terms of race
and ethnicity, community college administrators can observe what elements are
contributing to the perpetuation of such inequities. If administrators at the institution do
have the aforementioned beliefs about minority students on their campus, it is quite
difficult to have students transfer at higher rates to a four-year college or university when
the overall belief at an institution is one of negativity and refusal to change preconceived
notions of such racial and ethnic groups. In order for assessment methods to function at
an institution to promote equity, analysis into the perceptions or beliefs held by
community college personnel is needed. Such inquiry may result in uncovering negative
beliefs about racial-ethnic groups held by community college practitioners; therefore the
organizational learning process through which inquiry is to take place must be carefully
designed.
Another problem of color-blindness is the lack of data especially about
underserved students. For example, Latinas and Latinos are overrepresented among those
categorized as basic skills students. Part of the problem concerning the low transfer
access rates of basic skills students is the data practices in terms of reporting as well as
how colleges perceive such students. The definition of remedial education or basic
courses varies depending on the institution thus contributing to the problem of
10
inconsistent standards across community colleges (Merisotis and Phipps, 2000; Brown &
Niemi, 2007). Inequities exist in the reporting of such students; institutions are hesitant to
report accurate numbers of students in remedial courses due to a stigma attached to basic
skills courses (Kirst, 2007). Merisotis and Phipps (2000) state “it is likely that at least
78% of higher education institutions enroll underprepared students and that, in all
probability, more than 30% of the students require remediation” (p. 71). Having
individuals working at the college implement equity-minded practices addressing equity
issues in basic skills will place greater responsibility on the institution to address such
issues. By changing the attitudes of individuals working at the college, especially those
who work directly with basic skill students, the institution can begin to address
accountability demands related to student success. The process of learning about the
inequities concerning basic skill students interested in transferring to a university could
possibly make the institution more responsible in uncovering issues of equity on campus.
Pressure for accountability regarding student success often hides issues of equity
in the manner data are collected and analyzed. Community colleges are particularly
concerned with external accountability. External accountability is defined as the
“regulations and incentives from outside institutions that try to hold the institution (or
parts of the institution, like individual departments) responsible for various dimensions of
quality” (Grubb & Badway, 2005, p. 2). For all these reasons, inequities in the transfer
process as well as in placements in remedial education based on the racial/ethnic
characteristics of students will require focused attention for individuals working at
community colleges to address them effectively. Institutional responsibility regarding
11
equity at the community college in terms of accountability in student success remains an
issue even as institutions are trying to meet the demands of all their stakeholders such as
accreditation agencies, students, families, and policymakers. Accreditation agencies are
concerned with colleges meeting institutional learning outcomes based on the
institution’s mission and goals of the college as well as providing programs that meet
student’s needs. Students and their families are concerned with the type of education that
is available considering the high cost of education. Policymakers are concerned with how
the resources distributed to institutions are being allocated. Simply addressing the
accountability demands for student success is a challenge for individuals working at the
community college who manage the growing number of students attending two-year
institutions.
One means for facilitating that attention, and thereby more equitable outcomes is
by creating an environment where organizational learning can occur. Organizational
learning in this study will focus on how the institution creates a culture of inquiry,
particularly in creating equity-minded practices. The idea of inquiry “refers to the use of
research, assessment, and evaluation strategies for the purpose of self-assessment and
reflective practice” (Dowd, 2007). People who are equity-minded are more mindful of
institutional practices, racism, and power imbalances that affect the available outcomes
and opportunities for Black and Latina/o students (Bensimon, 2007). Creating a culture of
inquiry and change results from questioning relationships between teaching, learning, and
student success (“Creating a Culture,” 2005). The cycle of inquiry is a process that is part
of assessment practices at institutions with a culture of inquiry. Throughout the cycle of
12
inquiry, a program is reviewed in which participants discuss philosophical questions that
may uncover how the goals of the program under examination are connected to the
overall mission of the college (“Creating a Culture,” 2005). Greater detail regarding the
culture of inquiry as utilized in this study is discussed in Chapter 3. The way in which
individuals at an institution develop a culture of inquiry given the setting and current
beliefs at the institution may also illustrate new approaches in which learning occurs.
The creation of a team of faculty and administrators as part of an inquiry project
provides an environment in which individuals can exchange ideas about current
inequities at the institution. Individuals in an organization can always learn on their own,
but creating a learning organization provides a setting that encourages a culture,
community, and process of individual learning that improves the organization (Kezar,
2005). Teams can vary in terms of their effectiveness and institutional leadership
capacity. The creation of a team can serve as a means of addressing challenging topics or
situations by having a group that is composed of diverse individuals in terms of
experience and viewpoint (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). The inquiry project team
serves as a type of professional community where individuals involved in the project can
openly discuss equity and issues of equity and they offer an opportunity to observe
learning (Kruse, 2001). Such teams serve a cognitive development function in that
together team members can view problems from various perspectives, question,
challenge, and argue, and serve as a system that monitors and provides feedback
(Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Continual support to cultivate a culture of inquiry at the
institution requires resources and cooperation from the college as well (“Creating a
13
Culture,” 2005). Examining the extent to which participants engaged in an inquiry project
and their colleges incorporate equity-minded practices (Bensimon, 2007) may reveal
opportunities for change and learning at those colleges that will play an important role in
reducing inequities faced by Latino and African American students.
Statement of the Problem
This national problem of inequities in transfer and remedial placement is also an
acute problem for the state of California. Provisions of state higher education government
attempt to address this problem. According to the California Education Code, community
colleges in addition to all other institutions of education should make the effort to assist
underrepresented students in regards to focusing on graduation rates from secondary
schools and in attending institutions of higher education in California (§ 66010.1-
666010.8). Moreover the California Code of Regulations instructs community colleges to
“include a means of coordinating existing student equity related programs” into their
Student Equity Plans (§ 54220).
An example of a structure established to create guidelines as accountability
measures for community colleges across California is The Accountability Reporting for
the Community Colleges (ARCC), or AB 1417. The performance areas that are measured
include: “student progress and achievement in terms of degrees/certificates and transfer
to four-year institutions [and] in vocational and workforce development courses and
programs; pre-collegiate improvement; and participation rates in the community college
system as compared to the State’s adult population” (“ARCC/AB 1417 Fact Sheet,”
14
2007). However, the data that is collected is not disaggregated by race/ethnicity thus
hiding any existing inequities amongst minority students in the transfer process.
These provisions indicate that the focus on equity and issues of equity are already
incorporated into regulations California community colleges must comply with; however,
the status of equity on campus is a topic that some individuals may have difficulties
addressing in a concrete manner or even discussing. Utilizing assessment as a tool for
learning may assist in uncovering educational inequities on campus regarding
underrepresented students and thereby enable concrete changes in practices that affect
these students. Through performance benchmarking and the formation of inquiry teams,
individuals at the college can begin to discuss the status of equity on campus. This is
especially true because assessment is already being used as an accountability device in
order to show external stakeholders, who are responsible for funding and regulating
higher education, that their investment is being utilized wisely (Ewell, 1987).
Accountability strategies for student success are pushing colleges to examine institutional
barriers and policies. Strategies to address student success by racial/ethnic groups
demand attention given that community colleges continue to produce inequitable
educational outcomes for Latino and African American students, even in the face of these
accountability pressures.
Assessment as a Tool for Learning
The focus of assessment has been on students rather than institutions of higher
education. Assessment practices required to cultivate a culture of inquiry at an institution
involve examining the institutions’ current practices and policies, for example in the
15
transfer process, to discover how the inequities in the system are being perpetuated. In
order for individuals to assess an institution in regards to equity, they need to explore
issues of inequity at the institution. The manner in which an analysis is done as part of an
inquiry process reveals how individuals are learning about equity. Although developing a
common method of assessment measures, particularly in addressing issues of equity, for
all community colleges might be considered desirable and convenient, “it would probably
work poorly in community colleges because goals and missions vary so much, because
the kinds of occupational programs offered vary, and because having statewide
‘conversations’ about standards would be so difficult” (Grubb & Badway, 2005, p. 10).
Trying to have a conversation regarding equity on campus related to the transfer process
would prove difficult for individuals at the community college if they are reluctant to
address the current status of equity on campus.
Although a universal form of assessment for community colleges is not available
and probably not desirable, individuals working at community colleges can utilize
various goal setting or benchmarking strategies to address equity and issues of equity on
campus. Individuals at one institution can learn about equity-minded practices at other
peer institutions and examine existing equitable or inequitable practices by conducting
process benchmarking as well (Dowd, 2007). Another type of benchmarking that
addresses transfer access as it relates to the institution and the students is diagnostic
benchmarking which results when administrators look at the existing institution, in this
case at transfer access, and analyze what problems exist and what needs to occur to
implement change (Dowd & Tong, 2007). By engaging in benchmarking, administrators
16
can assess what practices will work best for the institution given the available resources
and commitment from others at the institution to improve the success of students (Dowd
& Tong, 2007).
Particularly because discussions surrounding issues of equity on campus are not
necessarily openly received by individuals, having such conversations through an inquiry
process may allow people within an institution to learn more about equity as it exists on
campus. Some scholars have argued that inquiry as a form of assessment allows
individuals to better assess existing services focusing on transfer students and discover
how or if they can alter the current status through new equity-minded practices. The
development of an inquiry group or inquiry council as a form of assessment can be
“designed to integrate knowledge of institutional context, educational processes, and
learning outcomes for the purpose of increasing the educational effectiveness of colleges
and universities” (Dowd & Tong, 2007, p. 58). Using inquiry methods, such as
committees analyzing data on student success, to assess the transfer access process is
expected by these scholars to allow practitioners the opportunity to uncover inequities in
the system. Having challenging discussions surrounding equity at an institution through
an inquiry process presumably serves as a means of learning. In this model this will be
true if the inquiry process incorporates “the work of practitioners-as-researchers and
academic researchers as facilitators of learning” (p. 59). The inquiry process involves
collaborations amongst researchers and stakeholders to discover and create solutions to
the stakeholders’ problems (Greenwood & Levin, 2005). The practitioner-as-researcher
model serves as a means for individuals to research their own institution and gain
17
knowledge which is utilized to create change at an institution (Bensimon, Polkinghorne,
Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004). The practitioner-as-researcher model is intended to
emphasize learning at an institution by creating a culture of inquiry, one that is willing to
critically evaluate existing barriers to transferring amongst Latino and African American
students. Creating a culture of inquiry at an institution is intended to assist in addressing
accountability demands from stakeholders such as students, families, policymakers, and
accreditation agencies by revealing areas of inequity on campus.
Purpose of the Study
The study explores how individuals involved in an inquiry project at a community
college learn about equity and issues of equity. The project is an important one to study
in this context of color-blind assessment practices because it involves individuals at a
community college who are participating in practitioner-as-researcher inquiry teams
working towards creating equitable educational outcomes for underrepresented students.
Moreover, the study will examine how the participants understand equity and issues of
equity as related to their institution as a result of participating in the project. The Action
Inquiry Project, which is headed by the Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the
University of Southern California (USC), is the setting for this study. The goals of the
Action Inquiry Project are to increase the transfer rates of Latino and African American
students by focusing on those students who began in basic skills courses; to increase the
effectiveness of the institution though assessment tools; and develop equitable transfer
outcomes by utilizing practitioner knowledge (“California Benchmarking Project,” 2007).
18
Research Question
The research question I am interested in examining is: How do participants in an
inquiry project learn about equity and issues of equity? The sub question that I am
examining is: How do the individuals use what they learned about equity on campus
pertaining to Latinos and African American students in their work?
In this study, learning is observed through changes in behavior and language. A
means of observing changes in behavior could include, for example, how the individuals
involved in the inquiry project help others learn in various settings such as meetings and
in practice. The manner and level of participation of the individuals in the project in
addition to their existing perception of the current status of equity outcomes for Latino
and African American students may impact the learning that occurs as related to equity.
Increasing equity outcomes is a goal of both the institution under study and one of
the goals of the Action Inquiry Project. My research is focused on an urban community
college with a high minority student population which is a Hispanic Serving Institution.
The focus will be on a team consisting of faculty and administrators at the college who
were part of an action inquiry project of USC’s Center for Urban Education. I will focus
on whether and how the practice of inquiry was transformational for the individuals in the
team in addition to how these people strive towards increasing transfer equity outcomes
through equity-minded practice. The study will focus on the participants at a community
college in the pilot phase of the project, Birch College. The team consists of student
affairs professionals, faculty, administrators, and researchers. The purpose of the study is
19
to examine how individuals in an inquiry project learn about equity and issues of equity
where the learning is observed through changes in behavior and language.
Importance of the Study
The study is important since institutional responsibility is seldom the focus when
examining inequities in the transfer process. The individuals working at the institution
under study, especially those involved in the inquiry project, have the ability to evaluate
their institution and further assist students along the transfer pathway, particularly Latino
and African American students. Organizational learning as depicted in the creation of a
culture of inquiry at an institution is one way of exploring the way individuals can learn
about equity and ways they can improve equitable outcomes in the transfer process.
Bensimon (2005a) notes “institutional actors, as a consequence of their beliefs,
expectations, values, and practices, create or perpetuate unequal outcomes and that the
possibility for reversing inequalities depends on individual learning that holds the
potential for bringing about self-change” (p. 101). In order to acknowledge inequities at
an institution, individuals working at an institution need to critically analyze and question
existing practices to identify current deficiencies (Bensimon, 2005a). The effectiveness of
the institution relies heavily on how individuals such as faculty and administrators
participating in the project can bring about change as a result of the inquiry process.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter one introduced the
problem of inequities in the transfer process and remedial education, provided
background information, and definition. Chapter two provides an explanation of
20
organizational learning, the conceptual framework utilized in this study, as well as an
explanation of how changes in behavior and language are conceptualized. Chapter three
is a description of the research design which includes case study and action research as
well as a description of how the codes were created for the analysis. Chapter four is an
analysis of the data collected and Chapter five will examine the results as well as include
implications for future research.
21
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework
The purpose of my study is to examine if and what individuals involved in an
inquiry project at a community college learn about equity and issues of equity. In
particular, the focus is on what the individuals learned about equity that they did not
know before or they had not thought of prior to their participation in the project. Their
learning will be observed through changes in their behavior and language. By examining
the learning (or lack thereof) that individuals undergo as participants in the project, I can
obtain a better understanding of how color conscious and color-blind assessment takes
place at Birch College, based on the behaviors and language used by individuals working
at the institution.
The Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California
(USC) develops work towards “building institutional capacity to produce equitable
educational outcomes for African Americans, Latina/os, and American Indians” as well
as “defining the knowledge that enables practitioners to build equity-minded structures,
leadership, and policy-making” (Bensimon, Dowd, & Rueda, 2006, p. 2). By exploring
what (or if) individuals in the project are learning about equity, I can attain a sense of
how the project has assisted them in changing their behaviors and the language they use
towards producing equitable educational outcomes for Latino and African American
students. I believe that the more individuals examine their own institutional practices in
an environment that allows for the exchange of ideas regarding equitable educational
outcomes for underrepresented students, the greater the likelihood that they will
incorporate equity-minded practices into their daily activities.
22
In this chapter, I begin by providing a description of the Action Inquiry Project,
which is the focus of this study. I continue with a discussion of organizational learning
and conclude with how behavior and language are a way to observe the learning that
occurs in teams.
Creation of the Action Inquiry Project
The Center for Urban Education at the University of Southern California has a
mission to produce research that leads to the “creation of enabling institutional
environments for children, youth, and adults from socially and economically
disenfranchised groups residing in urban settings” (“About CUE,” 2008). Since CUE is
located in Los Angeles, the setting provides a learning environment where researchers
can examine education in an urban location. The work produced by CUE focuses on
action research projects based on a “practitioner-as-researcher” model in which
“practitioners take the role of researchers, and researchers assume the roles of facilitators
and consultants” (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004, p. 108). The
model takes a different approach in that individuals at an institution examine the problem
while learning more about their own institution that they can use to implement change at
the college (Bensimon et al., 2004).
The basis for the inquiry approach utilized by CUE focuses on organizational
learning, particularly through the use of data. The problem with only using data to create
change is that data alone cannot lead towards change at the organization (Bensimon &
Dowd, 2007). Moreover, the process of organizational learning is often challenging since
individuals at the institution do not have the time or existing structures to use the data that
23
already exists at the institution (Bensimon & Dowd, 2007). As a result of the
aforementioned challenges, several projects have evolved from CUE concerning
inequities in educational outcomes for underrepresented students. The Diversity
Scorecard and the Equity Scorecard both involved faculty, administrators, counselors, as
well as other members at the institution to examine existing data focusing on inequities at
the institution. The key to both projects was the emphasis on analyzing the data
disaggregated by race/ethnicity in order to reveal any inequities at the institution in the
areas of access, retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence (“Diversity Scorecard,”
2007; “Overview of the Equity Scorecard,” 2007). The process was believed to allow
individuals at the institution to acquire knowledge about the existing inequities on
campus and develop ways of addressing the gaps. Several empirical studies provide
partial support for the conceptual underpinnings of the CUE model such as Bauman
(2002), Bustillos (2007), and James (2008).
Birch College, along with nine other community colleges, became involved with
CUE as a result of Equity for All: Institutional Responsibility for Student Success which
resulted from the previous two projects. The process involved the formation of campus
based inquiry teams composed of faculty, staff, and administrators who created their own
Equity Scorecard to address the areas of academic pathways, retention, transfer readiness,
and excellence in achievement (“Equity for All,” 2007). The Equity Scorecard project at
Birch College evolved into the Missing 87 project, which explored why some transfer
ready students did not transfer or transferred to less selective institutions by examining
the institutional culture and resources available to students (“Missing 87,” 2007).
24
CUE continued the Missing 87 Project in a pilot phase, with the Action Inquiry
Project that includes three community colleges, Birch College being one of them and 25
colleges in a dissemination phase intended to create a network of colleges with the
capacity to integrate equity into assessment. Similar to the previous projects, the Action
Inquiry Project includes the creation of inquiry teams. The aim is to assist participating
colleges in equity-based assessment practices that will eventually result in creating
change and solving the problem of inequitable educational practices in terms of the
manner in which they impact underrepresented students. Equity-based assessment
practices involve utilizing “quantitative and qualitative data to improve institutional
effectiveness in promoting student learning and improve the racial-ethnic equity of
student success” (“Frequently Asked Questions,” 2008). A goal central to the project is to
use practitioner expertise to create equitable transfer outcomes. The project is meant to
provide individuals with the tools and information necessary to address equity and issues
of equity pertaining to the educational outcomes for Latino and African American
Students.
Throughout the aforementioned project, CUE aims to address organizational
learning problems that continue to result in inequities in educational outcomes (Bensimon
& Dowd, 2007). The development of inquiry teams serves as a way for organizations to
learn about existing gaps regarding the academic success of underrepresented students.
The following section provides a discussion of the broader concept of organizational
learning.
25
Overview of Organizational Learning
A number of theories, concepts, and authors in the field of organizational learning
provide approaches to study how individuals learn within a group. These include: Garvin
(1993), Huber (1991), Bensimon (2004), Bauman (2005), and Kruse (2001). Each of
these authors present insight into how individuals at an institution either hinder or
contribute towards implementing change at an institution through aspects of
organizational learning. In addition to practices associated with organizational learning,
language itself can be used as a tool for learning. Henze and Arriaza (2006) contend that
aspects of an organization such as the group’s interpretation of issues are reflected in the
type of language individuals use and that the language used can shape those
interpretations.
Garvin (1993) and Huber (1991) establish a foundation for understanding and
explaining elements of organizational learning. Garvin (1993) recommends that
organizations understand five activities in order to become a learning organization
including: systematically solving problems, experimentation, learning from prior
experience and from others, and knowledge transfer. Huber (1991) conducts an overview
of existing literature focusing on knowledge, the distribution and interpretation of
information, and organizational memory as a means of understanding organizational
learning.
One method of examining organizational learning is by analyzing data that
already exists at an institution, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, as was done by
Bensimon (2004) in the Diversity Scorecard study. The concepts each institution chose to
26
focus on in creating equity in educational outcomes reveals what the individuals at an
institution value. In addition, the selection depicts to what extent organizations are
willing to learn more about their own institution. The goals created by the team members
and the discussions individuals have regarding change strategies also illustrates the type
of organizational learning that an institution is willing to engage. Bauman (2005)
continued the focus on organizational learning with the Diversity Scorecard as a means to
analyze how learning occurs at the individual and team level. The conversation held
within each team and amongst individuals disclosed evidence of the organizational
culture and the willingness of people to discuss difficult topics such as equity.
Furthermore, the comments that are made and those that are not mentioned expose any
barriers within the organization that are prohibiting the team from learning. The number
of individuals willing or able to implement any of the change strategies through
behavioral changes acquired during the study depends largely on the institution and the
objectives set forth by the organization.
Similarly, Kruse (2001) focused on the importance of creating a professional
community or team in order to implement change strategies at an institution. The
professional communities served as a means where individuals could communicate about
issues in the classroom and any strategies that could assist others in their teaching
methods. The author suggests that the ways in which individuals at an institution create
opportunities for discussion of change strategies will impact the level and type of
organizational learning that occurs.
27
The language used by individuals also impacts the level at which organizational
learning occurs at an institution. Henze and Arriaza (2006) argue that “language is a
fundamental part of culture” (p. 162). The manner in which individuals communicate to
others at an institution reveals their beliefs and values. The language used may indicate
the culture of the organization as well as barriers to creating equitable institutions (Henze
& Arriaza, 2006). The authors claim that “all educational leaders express, embody,
symbolize, and construct the culture of the educational setting through language” (p.
164). Thus, through the use of language, individuals have the ability to transform the
organization and implement change.
Elements of Organizational Learning
Rather than examining theories regarding organizational learning and describing
them, Garvin (1993) discusses the need to establish a fundamental understanding of a
learning organization. The author describes three issues that individuals within an
organization should focus on: meaning, management, and measurement (1993). Although
an overall definition of organizational learning is not yet agreed upon by scholars, most
researchers describe “organizational learning as a process that unfolds over time and link
it with knowledge acquisition and improved performance. But they differ on other
important matters” (Garvin, 1993, p. 3).
In order to become a learning organization, Garvin (1993) recommends the
following five activities: (1) systematic problem solving; (2) experimentation with new
approaches; (3) learning from past experience; (4) learning from others; and (5)
transferring knowledge. The first activity involves the scientific method, relying on data,
28
and statistical tools (Garvin). Within experimentation there are two types: ongoing
programs where continuous small changes in knowledge occur, and demonstration
projects (Garvin). Ongoing programs try to maintain new ideas throughout the
organization, require an incentive program that rewards risk takers, and has employees
skilled in the area of experiment evaluation (Garvin). Demonstration projects develop
new capabilities in organizations that are meant to continue along with projects in the
future (Garvin). The core of experimentation is not only understanding how things are
done but also why, which entails truly understanding the behaviors, standards, and
settings (Garvin). Learning from past experience involves a reflection piece of evaluating
what worked and did not as well as sharing that information with employees (Garvin).
The author describes this activity as one that allows individuals to assess why the project
did not have a positive result and understand why. Similarly, when a project goes well
but no one understand the why or how, the organization cannot consider the experience a
success in terms of learning (Garvin).
The fourth activity, learning from others, is a form of benchmarking. The intent is
to develop best practices within organizations by analyzing processes and not results
(Garvin, 1993). The author notes that learning within this activity is only a possibility if
the organization is willing to learn and listen. The final activity, transferring knowledge,
involves the sharing of information throughout the organization (Garvin, 1993). The
manner in which the information is shared can vary from verbal and written
communication to programs, tours, and services (Garvin). The author describes a half-life
curve model utilized by companies to measure learning but notes that the weakness lies
29
on its focus purely on results. Garvin (1993) describes organizational learning as a three
stage process: cognitive, behavioral, and performance improvement. In order to cultivate
the process organizations need to create a learning environment, allow for the exchange
of ideas, and create a forum for learning (Garvin). By following the aforementioned
suggestions, organizations create the possibility for increased learning.
The conceptual framework for my study utilizes the way Garvin conceptualizes
these activities as a process for organizational learning. The Action Inquiry Project
contains tools and processes that are meant for individuals to utilize beyond the project. I
am interested in learning what (if any) of the information from the project participants are
sharing with others in terms of equity and its importance. The study also builds on
Garvin’s (1993) work since it focuses on an institution of higher education and not a
company. The individuals in the group are trying out new methods introduced by the
project and are learning from other individuals from different disciplines across campus.
My study will mainly focus on the fifth activity of transferring knowledge and whether or
not individuals are doing so within their workplace by bringing about changes in their
own behavior and language as well as that of colleagues.
When learning occurs in an organization, the change is not necessarily physically
evident. Huber (1991) argues that learning does not need to be conscious, lead towards
effectiveness nor conclude in observable behavioral change. The presence of
organizational learning is said to occur “if any of its units acquires knowledge that is
recognized as potentially useful to the organization” (Huber, 1991, p. 89). The author
(1991) provides an examination of existing literature concerning organizational learning
30
which is particularly relevant given that it emphasizes knowledge acquisition,
information distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memory all of
which are elements that will be essential for higher education organizations to learn how
to address issues of equity effectively.
Knowledge acquisition entails five ways in which an organization can obtain
information: (1) congenital learning; (2) experiential learning; (3) vicarious learning; (4)
grafting and; (5) searching (Huber, 1991). The first type of learning is a combination of
knowledge that is acquired before and at the point where knowledge is created and the
second type of learning involves acquiring knowledge through experience (Huber, 1991).
Action research falls under the category of experiential learning, specifically
organizational development that encourages change within the organization (Huber).
Vicarious learning is obtained through second hand experience such as imitation (Huber).
The author notes the need for greater research into the concept of grafting in which
individuals learn through assimilation, and searching involving scanning, focused search,
and performance monitoring (1991).
The manner in which information is distributed and interpreted also reveals how
an organization learns. Information distribution determines the breadth and how
organizational learning will occur (Huber, 1991). Through the distribution of
information, organizational learning happens on a broader level since as the author
(1991) notes, “organizations do not know what they know” (p. 100). The process of
attaching meaning to information acquired through the process of organizational learning
assists the group in creating a shared understanding of the data (Huber). Interpretation
31
involves the use of cognitive maps to create frames for the information, media richness
where both the person giving and receiving information attach the same meaning to the
topic, unlearning knowledge, and information overload that causes ineffectiveness within
an organization (Huber).
Organizational memory entails the storing and retrieving of information as well as
computer based organizational memory. Huber (1991) reveals that additional studies are
needed pertaining to how non-routine information is stored for later use and what
contributes to this type of behavior. Organizations also use computers and soft
information through the use of human experts to store information (Huber). The author
notes the need for further empirical studies on organizational memory since it affects the
breadth, depth, and incidence of organizational learning.
My study will utilize the concepts of knowledge acquisition, information
distribution and interpretation to understand organizational learning. These concepts are
described within the context of higher education later in the chapter through Bensimon’s
(2004) study involving the Diversity Scorecard. As Huber (1991) mentions, greater
research within the field of organizational learning is still needed, especially empirical
studies, since understanding the change process resulting from organizational learning
impacts the overall behavior of the organization. My study will build upon existing
literature concerning organizational learning in general; however, I am focusing on an
educational setting with participants who may not necessarily interact outside of the
inquiry project.
32
Observing Behavior
The behavior and actions of individuals as well as procedures at an institution
reveal information about an organization. A way of observing if a change in behavior
occurs is if the attitude, knowledge, or skills of the individual improve (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006). If one of these three elements increases, an individual can attest that
the behavior of the person has changed. Observing changes in behavior of individuals
within an organization involves more factors due to the interactions that occur within the
group. Bolman and Deal (2003) define organizations as complex, surprising, deceptive,
and ambiguous because of the dynamics of the people involved as well as the unexpected
performances of the group. “Actions are counterproductive because we try to solve
problems while avoiding undiscussable issues and tip-toeing around organizational
taboos” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p. 30). Therefore, the real problem that requires attention
is often ignored because of possible group conflict. In higher education, the people who
have been at an institution for several years bring a certain amount of knowledge about
the college as well as an already existing network of information. People who enter an
institution come with their own knowledge from their previous institution and also
contribute to the existing group. However, individuals eventually alter the manner in
which they complete tasks in order to conform to the standards of the institution and of
the organization. These variables are shared by the organization and influence the way
individuals at an institution behave and impact the organization.
33
Awareness, Interpretation, and Action
Awareness, interpretation, and action as a means of observing changes in
behavior incorporates Garvin’s (1993) five activities of problem solving,
experimentation, learning from past experiences and from others, as well as transferring
newly found knowledge. Individuals become aware of the problem, then identify new
ways of addressing the problem based on prior experiences and from others involved in
the group, and finally share the information acquired through the project to other areas of
the institution.
The process of examining one’s own institution in order to create institutional
change aimed at creating equitable educational outcomes for underrepresented students
was the focus of The Diversity Scorecard: A Learning Approach to Institutional Change.
The project acted on the theory that organizational learning occurs as a result of critically
analyzing existing data by disaggregating the information by race and ethnicity thus
revealing hidden inequalities (Bensimon, 2004). Bensimon (2004) argues “the details of
this intra-institutional stratification remain largely invisible to the campus community
because equity in educational outcomes is not tracked continuously” (p. 46). Equity
outcomes are not utilized as a source of measurement when examining accountability at
institutions of higher education (Bensimon, 2004). In addition to focusing on diversity as
a means of improving the campus community, equity outcomes are an important
indicator in assessing whether or not underrepresented students are achieving the same
levels of educational success in comparison to their peers.
34
The focus of the Diversity Scorecard, which was later renamed the Equity
Scorecard, placed the emphasis on institutional change through awareness, interpretation,
and action (Bensimon, 2004). The Diversity Scorecard “provides four concurrent
perspectives on institutional performance with respect to equity in educational outcomes:
access, retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence” (Bensimon, 2004, p. 46).
Fourteen institutions consisting of community colleges and universities in Southern
California participated. At each institution, the president was asked to organize a group of
people that ultimately consisted of deans, faculty, vice presidents, researchers, and
counselors although each college had a different variation of people involved
(Bensimon). The group’s role was to examine the current condition of their institution b y
assessing the existing data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, which they would use
along with the Diversity Scorecard to focus on their own outcomes created based on what
each institution deemed as important (Bensimon). By focusing on access, participants
analyzed the actual number of minority students who were represented in campus
resources and programs (Bensimon). Looking at retention allowed group members to
assess the number of minority students by discipline, degree program, and overall
retention rates (Bensimon). The focus on institutional receptivity served as a means to
critically examine how the college or university created a campus climate that served the
needs of minority students (Bensimon). The excellence portion of the scorecard
highlights both access and achievement by defining access in terms of what courses serve
as roadblocks for students and achievement as the rate at which minority students
completed programs and advanced academically.
35
Participant groups at each institution analyzed data such as enrollment, grade
point average, or academic disciplines by race and ethnicity revealed as part of a “vital
signs” exercise unearthed reactions varying from acceptance to denial of current
conditions at the institution (Bensimon, 2004). Some participants were not prepared to
comprehend or admit what the outcomes illustrated in terms of inequities amongst
minority students (Bensimon). Others in the group were open to the notion of examining
data in a manner different than what they had become accustomed to in the past. A third
reaction exhibited by various people was that of skepticism in terms of how presenting
the information in the new format would create political situations for individuals since
the data could serve to reinforce preconceived notions or create problems at the
institution.
The second step of the project was to establish goals for each group at the college
or university. The goals set at each institution had to reflect each of the four
concentrations of the Diversity Scorecard (Bensimon, 2004). One institution decided to
focus on pass rates of Latino and African American students in a gateway course, another
looked at persistence rates of students, and one institution examined grade point averages
of Latinos and African American students who were graduating (Bensimon). Many of the
participating teams found the task of setting goals quite difficult and decided to “compare
the racial and ethnic composition of the faculty to that of the student body” (Bensimon,
2004, p. 50). The goals were specific to each institution and reflected issues that were of
importance based on the data evaluation and discussion in the “vital signs” exercise.
36
Once the teams assessed how they would measure their goals, they presented the
information to the college or university president (Bensimon, 2004). The presentations
varied in size and format. For example, one group used a retreat to present their
information, another group made several presentations to different audiences such as
faculty and councils (Bensimon). Overall the Diversity Scorecard was successful in
providing a new method of examining data and several presidents were interested in
implementing the findings along with initiatives or programs that the institution was also
pursuing (Bensimon). Eleven of the participating institutions decided to continue with the
project although at the time of the publication the author was unable to determine
whether or not any actions have been implemented as a result of the project (Bensimon).
The final step of the project is to establish benchmarks, which will enable project
members to examine whether or not any of the proposed goals are being achieved.
The study revealed that institutions are not discussing existing data in a manner
that illustrates current problems at a college or university. Some members were skeptical
about the project but ultimately were able to utilize some of the same concepts used in the
project in other areas of the college such as curriculum (Bensimon, 2004). As the author
notes, “members of the institutional community were not accustomed to engaging in the
kind of sustained conversations needed to transform data into actionable knowledge” (p.
51-52). Organizational learning occurred in the project through the participation of group
members who served as active researchers thus allowing them to undertake the position
of “change agents.” Unlike other research that brings outsiders to assess the institution
and provide answers, “instead of just collecting data, we regard the act of developing
37
equity indicators and creating the Diversity Scorecard as the intervention” (Bensimon,
2004, p. 52). By participating in the project, group members are able learn about
inequities in educational outcomes at their institution, design measurement tools, and
implement some changes and in the process improve the situation. As the author notes
“the best hope for institutional change lies in the possibility that individual members of a
campus community will transfer their learning to other contexts within the institution” (p.
52). Through the process of serving as change agents, group members are able to learn
how they can impact their institution in new ways.
My study will build upon Bensimon’s (2004) work by focusing on participants in
an inquiry project from only one community college. I am interested in exploring the
learning that occurred through the assessment practices, similar to the ones used in the
aforementioned study, and how they were perceived by individuals since some of the
language used regarding equity may have been new to the individuals. In addition, I am
interested in examining what (if any) learning occurred concerning equity based on their
participation in the project. Moreover, I am interested in the level of participation in the
assessment process since participation affects the person’s ability to serve as a change
agent. The difference in participation level may result from the perception the individual
has of current inequities at the institution.
In order to examine the inequities that are occurring in terms of educational
outcomes for minority students, one must analyze the organization and what structures
are supporting the existing inequities. In Promoting Organizational Learning in Higher
Education to Achieve Equity in Educational Outcomes, Bauman (2005) also discusses
38
how through the use of the Diversity Scorecard Project, organizations were able to
recognize practices that perpetuated inequities amongst students on campus. Through the
project, participants would examine already existing data at the institution that was
disaggregated by race and ethnicity so as to reveal the current status of equity in
educational outcomes for minority students (Bauman, 2005). The author is cautious to
note that the new ideas do not necessarily indicate that learning will occur as a result of
participation in the project. Moreover, the author mentions the importance of including an
individual’s experience as a source of developing new ideas in addition to those created
through the participation in organizations or from the experiences of other individuals.
Bauman (2005) was interested in examining organizational learning by analyzing how
learning occurs as a group as well as how the organization reacts when concentrating on a
particular problem.
The team was asked to evaluate the data and see if Latino and African American
students were overrepresented in remedial courses and underrepresented in honors
courses when compared to other groups (Bauman, 2005). The aforementioned indicators
were utilized as a means of alerting the teams at each institution that there was an issue
concerning equitable outcomes for students when the data was disaggregated by racial
and ethnic categories. The author hoped each team would recognize the inequities after
looking at familiar numbers from a different perspective than they had previously done
(Bauman). Doing so allows the team the ability to assess their overall effectiveness and
performance (Bauman).
39
The institutional data examined by the teams was familiar to some, however, once
the same data was presented by racial and ethnic categories, the teams made various
discoveries. Upon becoming aware of the inequities in educational outcomes for students,
several team members began to question the causes and consequences such outcomes
were having at the institution (Bauman, 2005). Additionally, groups the author deems as
“high learning groups” were the individuals who analyzed the data with greater detail and
were involved in a higher inquiry level (2005). The high learning group would focus
solely on the data rather than experience and were more receptive to questioning existing
information about themselves, the students, and their own practices (Bauman, 2005). The
author notes that as the teams progressed and delved into the data, assumptions or myths
about students were questioned and some team members commented on how the culture
of the institution pertained to the manner in which individuals taught or behaved.
Bauman (2005) continues to discuss the creation of knowledge as being more than
the collection of data, it involves the manner in which individuals understand and
interpret the information. The author notes “because it is dependent on knowers, the
exchange and creation of knowledge take place within and between humans” (p. 31). The
high learning group examined the data as a team, in which the team leader distributed the
data, members analyzed the information, and discussed issues concerning inequities and
how they affect the college or university (Bauman). Teams that were not high learners
would either utilize the data to reaffirm existing notions or ask the research team member
to provide a report of the data, which prevented the team from having a meaningful
discussion (Bauman).
40
An important aspect of the study was that the participants served as the subjects of
the project as well as the researchers. The author asserts, “a community of practice
provides the situation and establishes the conditions for effective learning, which can
bring about important changes in the beliefs, values, and actions of individuals” (p. 33).
Enacting institutional change occurs if the individuals participating in the project convey
the information acquired to other areas on campus and encourage other individuals to
contribute to the change process by learning how to improve the situation (Bauman,
2005). The teams that did not discuss the data were not able to learn as much as other
teams since they maintained their traditional ideas about the status of student outcomes
(Bauman). The author notes that high learning teams did include people who had doubts
about the project, but the overall group promoted an environment that focused on
learning rather than viewing data analysis as a task. Although team members can learn
from the process, improving the issue at an institution results from generating action
taken by both faculty and staff based on what was learned. As demonstrated in the
project, organizational learning entails the collection and storing of data while also
examining the results and identifying what they mean for an institution thus generating
new knowledge (Bauman).
I will use this idea to explore how participants within my study learn about equity
and issues of equity through their participation in the project. My study will address the
notion that new ideas do not indicate that individuals are learning. Researchers can utilize
organizational learning to examine critical issues on their own campus. As Bauman
(2005) described, by using the teams as both researchers and participants of the process,
41
individuals who utilized the process as a means of learning more about current inequities
in student outcomes were able to take the learning that occurred and transfer that
information to other constituents on campus. Although not all teams involved in the
project followed the same process of carefully assessing the data and discussing subjects
considered taboo by some individuals, the possibility of individuals learning a new
concept and relaying that information to others could encourage non-participants to use
the information and create change. My study will explore whether or not participants in
an inquiry project utilize what they learn about equity and the importance of equity in the
project to implement change on campus.
Assessment occurs throughout an institution in several departments; therefore, the
data tends to be available. Having committees or groups at an institution evaluate the
reports can lead towards the creation of new knowledge and questioning of existing
practices which can generate discussions as well as knowledge about ways to improve or
address issues on campus (Bauman, 2005). I am interested in exploring which individuals
on college campuses are addressing inequitable practices at an institution and who is
expressing interest in serving as a change agent. The importance is being able to gather
members on campus to discuss institutional problems in an environment where people
can question the current status of the college without feeling as if they will lose their job
or become associated with having a negative attitude. As discussed by Bauman (2005),
the high learning team was able to obtain “the highest levels of group learning about
inequities in educational outcomes among students of different ethnic groups because of
their attention to and thorough examination of data” (p. 34). Organizational learning that
42
results in quality learning requires team members to deeply assess information while
providing time and ability to understand how the data impacts an institution.
Similar to Bauman’s (2005) study focusing on organization learning by
examining a particular problem and how some teams came to learn from the experience
by thoroughly assessing institutional data, Kruse (2001) also highlights the process of
learning. Kruse (2001) discusses the importance of having student learning at the
forefront when trying to cultivate collaborative school settings amongst all members of
the school community. The author emphasizes the importance of having continuous
improvement as a means of addressing student achievement in addition to creating a
sense of community on campus. Learning through the use of organizational planning was
central to the study. The concept of forming organizations in which individuals could
discuss important concerns or ways of improving the way things were done at the school
was important to analyze in terms of learning (Kruse, 2001).
Developing a sense of professional community was created in response to
teachers’ request to have a sense of community to reflect the respect and value of others
in the surrounding area in a manner that was similar to other professional careers (Kruse).
Creating professional communities amongst the teachers generated discussion about
instruction practices in various types of informal settings such as the hallway, meetings,
and during lunch (Kruse). The discussions served as means where teachers could reflect
on their students, learning, and classroom instruction thus creating an environment that
served to advance the profession through open dialogue about important issues affecting
43
the class in addition to providing a sense of collegiality that was not present at the school
before (Kruse).
The manner in which organizational learning occurred for teachers at the schools
was through using new techniques inside the classroom, and then discussing whether or
not the new teaching styles worked with other colleagues in order for others to either use
or avoid thus serving as a means of learning as well as developing social bonds (Kruse,
2001). The author suggests that organizational learning within the school setting consists
of examining the ways in which administrators and teachers address methods of practice
and question knowledge that allows an institution the ability to create change.
Understanding work groups as a means of organizational learning and assisting in
developing a professional community was critical in terms of evaluating group members
(Kruse, 2001). The criteria of looking at work groups involves addressing, considering,
and examining what procedures are necessary in order to accomplish the purpose of the
organization while also considering the broader organization as well (Kruse). Double
loop learning is another manner in which organizations can create greater learning
opportunities since it involves merging new knowledge with prior information as a means
of generating new ways and beliefs that affect the team’s future practices (Kruse). As the
author mentions, “work groups attentive to double loop learning focus on knowledge
with the potential to change the culture rather than knowledge which can be applied
within the existing culture” (p. 363). Therefore, the organization is more critical of the
current status of the problem or issue being discussed and addresses the learning process
differently by focusing on how change can occur by combining new and prior knowledge
44
rather than ignoring the current situation and trying to apply new techniques to a structure
that is not functioning.
The author examined three school districts which implemented a planning model
consisting of six steps: modifying the mission, current beliefs and values pertaining to
student learning, district goals concerning student learning as well as students,
performance criteria, ways in which to meet established goals, and assessment
techniques. Kruse (2001) utilized narrative theory as a means of assessing organizational
learning in the schools. The author asserts that paying attention to the stories told by
educators as they partake in the learning process “is necessary if we are to understand
how the culture of school life shapes their experiences, as well as to understand what they
are telling us about the power of the continuous improvement efforts in their lives” (p.
365). Moreover, the focus in narrative theory is on the language chosen by the person
since it reveals the association the individual has in relating their experiences and
understanding what occurred in the process (Kruse, 2001).
The author also utilized case studies as a means of analyzing organizational
learning. The three school districts used in the study were from a Northeastern state and
were already participating in a planning process for more than three years (Kruse, 2001).
The districts were similar in having a suburban school setting and having support from
the state and the members interviewed had all been part of the project since the beginning
(Kruse). The interviews consisted of teachers, administrators, as well as important people
at each of the schools (Kruse). Classroom and meeting observations, such as “steering
committee, focus team, or school governance meetings; sub-committee planning
45
meetings; and faculty or whole school meetings” were conducted in addition to the
collection of any classroom documents to include as part of the observation notes (Kruse,
2001, p. 366). The document collection that occurred also allowed the author to develop
additional interview questions for the participants since each school setting was slightly
different, the author made adjustments to reflect the differences.
Analyzing collaboration within the schools resulted in supporting the author’s
notion that creating an environment where educators can discuss techniques and issues
important to them concerning teaching does foster a greater sense of community in
addition to promoting learning within the organization (Kruse, 2001). Creating leadership
teams within and among faculty served as a way of holding one another accountable at
the school in addition to the district. Moreover through the discussion of ideas and
practices, individuals in the group were able to participate in the learning process while
improving the current status of the school. As Kruse (2001) notes “when teachers and
staff are connected to problem-solving discussions and use the knowledge created within
those forums to inform their practice, the potential for school-wide change is enhanced”
thus creating opportunities for organizational learning to occur (p. 375).
My study will examine individual thinking and how this is revealed at group
meetings. Kruse’s (2001) work tells us that people learn more in professional
communities or groups rather than individually. I will build on Kruse’s (2001) study by
focusing on how participants in an inquiry project at a community college create an
environment where individuals from across campus can discuss inequities at an
institution. Similar to Kruse (2001), I am interested in the discussion of ideas. However, I
46
will focus on individuals at an institution of higher education. The participation of such
individuals may reveal their perceptions about inequities at an institution.
Examining Language Use
Within organizational learning, the use and selection of language by individuals
working at an institution dictates what is discussed as well as the extent of discussion that
will develop. The manner in which participants in an inquiry project utilize language is
critical in terms of whom and what is included as part of the change strategies of the
institution. The wording used by individuals indicates the importance they place on
certain objectives of the change process and what is ignored. Language has the power to
influence people and utilized correctly can create buy in from an organization. Within
organizational learning, language is a critical factor within a team. Each organization has
its own terminology that is often understood by those who are part of the same group.
Language can also serve as a barrier to those who are unaware (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). It
can prevent people from fully understanding what is occurring in the organization and
serve as an obstacle for people trying to advance within an institution.
An aspect of organizational learning is the type of language utilized at an
institution. Assessing the language used at the college may reveal underlying beliefs and
values at an institution that may prevent changes towards creating equitable colleges
(Henze & Arriaza, 2006). The authors (2006) affirm that anyone at an institution can
critically examine language; however, if people in leadership positions of power
practiced this behavior, greater advances towards equity at an institution could occur.
Therefore by investigating the communication occurring between participants in an
47
inquiry project we can obtain an idea of what these individuals consider as institutional
priorities.
Henze and Arriaza (2006) affirm that leaders who rationalize with others to
“reach consensus about a desired social change….will not be as effective as a leader who
also uses a critical approach to language in order to frame issues in a way that activates
deeply held values and worldviews” (p. 162). Individuals at an institution need to
challenge existing beliefs in order to uncover existing barriers towards creating equitable
institutions. By framing current problems in a different manner, individuals can obtain a
glimpse as to how others perceive the situation as well as their dedication to solving the
problem. The authors argue that language expresses, embodies, symbolizes, and has the
capacity to bring about change in culture. Through language individuals can learn what
the group values, explore every day practices at the institution, discover the group’s
identity, and how the group creates new relationships (Henze & Arriaza, 2006). The type
of language educators use also serves to keep others out who may not understand the
jargon.
Having educators examine language use can assist in improving the institution.
Doing so can reveal assumptions individuals have of students at the college (Henze &
Arriaza, 2006). Through the analysis of individuals’ perceptions, educators can uncover
inequities at an institution. Individuals can also use language to change the manner in
which questions are asked (Henze & Arriaza, 2006). The choice of language used by
educators to frame a question can lead towards addressing equity issues. The authors
caution in implementing language analysis since individuals at an institution must
48
express interest in beginning this process and demonstrate willingness to incorporate it
into the organizational culture. Administrators at an institution have the power to create
change in addressing issues of inequity as a result of their authoritative position (Henze &
Arriaza, 2006). Understanding the influence of language in organizations will empower
individuals to incorporate language that supports equitable practices at an institution
(Henze & Arriaza, 2006).
I am interested in discovering how participants in an inquiry project at the college
use language to address current inequities at the college. Moreover, my study will explore
how the language participants use reveal perceptions individuals have of minority
students and how this contributes to equity problems at an institution. I will build on the
author’s work by uncovering how participants in an inquiry project use language to
express qualities of an institution.
Summary
In order to understand how an organization functions, one can analyze the
individuals who work at an institution. The behaviors of individuals and the processes at
the college reveal what an institution and individuals value. Garvin (1993) provided
suggestions as to how organizations can become learning organizations by practicing five
activities. The author argues that by applying the five activities, the organization will
improve and provide individuals with results they can measure. Huber (1991)
summarized the various elements of organizational learning through an examination of
the literature. The author notes the importance of pursuing empirical studies examining
49
the way knowledge is acquired, information is distributed and interpreted, as well as how
organizational memory functions.
Organizational learning influences the manner in which individuals view the
organization. Bensimon (2004) and Bauman (2005) utilized the Diversity Scorecard
study as a means of understanding how teams learn by becoming researchers in addition
to practitioners. The study explored how the perceptions of individuals within the team
contributed to the willingness or resistance of the group to address and learn about the
inequities at an institution. Kruse (2001) illustrated the importance of creating
communities within an institution where individuals could learn from one another. Henze
and Arriaza (2006) argue that examining language and how educators utilize it is crucial
to understanding what is important to an institution.
My study will utilize these conceptual frameworks to explore how participants in
an inquiry project utilize aspects of organizational learning such as awareness,
interpretation, action, and language to develop change processes for an institution. These
concepts build upon the four main constructs of organizational learning as discussed by
Huber (1991) and the five activities as described by Garvin (1993). Through inquiry
group activities the perceptions of the individuals will become apparent as issues of
equity at the institution are discussed. I will focus on how the participants discuss issues
of inequity at Birch College. For the purposes of this study, organizational learning is
defined “as a process whereby individuals become more conscious of racial and ethnic
inequalities in educational outcomes, thus increasing the likelihood that they will assume
personal and collective responsibility for their education” (“Glossary” 2007).
50
My study will also explore how language is used as a tool for learning,
specifically exploring the type of language utilized by individuals to discuss creating
equitable educational outcomes for underrepresented students at Birch College with a
group of individuals composed of faculty, staff, and administrators from across campus
who may not have collaborated on a project before. Examining how individuals at an
institution view institutional inequities is crucial since “accepting inequality as a
permanent condition can affect how practitioners and minority students respond to each
other, and it can create a dispiriting organizational culture” (Bensimon, 2007, p. 462).
The perceptions the individuals at the college have of minority students could result from
the institutional culture. I am also interested in discovering if any individuals have
contradicting perceptions and beliefs to those of the organization. The level of
participation and extent to which these individuals articulate the values of the institution
may contribute to the existing inequities as well. Through the lens of organizational
learning I will study the extent to which participants in an inquiry project learn about
equity and issues of equity as observed through behavior and language.
In the following chapter, I will describe the methods used to examine what (or if)
learning took place regarding equity and issues of equity as observed by the behaviors
and language utilized by the individuals involved in the inquiry group project at Birch
College.
51
Chapter 3: Methods
The previous chapter revealed the conceptual theories and terms utilized in the
study. To review, the purpose of my study is to explore if and what individuals involved
in an inquiry project at a community college learn about equity and issues of equity
where learning is observed through changes in behavior and language. I am interested in
gaining an understanding of how (or if) individuals involved in an inquiry project learned
about equity and the importance of equity on their campus that they did not know before.
Furthermore, I hope to obtain a sense of how each person influences the learning that
occurs on campus pertaining to equity. The ability of the participants to spread their
learning, through changes in behavior and language, to colleagues on campus who are not
part of the project may reveal an aspect of an institution as a learning organization and
the willingness to integrate new ideas. By analyzing what aspects of the inquiry project
individuals decide to teach others, I can also gain a sense of the institution and the person.
Whether or not the individual is able to take their learning to their workplace and teach
others may also illustrate their interest in the goals of the Action Inquiry Project.
Chapter Overview
In this chapter, I will describe the methods utilized to collect data. I served as a
research assistant on the Action Inquiry Project and was part of a larger team that worked
on the project. The data collected consisted of observations, documents, and interviews.
The first section provides a background of the research traditions used as well as the
setting and participants involved in the study. The second section includes an explanation
52
of data collection methods and ethical concerns. I end the chapter with a discussion of
how I analyzed the data.
Research Traditions
The type of research that I conducted is action research. The Action Inquiry
Project is designed to have inquiry team members become active participants. The team
members were involved in the culture of inquiry by critiquing the organization and
providing a data collection plan that assisted them in continuing the assessment of the
institution. Through the examination of the individuals I gained an understanding of the
progress the team made towards improving the current status of the college in terms of
achieving equitable educational outcomes for Latino and African American students.
Examining inquiry team members at Birch College encompasses two forms of
case study research. The study conducted at Birch College was an instrumental case
study, a part of the Action Inquiry Project interested in understanding how institutions
besides Birch College can create equitable educational outcomes for minority students
(Stake, 1995). While I examined the team in terms of how organizational learning
occurred as part of the assessment process of the project, I focused on individuals and
what (or if) they learned about the importance of equity. The study was part of a
collective case study. In a collective case study, such as the Action Inquiry Project,
several schools were chosen as case studies where there was coordination between each
school and each institution was crucial in understanding how practitioners can increase
community college student success (Stake, 1995).
53
Research Focus
The data collection methods that I will describe in greater detail are aimed at
addressing the following question: How do participants in an inquiry project learn about
equity and issues of equity? The sub question that I am examining is: How do the
individuals use what they learned about equity on campus pertaining to Latinos and
African American students in their work?
Research Issues
Within the research questions, several research issues arise that are pertinent to
the overall study. Research issues are important to analyze since issues are tied to
particular meanings within the case and assist in recognizing problems within the study
as well as aid in organizing the case study (Stake, 1995). The following issues were
pursued in the study:
• Are there conflicting definitions of equity at Birch College?
• Who is responsible for ensuring that the assessment practices learned in the project
are being utilized?
• Are the participant’s expectations for organizational learning realistic?
The aforementioned research issues served as a more specific means of assessing whether
or not community college practitioners are creating avenues for change on their campus
concerning equitable educational outcomes. Research issues provide a context with
respect to the human concerns that arise from the study (Stake, 1995). The issue
questions “help us expand upon the moment, help us see the instance in a more historical
54
light, help us recognize the pervasive problems in human interaction” (Stake, 1995, p.
17).
Birch College
The data was collected at Birch College (a two year institution) located in
Southern California. As of Fall 2007, Birch College served 29,012 students of which
8,611 were enrolled full time (“College Facts,” 2008). The racial/ethnic background of
the campus is as follows: Asian/Pacific islander/Filipino 16%, African American 13%,
Hispanic 35%, Native American/Alaskan Native 1%, Other 2%, White 28%, and
Unknown 4% (“College Facts,” 2008). Students at the institution vary in their educational
goals as well: 38% of the students at the institution aspire to attain a bachelor’s degree,
with 22% of students pursuing vocational objectives (“College Facts,” 2008). The
average age of the students is 30 years old with the majority of the students, 30%,
between the ages of 20-24 (“College Facts,” 2008).
Birch College is one of three institutions selected to participate in the Action
Inquiry Project aimed at creating equitable educational outcomes for Latino and African
American students. The college was selected to conduct a self-assessment study over a
year “to gauge how practices at their college or university measure up against
benchmarks of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity on their campus” (“Frequently Asked
Questions,” 2008). The Action Inquiry Project coincides with other initiatives, such as
the state’s Student Success Plan, at Birch College examining how students progress
through the academic pathway starting at basic skills to transfer level courses. The Action
Inquiry Project involves a culture of inquiry where “administrators and faculty members
55
who identify and address problems through purposeful analysis of data about student
learning and progress” (Dowd, 2005, p. 5). The culture of inquiry involves following an
eight-step process: (1) build teams to address institutional goals; (2) collect outcomes
data relevant to the problem under examination (take stock); (3) develop hypotheses to
explain data (hunches); (4) set benchmarks to direct team’s activities; (5) engage in
inquiry activities to explore hypotheses; (6) act on findings from inquiry activities and
implement changes; (7) evaluate effectiveness of newly implemented changes and; (8)
disseminate findings from inquiry activities and effected changes, and repeat the cycle to
further and refine solutions (Interim report to the President, 2008).
The culture of inquiry incorporates several concepts of organizational learning as
discussed by Garvin (1993) and Huber (1991). Meaning, management, and measurement
which Garvin (1993) describes as important elements individuals should examine in a
learning organization are incorporated in the way the team examines the data and
establishes benchmarking goals. The culture of inquiry incorporates Huber’s (1991)
concept that organizational learning occurs if knowledge is acquired that the group may
find useful. The process of acting on findings and the dissemination of knowledge to
others utilize such elements of organizational learning.
Participants
The background of the people involved in the study impacted what and how the
assessment took place on campus in addition to how the overall organization learned
throughout the process. The type of sampling used for this study was criterion sampling
since the people that I chose all meet a set of criteria of being participants in an inquiry
56
project. Criterion sampling was used since all the participants involved were selected as
team members for the Birch College project team and were used as a means of
maintaining quality assurance (Patton, 2002). Since the study focused on the Action
Inquiry Project, the institution was already been chosen for me. The team members were
also selected prior to our participation in the study.
The team members were selected by the president and dean of Birch College to
serve as expert representatives of the institution. The composition of the team included
faculty, support staff, and administrators. I was interested in analyzing participants who
were involved in an inquiry project. The purpose of utilizing criterion sampling “is to
review and study all cases that meet some predetermined criterion of importance, a
strategy common in quality assurance efforts” (Patton, 2002, p. 238). The individuals I
interviewed all meet the criteria of being participants in an inquiry group and were part of
the Birch College team of the project. The team members I focused on in order to address
my research questions are listed below in Table 1. Obtaining access to my participants
beyond the already scheduled meetings was a challenge I anticipated would occur.
Table 1: Participants in an Inquiry Group Project - Team Members at Birch College
Name Gender Role in Team Title
Haley Anderson Female Team Member Administrator
Michael Lam
Male Team Member Faculty
Lucy Bradford
Female Team Member Faculty
57
The Birch College team consisted of five faculty members, four administrators,
four academic and student support staff members, and two research associates. The
participants that I focused on are two faculty members and one administrator who were
actively involved in the project compared to other team members, have participated in
previous CUE projects such as Equity for All, and have made some changes as a result of
their participation in the inquiry group.
Methods
Data was collected through the use of observations, documents collected from the
team meetings, and interviews. The data was collected in two phases: the first phase
involved observations and document analysis and the second phase involved going back
for interviews which either confirmed or disconfirmed the field notes. The project also
collected data from various researchers and one of the data sources used in this study is
the mid-point evaluation interview conducted by a researcher.
The design of the project consisted of team meetings, inquiry group activities, a
symposium, and site visits to alliance colleges. The team at Birch College met about
twice a month to discuss how to address inequities at the institution based on institutional
data focusing on basic skills courses as disaggregated by race and ethnicity. The team
meetings served as an opportunity for participants to engage in inquiry group activities,
such as the syllabus workshops, where participants shared their newly gained knowledge
with other colleagues on campus. The symposium gave the team the opportunity to share
their experience and knowledge about equity with alliance colleges who had an interest in
utilizing similar tools at their own campus. Lastly, the site visits served as a chance for
58
participants to gain insight into other successful ways of addressing issues of equity on
campus. Table 2 below depicts a timeline of the meetings and activities which occurred
as part of the Action Inquiry Project. The inquiry group activities are described in greater
detail in the following chapter.
59
Table 2: Birch College Schedule-Action Inquiry Project
Date Activity
August 2007 Collected “Baseline Data” pertaining to basic skills to transfer
level courses in English as a Second Language, Math, Reading,
and Composition.
Created benchmarks based on transfer level courses and gateway
courses. Developed hunches.
September 11, 2007 Created instructions for syllabus reflection exercise
October 8, 2007 Examined basic skills syllabi to determine obstacles in student
learning.
Created instructions for “I Learn Best” assessment.
October 23, 2007 Reviewed basic skills syllabi and conducted syllabus reflection
exercise. Developed I Learn Best assessment.
October 31, 2007 Flex Day Workshop
Organized workshop for Math, English, and ESL faculty where
they could explore effective ways to teach basic skills.
November 13, 2007 Team made recommendations based on syllabus reflection
exercise.
Distributed “I Learn Best” assessment in basic skills courses.
December 11, 2007 Discussed findings from “I Learn Best” exercise and team’s
recommendations.
January 17, 2008 Discussed report to the President; talked about ideas for
developing a model syllabus
January 29, 2008 Presented report to the President. Team prepared for Syllabus
Workshop
February 12, 2008 Team prepared for Syllabus Workshop; Presented work to the
Academic Senate
February 26, 2008 Syllabi Workshop 1: Why is examining syllabi relevant to basic
skills courses?; faculty members as agents of change; equity-
minded practice
March 4, 2008 Syllabi Workshop 2: Culturally-responsive pedagogy; assessing
student learning; constructing the ideal syllabus
March 11, 2008 Syllabi Workshop 3: Active learning; constructing the ideal
syllabus
March 14, 2008 Action Inquiry Project Symposium
April 15, 2008 Reviewed consultant reports and future benchmarking goals.
Discussed Syllabus Workshop
April 26 & May 8,
2008
Site Visits to Community College 1 and Community College 2
May 13, 2008 Discussed site visits, preparing for the president’s report
June 10 & 19, 2008 Discussed findings from site visits and the final report to the
President.
60
The inquiry group activities relate to various concepts of organizational learning,
particularly those of Garvin (1993), Huber (1991), and Kruse (2001). The analysis of
baseline data of basic skills students disaggregated by race and ethnicity served as a form
of problem solving, the construction of the interim report to the president and the syllabus
workshops represented experimentation with new ways as well as transferring knowledge
(Garvin, 1993). Several of the team members were involved in prior projects with CUE
which brought insight to the group in terms of learning from past experience and the team
meetings as well as the meeting with the consultants at the symposium align with the
concept of learning from others (Garvin, 1993). The team became aware of inequities at
the institution through institutional assessment such as I Learn Best (knowledge
acquisition), created syllabus workshops (information distribution), and produced an
interim and final report to the president describing their work throughout project
(information interpretation) (Huber, 1991). Kruse (2001) highlighted the importance of
developing professional communities or teams as a means of implementing change at an
institution which was the foundation of the project. Through these teams, participants
were able to exchange ideas regarding teaching practices which helped or presented
barriers to students. In the following section, the observation process will be described,
followed by document analysis, and lastly interviews.
Observations
The group at Birch College held team meetings once a month to discuss the
practitioner-assessment that occurred at the prior meetings. The project started prior to
my participation in December. I and others observed ten team meetings held once a
61
month, sometimes twice a month, at Birch College. The meetings lasted two hours and
consisted of dialogue amongst the team members. During the meetings, I sat behind the
main circle of participants and observed how the team members interacted with one
another and their reactions to the meeting items. The meetings served as a means to
discuss future workshops and ultimately the items that would be included in the final
report to the college president. Observations serve as an opportunity for the “researcher
[to focus] on categories or key events, attentive to background conditions that may
influence subsequent analysis” (Stake, 1995, p. 62). The observations allowed me the
ability to “understand and capture the context within which people interact,” “allows an
inquirer to be open, discovery oriented, and inductive,” and “the opportunity to see things
that may routinely escape awareness among the people in the setting” (Patton, 2002, p.
262). Observations also assisted in integrating narratives from the participants in the
project.
Conducting observations allows the researcher to learn more about the
organization that participants may not reveal during the interview process (Patton, 2002).
Through observations I compared the perceptions of the participants with my own
perceptions to obtain a clearer view of the organization (Patton, 2002). In addition, I used
my reflections of the meetings to describe the people and the setting beyond my actual
notes (Patton, 2002). The impressions that I received from the comments made by team
members or their reactions to specific items on the agenda influenced the types of
probing questions I asked during the interview sessions. I utilized the participant’s verbal
and non-verbal reactions to agenda items to obtain further information about their view
62
on topics such as equity on campus. Additionally, observing the individuals gave me the
opportunity to see what type of language they used to address equity at the institution.
Topics that I addressed in my reflections may not have been discussed during the meeting
or halted due to time constraints. The interviews served as a time for additional
questioning regarding the individual’s reaction to a certain topic or for clarification.
Document Analysis
The documents I analyzed were the team meeting notes, interim report to the
president, final report to the president, worksheets, and agendas distributed at the team
meetings. Gaining access to such material was beneficial since I obtained information
that participants may not disclose during the interviews, observations, or details
mentioned during the meetings (Patton, 200). Documents also serve “as stimulus for
paths of inquiry that can be pursued only through direct observation and interviewing”
(Patton, 2002, p. 294). In analyzing the documents, I focused on the language used to
describe the meeting items, who is set to discuss the material compared to who actually
presented the material, and what items were presented at each meeting and what is not.
Since the Action Inquiry Project is facilitated by the Center for Urban Education at the
University of Southern California, the topics listed on the agenda reflected items related
to the goals of the project as well as what the participants deemed as important to
address. The aforementioned documents also “serve as substitutes for records of activity
that the researcher could not observe directly” (Stake, 1995, p. 68). Through the process
of document analysis I obtained clues as to what the organization and institution values or
63
deems important in relation to the project. The items mentioned in the documents reveal a
part of the organizational culture in terms of what subjects are examined.
Interviews
Individual interviews were conducted with the inquiry group participants of the
Birch College team. The individuals allowed me the opportunity “to find out what is in
and on someone else’s mind, to gather their stories” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). In addition,
the interviews confirmed or disconfirmed existing data based on the observations and
documents. As part of the data collection process, a consultant from the Center of Urban
Education also conducted mid-year interviews with the participants. The consultant asked
participants about equity in student outcomes as well as the participant’s perception of
equity as related to the project.
Individual interviews were conducted in the offices of the participants at Birch
College and lasted about an hour each. The focus of the interviews was to obtain an
understanding of what (if any) learning was obtained through participation in the project
specifically relating to the topic of equity. The interview guide that was used is available
in Appendix A. The interviews were recorded, per consent from the participants. The
interview included eight questions covering topics such as reflecting on team meetings
were issues of equity were discussed, focusing on the participant’s definition of equity,
impact of assessment activities, what and if they had shared any information about
equity, any changes they made as a result of the project, as well as the opportunity for the
participants to ask any questions.
64
The questions in the interview guide related to the inquiry group activities such as
the syllabus workshops and the meeting where the team wrote the report to the president.
The focus was on how the participants viewed equity and issues of equity on campus.
The questions also addressed what and if the participant used what they learned in the
inquiry group activities and if they were able to transfer their knowledge to other
colleagues beyond those on the team. Several questions addressed how the participants
defined equity-mindedness and how they had spoken about equity or issues of equity to
colleagues not participating in the project. Since I was examining language use, I asked
participants to define student centered as well and relate that to the term equity-minded,
which was a discussion that appeared in some team meetings.
I utilized the structured open-ended interview approach to maintain consistency
with each interview. The structured open-ended interview approach allowed me the
ability to use the same instrument for each person, minimize variation among
interviewers, maintain a focused interview, and allowed me to locate responses fairly
quickly (Patton, 2002). Given that the study is action research, the standardized open-
ended interview gave me the ability to obtain the desired necessary information within a
limited amount of time. This is very important since most participants are difficult to
interview for a long period of time (Patton, 2002).
The interviews served to obtain a sense of how the participants viewed their role
in the project and how they have changed as a result of being active participants in the
project since the project ended. During the interviews, the participants would begin
addressing the question and later start talking about other issues such as the lack of
65
departmental meetings or the lack of having an open mind when examining disaggregated
data. I would take notes throughout the interview to ensure that I would not miss any
important topics. I allowed the participants to finish their story but would make sure to
adhere to the interview guide in order to discuss the topics that pertained to my study.
The interviews were transcribed afterwards and analyzed for common themes.
Each person interviewed was given a consent form that they signed in addition to
giving verbal consent of participating in the study. The consent form described the study,
how their information was used, their rights, confidentiality of the information, and
potential risks. To protect the identity of the individuals involved in the study, I used
pseudonyms to refer to them.
Ethical Concerns
When conducting research, ethical concerns are of importance. Since qualitative
research methods may elicit very personal responses compared to quantitative
approaches, protecting the privacy and rights of the participants is crucial (Patton, 2002).
The rights and privacy of the individuals who participated in this project were protected
through various formats. Interviewees were given a consent form indicating the purpose
of the Action Inquiry Project, procedure, confidentiality, and their rights. In order to
protect the privacy of the individuals and the institution serving as the site of this study,
pseudonyms have been used.
Analysis of the Data
The process of analysis involves the taking apart of data and putting the pieces
back together while trying to interpret the results (Stake, 1995). Analysis allows the
66
researcher to make meaning of the impressions we receive at the beginning, throughout
and at the end of the data collection (Stake, 1995). For this study, data was collected
through observations, documents, and interviews. Data collection took place in two
phases. The first phase of data collection consisted of observations and documents. The
second phase of data collection involved interviews.
For observations, I looked over the notes I and others took during the meetings
and applied the codes of awareness, interpretation, action, and language. Depending on
the themes that arose, I only focused on one portion of the observations where the
participants I focused on were making statements that were important in addressing my
research questions. Based on the codes established from my conceptual framework, I
began the analysis process with my field notes from the observations and the documents
distributed at the team meetings several more times to identity additional themes (Stake,
1995).
The documents were reviewed more than once as well and coded for similar
themes. Through document analysis, I was able to uncover any inconsistencies between
what the participants mentioned during the meetings and what was written as important.
The documents also served as a means to discover the process of the workshops
conducted and any details that participants deemed as important, which explained some
of their reactions during the meetings or comments made during the interviews (Patton,
2002).
The interviews were recorded using a tape recorder and transcribed. I took notes
throughout the interview in order to capture any important topics and quotes mentioned
67
by the participant. In order to record as much detail as possible, I incorporated the notes I
took during the interview with the transcription. Doing so gave me a more accurate
record of the interview. As a researcher, I am interested in “a collection of instances,
expecting that, from the aggregate, issue-relevant meanings will emerge” (Stake, 1995, p.
75). I was interested in looking for patterns and emerging themes. I coded the
transcription in order to establish some themes. The codes that I used were: changes in
awareness of the problem, changes in interpretation of the problem, changes in
action/inaction, and changes in language. The codes arise from the conceptual framework
utilized to understand organizational learning in this study. Language, particularly
language related to equity, was used as an aspect of practice that I could examine.
Language is a tool that participants can utilize to represent learning. The interviews were
presented in the form of case narratives to “form vicarious experience and naturalistic
generalizations, assertions to work with existing propositional knowledge to modify
existing generalizations” (Stake, 1995, p. 86). Narrative descriptions serve to illustrate
what occurred and interpret what the instance meant. Through the use of narratives, the
following themes emerged in the coding process with a more personal description:
“assumptions about students,” “certain ways of understanding students,” “certain ways of
understanding faculty roles,” and “certain ways of feeling.”
Trustworthiness
In order to establish trustworthiness in the study, I utilized triangulation. By using
the triangulation of my methods and sources I can obtain an “understanding [of the]
inconsistencies in findings across different kinds of data [which] can be illuminative and
68
important” (Patton, 2002, p. 556). The type of triangulation that I used is the triangulation
of qualitative data sources. The process involves “comparing and cross-checking the
consistency of information derived at different times and by different means within
qualitative methods” (Patton, 2002, p. 559). I compared my notes from the meetings with
any documents distributed at the team meetings along with my notes from the interviews.
Ultimately “the trustworthiness of the data is tied directly to the trustworthiness of the
person who collects and analyzes the data-and his or her demonstrated competence”
(Patton, 2002, p. 570). By reviewing the data collected through observations, document
ana l y s i s, and interviews several times I ensured the trustworthiness of the study.
Presentation of Results
The results are presented in a storytelling manner. The main themes found after
the data analysis are described in detail through the use of narratives after providing an
overall illustration of the theme. Doing so allows for the experience of each participant to
depict the organizational learning process that occurred. The presentation of the issues at
the institution through the use of narratives is beneficial since “issues are good windows
for examining the conditions, the complexity, and the coping behavior of the case”
(Stake, 1995, p. 127).
Findings to Highlight
I determined what findings to highlight based on the focus of the study. The
findings I included are those that address my research questions and research issues since
that is the intent of the study. The themes that arose from the coding process are the focus
of the results section. Although additional issues may arise from the analysis of
69
observations, document analysis, and interviews, highlighting everything that is
mentioned will not solidify the study. Such topics are categorized as areas for future
research.
Utilizing the conceptual framework of organizational learning resulted in the
creation of new themes. While examining changes in behavior through my initial codes
of changes in awareness of the problem, changes in interpretation of the problem,
changes in action/inaction, and changes in language, several new themes emerged. The
themes are: “assumptions about students,” “certain ways of understanding students,”
“certain ways of understanding faculty roles,” and “certain ways of feeling.” These
themes reoccurred in team meetings and in the interviews. In the following chapter, I
describe how these themes were evident in the data and grew from the initial codes.
Limitations
Since the group participating in the project at Birch College is small in size, I am
limited in terms of the number of people from which I can choose from as my sample.
Not all team members were active participants, which makes the sampling more
challenging with respect to obtaining somewhat constant communication and data
collection. However, the individuals I chose as the focus of the study actively participated
throughout the project. A limitation of the study is the focus on participants who had been
part of previous project with the Center for Urban Education at USC. Having previous
knowledge about equity and what it means to be equity-minded may affect the manner in
which the individuals viewed equity on campus as part of the project. Even though “there
are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry” my belief is that given my limited
70
resource, the data I receive is “information rich” (Patton, 2002, p. 244). The study was
designed to select team members based on their contributions to the college in addition to
their designation as experts. Therefore, although the size of the group is small, it is
intentional in order to address the goals of the Action Inquiry Project. Similar to Kruse’s
(2001) study, my study focuses on a small group of people involved in a professional
community or team. It was a unique opportunity to observe an institution which has been
involved in inquiry group projects for three years and is one of a few institutions
examining equity on campus utilizing new tools created by the Action Inquiry Project.
By utilizing observations, document analysis, and interviews I obtained a better
understanding of what if any learning occurred from the point of view of the participants.
Another limitation of the study is not having the perspective of the leaders of the
project. Although the study included an administrator and two faculty members, the team
leaders were not examined. The manner in which the team leaders view equity and issues
of equity at Birch College could impact the direction of the project and how team
members themselves begin to interpret equity. Team leaders have the ability to affect
what and how topics are discussed which could result in analyzing inequitable
educational outcomes beyond the classroom.
An additional limitation of the study is having more faculty members involved
than administrators. Since the inquiry activities led to the analysis of the syllabus,
participants who were not faculty members had difficulty applying concepts regarding
syllabus review to their own work. Depending on the role of the administrator,
individuals such as senior administrators, may not have daily contact with students and
71
therefore have a different perspective about the type of student attending Birch College.
Administrators working in the field of student services could view issues of equity in a
different lens since their interaction with students might be somewhat higher than senior
level administrators. Faculty members who have daily contact with students inside the
classroom may describe students completely different from administrators since they see
how students act and perform. The subject matter the faculty member teaches could also
impact how they describe students. English professors might have a different
understanding of their students compared to Mathematics professors or Science
professors. Since the president at Birch College chose project participants, the disciplines
represented were limited to who was selected. Focusing solely on the experiences of
faculty members or only administrators could result in different perspectives of equity
and issues of equity on campus.
Implications and Conclusions
I present the importance of the findings by describing how the themes resulting
from the data analysis address the research questions used as the focus of the study. The
implications of the study also include an assessment of the Action Inquiry Project from
the participant’s point of view, particularly how the project served as a means for
organizational learning in addressing the topic of equity. Moreover, I discuss how the
results can impact how educators implement professional development practices and
what they decide to include as items for assessment. The findings are also important since
I identify whether or not the individuals are helping or hurting the project from reaching
72
the pre-established goals. Finally, I include suggestions for next steps, as the project will
continue in a new phase.
Usefulness of Findings
The usefulness of the findings depend on the credibility, authenticity,
comprehensive and balance, extrapolation, and transferability of the findings (Patton,
2002). The findings can be described as naturalistic generalizations which “are
conclusions arrived at through personal engagement in life’s affairs or by vicarious
experience so well constructed that the person feels as if it happened to themselves”
(Stake, 1995, p. 85). Generalization of the findings is not completely possible because of
the nature of action research which focuses on a specific problem concerning people and
the organization (Patton, 2002). Additionally the intellectual and methodological rigor of
the study will impact the usefulness of the results (Patton, 2002). Since the study is part
of a much larger project, the findings from the study contribute to understanding how
practitioner assessment practices influence how an institution creates equitable
educational outcomes for Latino and African American students.
73
Chapter 4: Results
In this chapter I will explore the findings using the conceptual framework of
organizational learning. Within the framework of organizational learning I am focusing
on how individuals learn about equity as observed through changes in behavior and
language. The changes in behavior are observed through changes in awareness,
interpretation, and action as experienced throughout the inquiry process of the Action
Inquiry Project. In each of the aforementioned categories of behavior and language, the
focus on equity and issues of equity is described and examined.
Figure 1 below illustrates how the two findings, of “going from deficit thinking to
equity-minded thinking” and “feeling uncomfortable” were created from the conceptual
framework of organizational learning. In order to examine how learning occurred in this
study, I observed how changes in awareness, interpretation, action/inaction, and language
resulted in the participants modifying their thinking. Yet, the participants still felt
uncomfortable when discussing equity and issues of equity at Birch College. Once the
inquiry group participants became aware of the problem, their assumptions about the
students changed since they obtained a better view of what it means to be a student at
Birch College. The manner in which the inquiry group participants interpreted the
problem led to understanding the students differently in terms of their background and
what external factors contributed to the students’ performance in the classroom. Through
my analysis of the data, I noticed that the inquiry group participants chose to concentrate
their efforts on highlighting the role faculty play inside the classroom beyond teaching as
a means of addressing the problem. The themes of “assumptions about students,” “certain
74
ways of understanding students,” “certain ways of understanding faculty roles,” and
“certain ways of feeling” evolved as a result of the changes in behavior.
Figure 1: Development of Themes
A description of the inquiry group activities that occurred will be presented in
order to provide a foundation of where and how the themes arose. The background of the
participants will be presented to obtain a better understanding of their perspective of the
project. As previously mentioned, pseudonyms will be used in order to protect the
identity of the individuals. The results are presented first to depict changes in awareness,
interpretation, action/inaction, and language, as evidenced by the observations, document
Assumptions
about Students
Certain Ways of
Understanding
Students
Changes in
Awareness of
the Problem
Changes in
Interpretation of
the Problem
Changes in
Action/Inaction
Changes in
Language
Certain Ways of
Understanding
Faculty Roles
Certain Ways
of Feeling
Changes in
Behavior
Deficit
Thinking to
Equity-Minded
Thinking
Feeling
Uncomfortable
75
analysis, and interviews conducted as part of the study. By observing changes in behavior
through changes in awareness, interpretation, action/inaction, and language I discovered
several themes that emerged from my analysis of the data. The themes “assumptions
about students,” “certain ways of understanding students,” “certain ways of
understanding faculty roles,” and “certain ways of feeling” led to the creation of two
main findings. The assumptions about students, the ways of understanding students, and
focusing on faculty roles resulted in a shift from deficit thinking to equity-minded
thinking. The ways individuals felt about equity-minded language made them feel
uncomfortable when discussing equity and issues of equity on campus. The chapter
concludes with two main findings resulting from my analysis of the data, a change in
going from deficit thinking to equity-minded thinking and feeling uncomfortable.
Inquiry Group Activities
The Action Inquiry Project began in the summer of 2007 and concluded in the
summer of 2008. Throughout the year, a team of fourteen individuals consisting of
faculty, support staff, and administrators met in team meetings to discuss benchmarking
goals and the implementation of activities, which reflected the goals of the group. Upon
reviewing the data at the initial meeting, the group was surprised to learn that Latino and
African American students represented a high number of basic skills students in relation
to their student population.
The team developed hunches, or a set of hypotheses, to provide an explanation of
the data. These hunches were assumptions the team members had in examining why
students did not continue on to transfer level courses. The hunches were divided into
76
several categories including institutional practices, faculty, students, and student services
as well as academic services. Within each of these hunches, the team members further
analyzed what the college could do to improve the current situation and what factors the
institution could not control. Some of the hunches pertaining to students included “lack of
confidence and motivation, easily defeated,” “lack study and time management skills,”
and “need support with managing school, work, and family” (Interim Report, 2008).
Hunches concerning faculty were “fail to match teaching styles to students’ learning
styles,” “unaware of the unique needs and profile of basic skills students,” and
“inaccessible to students” (Interim Report, 2008). Upon analyzing the hunches, the team
at Birch College decided to focus on obtaining a greater understanding of what was
important to students and what could assist them in being successful.
The team performed two inquiry activities. The first inquiry activity team
members conducted was a syllabus reflection exercise in which they examined the syllabi
of fellow colleagues. The individuals specifically focused on the overall document
looking for items such as clarity, appearance, and a grading rubric as well as identifying
equity-conscious practices as seen through mentioning services to assist students,
empowering students, and connecting the material to the students’ cultural background.
The team pursued this activity since the syllabus provides insight into what is occurring
inside the classroom and the type of information presented to students. The syllabus
reflection exercise served as a means of providing insight into faculty practices. As Haley
notes, “I think my assumptions were proven wrong. I learned really the state of the
syllabus.”
77
The second activity, called I Learn Best, was developed by team members and
was utilized to obtain a glimpse into what students perceived as the best way to learn
inside the classroom. The I Learn Best exercise was distributed to students in the courses
taught by team members. The exercise provided the team with a student perspective and
insight into what might be contributing to the low success rates in basic skills courses.
Students also revealed what they enjoyed the most, the least, and could provide
suggestions for the professor as to what other professors have done in class which helped
them learn. For example, students commented that they preferred teachers who “showed
they really cared” or promoted that students “ask for help if [they] don’t know
something” (Interim report, 2008). Students also mentioned that they liked when
professors “treated them as adults” and “appreciate instructors who take the time to
explain students’ mistakes to them” (Interim report, 2008). The activity served as a
means for the group participants to capture the student voice anonymously while also
learning more about their own practices especially since the questions referred to the
instructor.
The team compared the results of the I Learn Best exercise with the hunches and
discovered that several factors involving student’s lack of confidence, the need for
support in balancing school and external obligations, and not using academic and student
support services were in line with the student responses. The student responses in the
exercise also affirmed the team’s hunches regarding faculty. Current practices by faculty
were not matching teaching styles to students’ learning styles, they did not understand the
78
needs of basic skills students, students wanted new teaching methods, and needed greater
assistance in overcoming anxiety about subject matter.
Upon examining the results of the I Learn Best exercise and the syllabus
reflection activity, the team decided to pursue the syllabus as a means of assessing
student learning at the institution. Specifically, student learning at the institution in terms
of students enrolled in basic skills courses and determining how individuals at the
institution can assist in preparing them for transfer level courses and gateway courses.
Based on the baseline data presented at the first team meeting, the issue of student
learning particularly amongst Latino and African American students was an area of
concern at Birch College given the student population at the institution. According to the
team members, improving the syllabus would serve as a way to examine how and what
individuals at the institution, mainly faculty, could do to assist students in succeeding at
the institution. The focus was on the person inside of the classroom rather than
individuals working in other areas on campus.
Subsequent meetings centered on developing activities, “syllabus workshops,”
titled Promoting Student Success through Your Syllabus where colleagues on campus
could attend and learn more about elements that faculty may want to incorporate into
their syllabus. The team also developed a preliminary report to the president of Birch
College, which outlined the activities performed by the team members in addition to
providing a description of the upcoming syllabus workshops, and site visits that were
done during the last portion of the project. The report was presented to the president
79
during a team meeting in which the president acknowledged and gave the group positive
feedback on the progress of the team.
The team conducted three syllabus workshops where team members presented
information informing faculty members from across campus how they could improve
their syllabus. The workshops also served as an opportunity for faculty members and staff
to share effective teaching methods they utilize in the classroom and to inform others of
on campus services students can use. Participants were shocked upon learning about the
students’ backgrounds in the first workshop. In the Stand Up exercise, one team member
asked students in a basic skills mathematics course several questions about their
background such as “stand up if your parents expected you to graduate from college”
where most students stood up, “ stand up if you know someone who is close to you that is
in jail” and five students stood up, “stand up if you ever aced an exam” and some stood
up, and “stand up if you have at least one parent who has a bachelor’s degree” to which
no students stood up. The information served as a foundation for discussing the tone used
in the participant’s syllabus, discovering academic and student support services available
at both Birch College campuses since both campuses do not have the same services, and
reminding participants of their impact on the success of students. The second workshop
involved a step-by-step guide to transforming a syllabus while incorporating elements
that addressed the needs of students. For example, team members encouraged participants
to ask themselves “do my texts address the needs of diverse backgrounds?” and “can my
students afford them?” The final workshop focused on active learning and understanding
students, particularly the needs of “millennial” students or students who entered college
80
after 2000 and prefer to learn by doing. Participants examined their own learning styles
and examined their own syllabus to see if they were using various learning styles in order
to accommodate several student-learning styles. Haley urged participants to “mix it up.
There are different learning styles. We’re talking about listening [to students].” The
participants were given a course syllabus template, which they could use as a starting
point for developing their own.
The Action Inquiry Project held a Symposium where all three teams from the lead
colleges showcased their work. The Birch College team presented the inquiry activities to
a group of community college practitioners from schools that were interested in joining
the project. The team highlighted how developing a culture of inquiry at an institution
could lead to improving student success, particularly for Latino and African American
students. Two outside consultants also met with the Birch College team members to
discuss the next steps the team could use to improve the completion rate of basic skills
courses especially amongst underrepresented students based on the work the team had
accomplished thus far. The consultants suggested exploring the student voice by asking
students about their learning and what techniques from other courses helped them learn
the best. The consultant suggested, “You look at what you mean by student centered. Do
the same with culturally relevant. What does this mean? At the same time that you
introduce this you are bringing in race.” Additionally, the consultants suggested a
curricular review since students starting at the lowest basic skills level were spending a
long time progressing through the sequence of classes required to reach the transfer level
courses. The facilitator mentioned, “The more important problem is taking what you
81
learned to the individual course and see the relationship between courses.” The final
recommendation was for the team to incorporate inquiry activities into professional
development opportunities. They emphasized the importance of looking at pedagogy and
practice as well as incorporating opportunities for leadership development in order to
encourage faculty to begin changing current practices and policies.
The team proceeded to conduct site visits to two peer colleges as part of the
benchmarking process. Team members examined a first year experience program at one
site and teaching and learning communities at another college. By exploring effective
practices at another college, team members at Birch College could examine and possibly
implement similar techniques at their institution. The site visits were discussed at the
following team meeting in May where the team also prepared the final report for the
president. Based on the information the team had acquired as a result of the project and
their observations at the site visits, the team recommended the creation of teaching
communities for the basic skills English faculty, one for each course offered, where
faculty could discuss ways to collaborate and share effective practices in order to increase
student success in these courses. Similar to the work done by team members, participants
in these teaching communities would analyze data disaggregated by race/ethnicity to
establish their own goals depending on the student success gaps in the courses. Each
teaching community would solely focus on their own course thus increasing the
opportunity for success since the strategies developed by the faculty members would
address the specific needs of students in that course. The teaching community teams were
to meet twice a month to discuss their progress based on their goals. Since the English
82
faculty was seen as the most ready to collaborate and basic skills English courses had the
lowest success rates, the English courses were chosen as the pilot department.
In order to implement the program, team members suggested that the culture at
Birch College needed to change in order to support and demonstrate their dedication to
improving student success in basic skills courses. In addition, the team suggested that the
college offer a stipend to those individuals who participate in the teaching community in
order to gain the participation of part time faculty and faculty who are already heavily
involved on campus. The final recommendation is gaining support from the Institutional
Research Office since individuals involved in the teaching community will need to
collect data at the start of the term in order to establish goals.
As depicted through the project activities, the team members at Birch College
experienced organizational learning by participating in an inquiry group project. A means
of observing what, if any, learning occurred is by examining an individual’s change in
behavior. I will describe instances of how three individuals involved in the inquiry group
project learned about equity and issues of equity at Birch College. The changes in
behavior were focused on awareness, interpretation, action, and language as represented
in the observations, documents, and interviews used to collect data. Initially analyzing the
data with the codes of awareness, interpretation, action, and language led to the creation
of several themes.
The background of the participants will be discussed in the following section.
Awareness, interpretation, action, and language are discussed along with narratives from
individuals to provide an understanding for the focus of the results.
83
Team Members
Lucy
Lucy openly acknowledged her unawareness of the goals of the project even
though she contributed to the team “Partly – I feel bad because I didn’t go much last
semester. I missed like the orientation. So I don’t know.” Although she could not
articulate the goals of the project, her participation in the team meetings demonstrated
that she was utilizing concepts from the project and later stated that the syllabus
workshops “opened people’s eyes, it opened my eyes.” Lucy became involved in a hiring
committee for the student success centers as the diversity person as a result of a
discussion held during a team meeting concerning the hiring process and practices at the
institution. The discussion prompted her to ask questions about the manner in which
faculty were hired. She also changed her syllabus as a result of the meetings leading to
the syllabus workshops.
Haley
Throughout the project, Haley was the most vocal participant and was the most
interested in incorporating the student voice to the project. She notes, “We didn’t capture
student experience. I think further inquiry is important. [We need to] expand on the I
Learn Best exercise because it can’t be generalized. It wasn’t done systematically.” Since
Haley is an administrator her viewpoint regarding the focus of the project might have
influenced her opinion on examining students rather than or in addition to exploring
faculty practices. Haley commented that since participating in the project, when
colleagues ask her for data concerning students, she proposes disaggregating it by
84
race/ethnicity and examining any gaps. She mentioned that her colleagues are usually
surprised to hear the suggestion and exclaim that they had not thought of asking for the
information in that manner.
Michael
Similar to Lucy, Michael’s opinion regarding the assessment of faculty practices
changed overtime due to his own experience of altering his syllabus to reflect a more
equity-minded approach. During one of the syllabus workshops, Michael described to
participants how he removed the formal essay and replaced it with two smaller essays “I
do this because it’s less pressure. I have shorter smaller papers because students need
this. It’s important because in these essays they can figure out for themselves what
they’re getting out of the course.” Michael changed his syllabus to understand his
students better and engage students in learning. He also mentioned emphasizing study
groups to his students as a result of participating in the project.
Table 3 below illustrates some of the comments that Lucy, Haley, and Michael
have made over time revealing some changes in their thought process from the start of
the project in summer 2007 to the end of project in summer 2008 regarding the focus on
equity and issues of equity at Birch College.
85
Table 3: Evolution of Comments on Equity or Issues of Equity
Participant Comment at the beginning
of project
Comment at the end of
project
Lucy “I teach content, it’s not my
job to teach what office
hours is. Have them take an
intro to college class.”
“Change has to come in the
classroom…even now
students have resources and
students don’t use services
that are here. If the
professor doesn’t change,
success rates will fall.”
Haley “Students don’t have the
academic know-how.”
“If you get them [students]
engaged in the community
and social network then
they will stay and keep
attending.”
Michael “We don’t need syllabi
assessment because you as
the instructor know if
something worked and you
change it.”
“The biggest difference is
the instructor. That can be
the difference from one
student to another.”
All three participants attended almost every team meeting thus indicating
dedication to the project. Lucy missed two meetings, Haley only missed one, and Michael
attended every team meeting as well as was an active participant at the Action Inquiry
Project Symposium in March. Within each of the meetings, all three participants
commented on agenda items, the opinions of other team members, and offered
suggestions as to what the group could examine in relation to equity and issues of equity
at Birch College. The following sections examine how, or what, individuals learned about
equity and issues of equity as a result of their participation in the project. Through the
experiences of Lucy, Haley, and Michael, I will describe the learning that occurred in
changes in behavior as observed through awareness, interpretation, action, and language.
86
Awareness
Having an awareness of equity and issues of equity on campus is important since
the current focus on student success is color-blind. Bensimon (2004) claims that in order
for change to begin at an institution, “individuals must see, on their own, and as clearly as
possible, the magnitude of inequities” (p. 46). By presenting individuals in the inquiry
group with institutional data that is disaggregated by race and ethnicity, participants can
begin creating benchmarks appropriate for their institution. The manner in which data is
presented and examined impacts the direction and focus of the group. Bauman (2005)
asserts that “increased awareness of inequities in student outcomes [prompts] many team
members to ask new questions about their causes and consequences” (p. 26). Based on
the inquiry activities the group conducted, participants decided that awareness in
addressing issues of equity should begin in the classroom by examining teaching
practices through the course syllabus. In this section, the concept of awareness will be
examined through the experiences of Lucy, Haley, and Michael, as evident through the
data collected.
The three participants were participant in previous equity-focused projects which
may contribute to their ability to see inequities at the institution. However, the comments
made by the individuals reveal that, although they have experience looking at inequities
in other projects, personal beliefs still play a role in becoming aware of issues of equity.
Looking at the baseline data, attending meetings, and participating in the inquiry
activities served as a means for participants to become aware of equity and issues of
equity on campus. Lucy notes “these are not the students – these students are not like we
were. They’re really not.” She realizes that the students at Birch College have different
87
needs and experiences than when she was a student. At the midpoint evaluation, Lucy
appears to avoid examining issues of equity at the student level:
It’s not going to make any difference. Okay? I mean I – I’ve had students of all
ethnicities. Do really well, do really poorly. And so you just – you just look at the
student. You don’t – I don’t look at the – what their ethnic race is, ethnic
background is. I look at how well prepared they are for the course. And then
work on those issues.
While focusing on the challenges students are facing is important, understanding the
student’s background is also critical. The data was disaggregated by race and ethnicity
and discussed at team meetings in deciding benchmarks yet Lucy still prefers to ignore
these factors when examining student success. Her comments indicate that she is aware
of these differences yet she continues to perpetuate the colorblind perspective to student
success. In the third syllabus workshop examining active learning, Lucy comments how
her students do not prefer to learn by doing and it is a challenge to do anything. Her
perspective on student success is that the issue is a behavior problem:
I’m sure people will have some initial misgivings that this is what I – you know,
this is what – because it is – it was difficult for me too because the students
misbehave so much in class. They’re – you do tend to feel I have to be very
specific. But if you approach the behavior part as separate from the content of
your course, then maybe that’s a way they can get away from that.
Examining equity on campus is seen by Lucy as an “affirmative action kind of thing.”
Therefore, Lucy appears to view gaps in student success as a behavior issue, as she notes
that students “misbehave,” where students come to school without the proper know-how
thus resulting in professors having to discipline students in class. Doing so prevents
professors from having more time to dedicate to teaching. Lucy is aware that there is a
problem but does not appear to consider equity an issue.
88
Unlike Lucy, Haley is more open in her views on equity and issues of equity
pertaining to Latino and African American students at Birch College. Haley’s definition
of equity is having students that have traditionally been underrepresented in higher
education succeed at the same rate as other students. She mentions:
And so I think it’s been really hard for me to communicate that’s how I think of
equity to this group. And the first couple of meetings, at least the first two
months we were talking about, “Why are we measuring equity? We’re blaming
students,” and I feel like we’re not really blaming students, as to when I see the
data, it’s really just, you know, a lot of the aggregated data will mask some of the
gaps, and I think by looking at the data this way we can see that there are students
that have different experiences, whether it be because they have different family
backgrounds, different history here in the United States.
Haley saw the importance of examining the gaps in student success by disaggregating the
data by race and ethnicity.
Haley noticed that the inquiry activities opened up other team members’ view of
basic skills students. They became more aware of the background of basic skills students.
She notes:
And I think what we gained from [I Learn Best] is that they valued faculty that
taught not just the content, but study skills. So I think the faculty realized these
are really unsophisticated college students, and that my role now is to teach them
not just the content, but teach them how to study and things. And I think that’s
like a shift, ‘cause that’s what basic skill students are, is that for most of them
they don’t know how to study, in addition to deficiencies in many areas. So that
was bad and I don’t know what we’re going to do with it.
Haley expresses concern with how the team will respond to the data since they were
hesitant to examine issues of equity at the beginning. She recognizes the importance of
examining gaps in student success, particularly the student voice in uncovering barriers to
succeeding in basic skills courses.
Michael shares Haley’s interest in focusing on helping students. When asked
89
about the goal of the project he replied:
Well the main goal I guess is how to answer the question “why aren’t students
making it from the basic skills courses to the transfer level courses.” To figure
out that question and then to try and find solutions so that more students make it
from the basic skills courses into the transfer level courses.
Although he recognizes the need to assist students and explore ways to help basic skills
students, he is still uneasy about implementing new techniques if they impose a new
viewpoint on faculty. The difference in perspective could arise from Haley’s position as
an administrator compared to Michael’s faculty position. He comments that faculty tend
to get into a routine of teaching, prepping for courses and then going home without
paying much attention to what is happening on campus.
Michael does focus on students as well. His awareness of issues of equity on
campus stem from his understanding of the types of students that attend the institution.
When asked about students at Birch College he revealed:
It’s always been obvious teaching at a college like this that your students are so
spread out in terms of their abilities and that you are trying to not just make – just
help the ones at the top succeed, but try and help everyone succeed and it’s tricky
on how to raise up the ones at the bottom without sacrificing your standards, but I
think it’s certainly helped to make me a little bit more aware of those students at
the bottom and looking for new ways to help raise them up.
Through the analysis of the initial data Michael realized the importance of examining
students at all levels. He mentioned that, “being more conscious of those gaps may have
some sort of effect that maybe certain structures have accepted the fact that their students
do have very different needs.” His reaction to examining the syllabus as a means of
addressing student success was shared amongst other team members. In an interview
midway through the project, he commented:
90
And I think a common reaction, but these would probably be more the people that
don’t know – one reaction is, “Well, what’s the big deal? I mean we know how to
make a syllabus.” But I don’t think we’re gonna see a lot of that attitude in the
workshop because these are the people that signed up so – but I do think that
would be – and actually that was my initial reaction was, “What’s the big deal?”
But the more we talked about it the more I saw just the depth of what can actually
be done and I also saw how poor some of the syllabus are.
Although he was aware that the syllabus was a tool to discover issues of equity at the
institution, he was still skeptical of the process. During the meeting in late January when
the team presented their work to the president and continued preparing for the syllabus
workshop, Michael appeared cautious of how his colleagues would perceive the idea of
examining their syllabus. While another team member presented the reasoning as to why
the group chose to focus on the syllabus as a means of exploring student success, he
interrupted to state that the notion of having a “best syllabus” was optional and did not
want to force a template on the professors. Once the syllabus workshops began and he
shared his own syllabus changes, he began considering his students’ backgrounds and
what would make an impact on his students.
All three participants expressed some type of awareness to the issues of equity in
the student data. Lucy perpetuates the color-blind mentality to examining student success
by ignoring race and ethnicity as being a factor contributing to the gaps in the data. Her
perception of the students is that students will misbehave regardless of their racial/ethnic
background. Haley represents a viewpoint that is unlike Lucy. Haley perceives the
current problem as faculty not understanding the students they are teaching but rather
making assumptions based on their own perceptions of certain racial/ethnic groups. She
notes the importance of faculty realizing that the student’s background does impact the
91
manner in which the student performs inside the classroom. Through some of the inquiry
group activities, such as I Learn Best, Haley comments that faculty became aware of the
importance of teaching beyond the content since basic skills students mentioned wanting
to learn study skills. The responses given by Michael are a combination of Lucy and
Haley. During the April team meeting where the syllabus workshops were discussed,
Michael notes “we want to hit everybody, but we need to reach basic skills.” Although he
places students as an important focus, Michael is cautious not to overstep any boundaries
within the academic community at Birch College.
Table 4 below illustrates how the three participants viewed issues of equity or
equity on campus. Their awareness of the problem led over the course of the project to
varying conclusions based on what they perceived as the issue resulting from the baseline
data, team meetings, and their experiences on campus.
Table 4: Awareness of the Problem
Participant Equity or Issues of Equity Conclusion
Lucy Students can behave or
misbehave regardless of
racial/ethnic background.
Students are different and
need discipline in class.
Haley Faculty do not understand
the needs of basic skills
students.
Faculty are making
assumptions about student’s
background.
Michael Need to help out lower
performing students.
Examine syllabus to
provide tools for students
but not impose syllabus
template on faculty.
92
The findings are consistent with Bensimon (2004) and Bauman (2005) who indicate that
by having individuals view the data themselves, they can start thinking about what is
contributing to the inequities on campus. The responses indicate a varying awareness and
understanding of student success at the institution. Lucy perceives the problem as student
discipline which results in poor academic performance. Haley looks to faculty
assumptions as a barrier to student success. Michael sees the problem as a combination of
both faculty and students. He notes that faculty can assist students by providing the tools
for student success but hesitates to make recommendations which may limit academic
freedom. Although each participant mentioned a different factor, the conclusions revolve
around the need to provide students with additional assistance beyond learning the course
material.
Interpretation
In addition to awareness, the manner in which individuals analyze the data
presented will impact the manner in which they perceive issues of equity and equity at
the institution. Bensimon (2004) claims in addition to analyzing data, individuals “then
must analyze and integrate the meaning of these inequities” (p. 24). How individuals
interpret the data indicates the way they think, what they value, and influences their
willingness to change.
Lucy’s comments tend to focus on faculty practices as the source for the gap in
student success. Although the team was presented the data disaggregated by race and
ethnicity, Lucy asserts:
93
That we – we don’t – when we look at our class, we don’t see color. And to give
attention to more – more attention to one ethnic group to another knowing that
they struggle more. Is – is not what most teachers do. ‘Cause that’s – that’s biased
as well.
Based on her comments above, Lucy perceives issues of equity on campus in terms of
giving preference to one group over another rather than focusing on numerical parity
across racial/ethnic groups in basic skills courses. She does not appear to believe that a
student’s background has an impact on their learning but would prefer to eliminate that
factor when examining student success. In her view, focusing on Latino and African
American students is creating a bias which is what the group is trying to avoid. She
mentions that “there’s so much that needs to be done in – in the – you know, the whole
area of basic skills” yet she does not agree with focusing on one group of students which
was a goal established by the group during the September team meeting. Lucy mentions
that faculty members receive plenty of data indicating low student success rates and are
not pleased with the information but that participating in the Action Inquiry Project is a
means of starting to address the problem.
Lucy’s frustration was evident during the April team meeting where the group
discussed the syllabus workshops and the consultant reports in order to establish goals.
Haley commented on how student success rates could only go up since they were so low
to which Lucy replied:
No, it doesn’t have to go up because the bottom line is it is the person in the
classroom and until the attitude of the instructor changes nothing is going to
happen…change has to come and that’s why I liked doing the syllabus workshop.
It was a small thing but it opened up people’s minds and it even opened mine. The
emphasis needs to be on changing how we teach and it has to start in the
classroom.
94
The syllabus workshops showed faculty a glimpse into students’ background and how
obtaining a greater understanding of their students can lead towards improving student
success. However, Lucy appears to associate student success with faculty who do not
care. The dissatisfaction Lucy has with the faculty at Birch College stems from the lack
of accountability at the college. She notes that faculty tend to avoid their responsibilities,
which ultimately affects the students at the institution:
One of the other discussions we had in the project was faculty responsibility –
professional responsibility, how some instructors don’t post their office hours.
They don’t hold office hours – all of them. Let me tell you. Some instructors
don’t teach, and they don’t turn in sick [absent] paper. Some instructors have a
tutor teach their class…so there’s a whole lot of faculty irresponsibility. And
there’s no accountability for that. And I would like to see the culture of this
school change where if you’re caught doing something illegal, you actually feel
bad.
According to Lucy, the low student success rates of basic skills results from irresponsible
faculty members and the lack of care.
Similar to Lucy, Haley expressed frustration at the team meeting in April when
discussing establishing goals based on the consultant reports. While Lucy vividly noted
that student success depended on faculty and not resources, Haley expressed her opinion
“I still think the biggest factor is teaching and learning.” She notes that professors “Like
with the exception of reading, even math, they don’t know how to teach basic skills
students.”
Haley expressed her confusion with the goal of the project at the mid year
interview:
95
I think, really, well this is kind of weird, ‘cause when I initially started the project
I thought that the main goal was to capture the student experience of basic skills
students that wanted to transfer. But at the point that we’re at now, now it feels
like the point of the project is to get faculty teaching basic skills, not only classes,
but basic skills students in the classes to collaborate and think about their teaching
practices. So really, the focus has kind of gone away from the students, and I
don’t think we’re going to ever survey or interview or do a focus with the
students. I don't know.
She understood the importance of understanding students and obtaining the student voice
in the project. During the first syllabus workshop Haley mentioned that some faculty
assume that students do not want to learn because they do not understand students’
background and the impact these differences have on their learning.
Haley was also weary that disaggregating the data may cause some individuals to
misinterpret the intent of the team’s work in improving student success in basic skills
courses:
Well, I think they expect that we will do it, without addressing the issues of
equity. I mean the board actually always wants the data disaggregated by
ethnicity, and the state will probably end up doing that. However, I think their
problem with the idea of equity, and this is the wrong assumption, is that we’re
going to create specific programs for specific groups, and we’re not. We’re not
going to say, “We’re going to create this community and if you’re not this group
then you can’t be part of it.” We’re not going to exclude students that way, and
that’s not the purpose of it.
Since the group is involved in examining issues of equity on campus, Haley recognized
that in the process of learning more about basic skills students some might think that the
purpose is to become exclusive. Haley was adamant about addressing student concerns
and learning more from students in order to address teaching and learning at Birch
College. She understood the importance of examining gaps in student success from an
96
equity perspective and how understanding the needs of students is a way to begin
exploring issues of equity contributing to low rates of student success.
Michael expressed similar concerns in regards to issues of equity that are
contributing to student success gaps. Understanding students’ background and history are
important factors to examine according to Michael:
Well certainly if we’re unintentionally doing things that perpetuate the gaps so far
as we see the gaps as a form of – or the result of social injustice, which I think it’s
pretty uncontroversial. Institutions of slavery and racial prejudice and all of that –
social injustice has, is at least a huge factor in these gaps and if we are without
knowing it engaging in practices that maintain or even strengthen these gaps, then
we’re participating in the social injustice whether we’re trying to or not. So I
certainly think that the institution has a responsibility not to be engaging in social
injustice.
He notes the importance of having the institution become aware of issues of equity on
campus and how individuals have a responsibility to become informed.
Unlike Lucy, Michael realizes the importance of examining student success data
disaggregated by race/ethnicity. He notes that:
And some might worry about this aggregated data and so forth, the idea that
becoming more color conscience is just going to exacerbate the problem. We
need to be color blind, but I tend not to agree with that. I don’t know, if we’re
totally color blind at this point in time then we won’t see gaps that we’re
perpetuating… Yeah and eventually sometime in the distant future we should all
be color blind, but today I think that’ s to put your head in the sand. (ML, p. 10)
The manner in which student success is being analyzed maintains a color-blind
perspective. Michael mentions that the syllabus review exercise opened his eyes to the
poor quality of the syllabus used by his colleagues. He commented that through the
syllabus workshops they are able to address “the basic skills issue by addressing general
97
issues that affect all our students.” The syllabus exercise was a way to examine issues of
equity without isolating a certain group of students.
Table 5 below illustrates how participants interpreted the gaps in student success
amongst basic skills students. The conclusions each participant made related to what they
inferred as the problem influenced their choice of action in the project.
Table 5: Interpretation of the Problem
Participant Equity or Issues of Equity Conclusion
Lucy Basic skills students are not
performing well.
The attitude of faculty has to
change.
Haley Biggest factors are teaching
and learning.
Need to understand students,
obtain student perspective.
Michael Social injustice and being
color-blind are an
institutional problem.
Need to become aware of
students’ history and
background.
The three participants above viewed the student success gaps in basic skills courses
amongst Latino and African American students as a problem from the faculty
perspective.
Action
The last means of observing changes in behavior is by looking at action or how
the team proceeded once they were aware of the inequities and interpreted the data.
Bauman (2005) contends “the opportunity for institutional change lies in the possibility
that individual participants will transfer their learning to other contexts within the
institution and thereby enable others to learn and to change” (p. 33). In the following
98
section I will discuss what course of action Lucy, Haley, and Michael identified as
important in the transferring of new knowledge.
Following the presentation to the president at the team meeting in late January,
Lucy and another faculty team member both proclaimed that they revised their syllabus
for the spring semester as a result of the fall inquiry activities. Even before the syllabus
workshops were implemented, some team members began changing some of their
practices to reflect some of the items they learned during the project. At the April team
meeting discussing future benchmarking goals and the syllabus workshop Lucy
mentioned:
I like the syllabus workshop because it was a tiny step but [it] opened people’s
minds, opened my ideas. I agree that change is in class. We need department,
institutional push to look at how we teach. It has to start in the class.
She comments on how it is difficult to engage people within her department to participate
in on campus activities. She remarks that she enjoyed serving as a participant in the
Action Inquiry Project because it was a way for her to collaborate with colleagues “who
do try and do things, who do care about their students. And, of course, I steal from
them.” For Lucy, the project served as an opportunity for her to obtain ideas about
effective practices that she could “steal” or apply the same format to her own classroom
practices. From the group’s interpretation of the data, Lucy’s comment aligned with the
agreement that one way to address the gaps in student success, particularly among Latino
and African American students, is by focusing on faculty.
Besides changing her syllabus, Lucy joined a hiring committee for the student
success centers. When a team member asked why she had taken that initiative she
99
replied:
I volunteered for the committee after being in this group…because we had talked
about how we want to hire good people to institute change. I am the diversity
person on the search committee…I make sure we meet all the requirements (the
search committee consists of 4-5 faculty members, a student, and a diversity
person).
Lucy clearly indicates that the discussions at the team meetings, such as the first January
meeting where the team analyzed the recommendations to the president (Developing new
standards for faculty hiring and promoting decisions), influenced her to join a committee
to address what she perceived contributed to the student success gaps, the faculty. During
the first January meeting, she had made the comment that “it is pretty cut and dry through
HR [human resources]…it depends on the committee because people on the committee
hire people like the committee.” Her interest in examining ways to hire better faculty at
Birch College led her to join the committee and try to use some of the information she
learned through the inquiry group activities.
Haley also agreed with Lucy’s statement that the focus of examining student
success lies in the classroom. At the April team meeting where the group was discussing
the next steps as possibly focusing on learning communities, Haley commented “I still
think we get better students out through the classroom.” She then revealed how in one of
the past projects she participated in the focus was on getting rid of the faculty causing the
problem and hiring charismatic faculty. Both Haley and Lucy realized the importance of
hiring good faculty with teaching practices that promoted student learning.
Similar to Lucy, Haley interpreted the inequities in student success of basic skills
students as associated with the individual inside the classroom:
100
I still think how we can get better student outcomes is in the classroom. It is
important that’s why I think we did the syllabus because it’s a microcosm of the
class. I think teacher centered communities will be great.
She saw the idea of creating teaching communities as a great way to teach faculty about
effective practices which could assist in promoting student success. As previously
mentioned, Haley believed that basic skills professors do not understand their students.
Therefore, implementing teaching communities would place a greater emphasis on
teaching and the way students learn inside the classroom. She also suggested asking
students for their opinion on the syllabus as a way to incorporate the student voice in the
analysis, an area of study which she is passionate about.
The process of uncovering issues of equity on campus also impacted the manner
in which Haley conducts her work outside of the project. She notes:
I’m like so grateful that I got this experience, because this is going to set how I
look at research in institutions for the rest of my career. And how I address things
is I really want the person asking me for research help or data to really think about
their research questions. And I want to keep them accountable for is this going to
be used to change anything?
By questioning what and why others ask her for particular data, she is causing others to
examine their reasons and holding them accountable for their research. In addition,
through her questions, Haley is causing others to begin thinking about data in a different
manner than the traditional approach of simply requesting data. Through the analysis of
disaggregated data, Haley assisted others in exploring the gaps in student success
amongst basic skills students, particularly Latino and African American students.
Haley has also tried to incorporate her interest in advocating for equity in other
projects she is involved with as well. She is facing similar obstacles in the new group she
101
is involved with since individuals are unwilling to disaggregate data by race and
ethnicity. When asked how she advocates for equity on campus she replies:
I’ve advocated for equity because they [the group participants] are getting paid a
stipend from the title 5 basic skills grant which is a Title V Hispanic grant for HSI
[Hispanic Serving Institutions] and we need to disaggregate the data and they still
refuse to. So what we’re doing is we’re going to deal with them and then when we
report out to the grant we are going to disaggregate the data. So it’s like they are
not even seeing that different students experience different things and this is
where I heard them say I don’t expect them [the students] to succeed.
The group participants’ beliefs about students are very similar to the some of the beliefs
Haley’s group also had of the same students. Haley has attempted to transfer her learning
about equity into other groups but teaching the group participants about the importance of
examining data disaggregated by race/ethnicity has not been easy for her. She realizes the
difficulty in trying to change how others understand issues of equity on campus. As a
result, rather than continually having discussions with a group of people who are not
open to the idea of examining issues of equity on campus, Haley prefer to resume her role
as group participant and focuses on equity only when external stakeholders ask for
information.
Michael comments that the exercises and the experiences of the Action Inquiry
Project have changed his role as professor:
I feel like it has – it’s changed my outlook somewhat in terms of how I see myself
teaching [philosophy] and it’s certainly got me thinking about transfer more in the
classroom and just ways to improve transfer success and what can faculty do in
the classroom to spur on more transfer.
Michael notes the importance of examining the role of the professor in helping students
with the transfer process. He realizes the inequities that exist within the transfer process
and identifies himself as an individual who can play a greater role in increasing transfer
102
success rates. His focus on faculty aligns with the statements Lucy and Haley made
concerning the need to examine teaching practices and what occurs inside the classroom.
Michael realized by participating in the group activities the importance a
professor has on students. As previously mentioned, he was skeptical to look at the
syllabus and teaching practices but through the syllabus review exercise he realized that
he needed to change his syllabus to make it more appealing and help students before they
drop out of the course. At the second syllabus workshop focusing on constructing the
ideal syllabus, Michael describes how he:
Now emphasizes study groups as a result of [the Action Inquiry Project]. I have
study guides [worksheets] for every exam. I emphasize office hours…let me help
you. Now I put some tips on them [his syllabus]. When you put these tips they
[students] realize you’re there to help.
The study guides Michael created supplemented his recommendation to students to form
study groups in his class. Similar to Haley, Michael was interested in understanding his
students in order to assist them in learning. The syllabus review exercise and I Learn Best
exercise gave Michael the opportunity to see what students knew and were informed
about that could assist them in succeeding in the course. In regards to students knowing
about resources, Michael commented:
I think most of our students are pretty poorly informed about those things and so
it’s made me – when I have a student in at office hours say - I’m more likely to
ask them more personal questions about their goals, their career goals, their major
and that will lead to financial aid and other things. It’s made me realize their need
for guidance. Again it’s so easy to just think your job is to teach them the subject
and make office hours and make sure they’re clear on the subject, but I’m really
trying to see it more as an opportunity to mentor them in a variety of ways.
He saw his role as professor as extending beyond teaching students the course material.
Michael realized the importance of becoming better teachers as a need for Birch College
103
which led him to propose creating teaching communities in order to produce a student-
centered syllabus for their course.
Table 6 below illustrates how participants decided to pursue action by creating
teaching communities to address the gaps in student success amongst basic skills
students. The conclusions each participant made about the actions needed were based on
what they perceived as issues of equity on campus.
Table 6: Further Action Inquiry Suggested to Address the Problem
Participant Equity or Issues of Equity Conclusion
Action Inquiry
Lucy Need to open people’s
minds to new ideas.
Need to examine teaching,
focus on what happens
inside the classroom.
Haley Produce better students by
focusing on what happens
inside the classroom.
Need to examine teaching
practices.
Michael Students need guidance to
succeed.
Need to examine the role of
the professor.
The three participants identified examining teaching practices and the professor as
the action necessary to address the student success problem at Birch College. Each person
took lessons learned throughout the project and began utilizing them in areas outside of
the team meetings and activities. Lucy joined a hiring committee and changed her
syllabus, Haley started asking her colleagues questions related to disaggregating the data
they requested, and Michael changed his syllabus to reflect a more helpful tone as well as
began re-evaluating his role as professor.
104
In addition to awareness, interpretation, and action, language is a form of
examining organizational learning. In the following section the role language played in
the project is described.
Language
The type of words utilized in an organization has the power to influence people
and dictate the focus of the organization. Language can be used to convey a particular
message and impact the change process at the institution. Henze and Arriaza (2006) claim
that when school administrators and teachers take a critical approach to the language they
use, they “will use language in ways that support rather than undermine equity and social
justice goals” (p. 167). Throughout the project, the language the team used to describe
equity and issues of equity created tension amongst the group as individuals tried to use
wording related to the project while adhering to the culture of the institution.
The team meeting in mid-January where the group discussed the report to the
president sparked the most dialogue concerning language. The team was very concerned
with not offending anyone or implying that the team was imposing anything on faculty.
The team examined ten preliminary recommendations to include in the president’s report.
Two recommendations drew the most attention to language usage. These recommended
Campus discussion on the Equity-Minded Practitioner and Organize Flex Days around
promoting Equity-Mindedness. When the group began discussing the second
recommendation concerning flex days, Lucy argued that faculty members would react by
saying:
105
I teach content it’s not my job to teach what office hours [are] have them take an
intro to college class. Some teachers do teach basic study skills but some focus on
the content…maybe we should change adopt to consider so they don’t feel
forced.
Lucy was referring to the statement within the recommendation that “In order to help
faculty members incorporate such practices into their professional repertoire, they can be
presented with a ‘menu’ of options for them to adopt.” Her comment reinforces the
notion that faculty are central in assisting with student success in basic skills courses. The
statement above was made before the syllabus workshops occurred. The workshops
changed her viewpoint from being wary of forcing faculty to change towards a
perspective that wanted to focus on changing teaching practices.
Team members continued discussing the term “equity-mindedness” and whether
or not to use it in the report. Haley said “I love it. We should leave it. I think it gets
turned off by the numbers.” She was referring to the statistics the team revealed at the
flex day meeting in October when participants were shocked to see how Latino and
African American students progressed in basic skills courses. Her comment aligns with
previous beliefs surrounding equity and issues of equity. She realizes the importance of
making others aware of the term and its significance. When discussing the
recommendation Campus discussion on the Equity-Minded Practitioner, Haley
suggested:
How about we change it from ‘Hispanic Serving Institution [HSI]’ to the
‘practitioner should serve a diverse student population’.
But then she said,
We need to say HSI because it’s a federal term. Do people know that lingo?
106
Lucy responded “HSI is out there but people don’t think about it as much…it’s been out
there.” She seemed hesitant to use the term in the report and thought others would also be
skeptical about its use. Haley’s statement echoes the team’s hesitation to use equity-
minded terms for fear of “turning off” people to issues of equity on campus that are
affecting student success. Although the term Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) is a
federal designation, the group appeared to ignore the meaning of the term and preferred
not to acknowledge the distinction of being an HSI college. The language the group
decided to use aligns with the institution’s belief of not addressing issues of race and
ethnicity when examining student success in basic skills courses.
From the conversation at the first meeting to the second team meetings in January,
when the report was presented to the president, the issues of equity at Birch College were
not part of the conversation in addressing change at the institution. Haley described why
discussions of equity and issues of equity are not mentioned at Birch College:
Well, I think it comes from the president. You know, the president was just
saying something about like, “Let’s not focus [on equity],” and, you know, it’s
funny it’s just one of the – equity’s one of the master plan goals for the college,
the five-year master plan goals, as well as the goals for the president and the
board, and still they don’t want to talk about it, like, “Oh, let’s not talk about it.”
So I think it’s just kind of the culture here.
Haley was referring to the conversation the president had regarding the use of the term
“equity-minded” after the team presented the report. He was worried that people might
relate the term to affirmative action or giving preference to one group over another and
suggested the team define the term since they are introducing new language. A team
member clarified that the term was defined in the report, but the president still appeared
to dislike the use of the term. He feared that “terms are sometimes used in ways that were
107
not intended…for example, diversity. It has an infinite number of meanings to the point
that it has no meaning.” From the president’s statement, it seems as if he equates the term
equity with affirmative action.
Seeing the term ‘Hispanic Serving Institution’ associated with Birch College
surprised several team members. Michael reminded the team of the hostile reaction
received when the group initially saw the data disaggregated by race and ethnicity at the
Flex-Day workshop in late October. He mentioned that faculty would see the term and
respond “I don’t teach races, I teach students.” Michael tried to steer the group away
from using a term that would cause discomfort amongst colleagues.
When the group discussed using the term “equity-mindedness” Michael suggested
that they “might need to reword the same idea… [colleagues] may react more positive if
we write it in a different way” for fear of losing support from people not involved with
the project. He was also very concerned with the possibility that the “President might
react negatively to [language about] equity-mindedness.” Although Michael wants to
help students succeed in basic skills courses he is apprehensive of the administrative and
faculty response in regards to discussing issues of equity.
At the last team meeting in June, the team discussed some recommendations for
the final report to the president. The recommendation consisted of developing several
teaching communities at Birch College to help basic skills English professors by focusing
on one basic skills course. Doing so would allow professors to come together and discuss
effective teaching practices that can lead towards increasing student success rates and
equity in basic skills English courses. The first recommendation was to “organize flex
108
day workshops on the topic of creating a ‘student-centered syllabus’.” Michael mentioned
that he used “student-centered” instead of “equity-minded” but the team could decide to
alter the language. Once again, he is concerned with how his colleagues will interpret the
term and may result in people turning away from the teaching communities because they
do not agree with the term “equity-minded.”
Table 7 below illustrates how the participants interpreted equity or issues of
equity in response to the language used in the reports and recommendations.
Table 7: Reactions to Language in Project Reports
Participant Equity or Issues of Equity Conclusion
Lucy Don’t want to force faculty
to change by using the word
adopt.
Choose words carefully so
we’re not imposing change.
Haley Equity is part of the
President’s agenda but no
one wants to talk about it.
Keep the term equity-
minded although people
feel uncomfortable
discussing the term.
Michael Faculty will respond that
they “teach students, not
races.”
Reword the term equity-
minded so as not to lose
people.
The participants appear to want some type of change to occur at the institution.
Their concern over the reaction of their colleagues to new language and terms such as
“equity-minded” limits their ability to fully use what they have learned from the project
in terms of language. The participants reflect the variations in opinions amongst team
members. The team did not want people from outside of the project to become distracted
109
from the recommendations because of terms such as Hispanic Serving Institution and
equity-minded which appear to be controversial topics at the institution.
In the following section I will discuss two main findings that resulted from the
original codes of awareness, interpretation, action, and language. After I reviewed the
data several times, I developed new themes from the initial codes. The themes
“assumptions about students,” “certain ways of understanding students,” “certain ways of
understanding faculty roles,” and “certain ways of feeling” are discussed in the next
section in relation to the conceptual framework of organizational learning.
Findings
Through my analysis of the data I arrived at the development of two interrelated
findings: moving from deficit to equity-minded thinking and feeling uncomfortable when
discussing equity and issues of equity on campus. The first analysis led to the
development of several themes which resulted in two main findings. The assumptions
about students, certain ways of understanding students, and the ways faculty began to
understand their roles led to a shift in going from deficit thinking to equity-minded
thinking. The ways individuals felt about using new equity-minded language led to
feeling uncomfortable when examining issues of equity on campus.
Moving from Deficit Minded to Equity-Minded Thinking
The participants in the study transformed their thinking from deficit thinking to
equity-minded thinking. Deficit thinking individuals see the importance of diversity but
blame the differences in educational outcomes for underrepresented students, for example
low degree completion rates on racial/ethnic stereotypes and lack of incentive on the
110
students’ behalf (Bensimon, 2005a). The move towards equity-minded thinking led
individuals to become aware of inequities in educational outcomes by recognizing how
the assumptions about students, certain ways of understanding students, and certain ways
of understanding faculty roles situate blame for inequities on students.
During the December team meeting, the group discussed the I Learn Best exercise
and explored the use of different learning styles. Haley was concerned with focusing on
specific academic disciplines but Lucy reassured her by describing how she uses writing
in her class although the primary subject of the class is not writing. The group proceeded
to discuss prior knowledge and common knowledge when trying to develop material that
relates to the various student backgrounds. For example, relating the material to everyday
events or things the students are familiar with based on their background. The team
discussed that many times professors have made assumptions about what students know
which are often different from the reality. Presenting the subject matter in a format that
relates to students’ backgrounds and experiences based on assumptions does not lead to
student success since the assumptions may not align with the realities, thus leading to
further gaps.
Through my analysis of the data, I found that the theme of “assumptions about
students” was illustrated at the first syllabus workshop. Haley created a video of students
in Lucy’s class doing a Stand Up exercise in which students would stand up if the
statement given related to them in some manner. For example, “you have access to a
computer,” “your parents expected you to graduate from college,” and “one parent has a
bachelor’s degree.” The questions focused on topics that workshop participants could
111
relate to while still learning more about their students. The participants made comments
such as “I’m sure they all have i-phones and gameboys” to the computer statement,
“wow, many students stood up” to the college expectations statement, and “wow, nobody
in the class got up” to the parental educational attainment question. The comments reveal
how their preconceived beliefs about the students were challenged and sometimes
disproved as a result of the exercise.
The theme of “assumptions about students” relates to Huber’s (1991) notion that
through the process of organizational learning people attach meaning to information they
acquire. The syllabus workshops and team meetings served as a means to reveal how the
assumptions professors and administrators have about students are not necessarily
correct. The notion team members had of basic skills students was somewhat shattered by
the I Learn Best exercise and the Stand Up exercise video that provided a video
representation of a small group of students. As one faculty team member commented
“our students are much more similar than we thought. I was floored because I always
hear basic skills students are coming from disadvantaged backgrounds.” Uncovering
some of the assumptions individuals have of basic skills students can assist in addressing
equity and issues of equity on campus.
In addition to “assumptions about students” made by faculty, my analysis shows
that “certain ways of understanding students” in terms of their background emerged as a
theme. During a flex day meeting in October, Lucy revealed that she was teaching “the
class from hell,” a First Year Experience course. Her understanding of the course was
that “the college did not know what to do with these students so they put them in a class
112
they are calling Math A.” She continues to discuss how she does not interact with her
students because she thinks they are not capable of socializing with the instructor so she
proceeds to teach. At a team meeting in April, Lucy told a personal story of how she
spent a month teaching students a specific topic, but the students still underperformed on
the test. She told the class, “I may as well have been a cardboard cut-out for all the
learning you got from me.” Rather than attempt to learn more about the students in her
course, Lucy at this time portrayed her role as an instructor who is only there to teach,
defined in terms of delivering content.
Huber (1991) describes that interpretation involves a person giving and receiving
information to attach similar meanings to a particular topic. Initially most team members
held similar beliefs of basic skills students, particularly underrepresented students, as
students who do not care. The blame was taken away from the professor and instantly
placed on the student. Through the inquiry group activities, the participants began using
concepts of equity such as interpretation and language to address issues of inequity at
Birch College. The students who were struggling in the basic skills courses were
perceived at the beginning of the project as of lesser status and not worth the time. The
standard used to set benchmarking goals was not high since, as a team member expressed
it, “I don’t mean to be gloomy, [but] if we get nine more African American students [to
pass the class], I think that would be a huge success.” The perception was that any
improvement would be seen as an achievement for Latino and African American
students.
113
By the end of the project, the team explained that understanding the student
perspective on learning through the I Learn Best exercise and syllabus workshops led to
the need to understand students. In the first syllabus workshop, team members mentioned
that family issues and a student’s life outside of the class impacts the way they learn
which is important for faculty to consider. A side conversation with some faculty
revealed how several faculty may not respect their students since they referred to them as
“babies,” “slow,” and “not sharp.” In the third syllabus workshop, Michael illustrated
how his syllabus evolved to represent the needs of students in order to help them succeed
in the class. Understanding students, in his class, led to greater interest in the course
material. In order to understand students, community college practitioners may want to
obtain the student perspective as well as change the attitude of faculty members. The
need to focus on the individual inside of the classroom led to my development of the third
theme from the data: certain ways of understanding faculty roles.
As a result of the syllabus review exercise, I Learn Best, and the syllabus
workshop exercises, the team learned the importance of focusing on faculty in examining
student success of underrepresented students in basic skills courses. Bauman (2005)
claims, “the potential for institutional learning exists, but institutional improvement
depends on the effectiveness of faculty and staff in putting this learning into action” (p.
34). The syllabus workshops represent how the learning was spread to colleagues outside
of the project. A faculty member came up after the first syllabus workshop and stated, “I
wish you would have done this workshop 30 years ago, it was an amazing workshop.
You have changed many lives with this workshop. You should feel proud.”
114
Since the person inside the classroom has the greatest contact with students, the
team recommended pursuing teaching communities as the next step beyond the project.
The recommendation aligns with Garvin’s (1993) notion of transferring knowledge. The
goal is for professors to teach each other, through the teaching communities, about what
is working inside the class in helping students succeed. The inquiry group activities
demonstrated to team members that faculty members have the power to help increase
student success.
The team learned that faculty could serve greater roles beyond teaching. They
could assist students in developing study skills and becoming aware of resources on
campus. As Kruse (2001) claims in her study of inquiry teams, the team meetings served
as a means of advancing the profession by allowing for open communication about
important issues affecting classrooms while creating a sense of collegiality. The teaching
communities proposed by the team exemplify this model of having a community of
experts helping one another by sharing effective practices while aiming to improve
student success gaps within their particular course. The team took action and developed a
concrete way to utilize their findings and create a model where colleagues can learn more
about their profession and about one another in an environment that they can control.
Feeling Uncomfortable
Besides observing changes in behavior as a means of examining organizational
learning, the choice of language the team used to describe equity and issues of equity on
campus also reveals aspects of the organization. Through my analysis of the data
pertaining to language use, I observed how the inquiry group participants were uneasy
115
about using equity-minded language which led to the development of the third theme of
“certain ways of feeling” about language concerning equity and issues of equity on
campus. According to Henze and Arriaza (2006) the language used to frame a question
can lead towards addressing equity and issues of equity. The team meeting in early
January, in which participants examined the recommendations for the president’s report,
revealed how the team was hesitant to use equity-minded language. The team did not
want to include terms such as “equity-mindedness” and “Hispanic Serving Institution”
that they viewed as having had negative connotations and were eager to replace these
terms with others they perceived as less loaded terms.
Kruse (2001) notes that the language an individual uses reveals how they relate
their experiences to what they understood in the learning process. Although the team
reviewed the data as disaggregated by race and ethnicity, they still refused to use the term
Hispanic Serving Institution. While they were aware of the inequities for Latino students
at Birch College, using new language that had been used in team meetings to
communicate what they had learned to colleagues outside of the project was not an option
for the group for fear of losing support. During the first January team meeting, the team
retreated to using terms they used in the late October meeting where team members were
still apprehensive about addressing race and ethnicity when referring to basic skills
students. Rather than focusing on race, the team at the meeting in late October initially
preferred to refer to diversity by referencing student success by gender and differences
between international and immigrant students. In the second meeting in January, the team
avoided the use of terms related to racial or ethnic groups and instead preferred to use
116
words such as: first-generation, learning communities, and out-of-prison when discussing
students from underrepresented groups. The difference in language could be attributed to
the people present at the meeting, primarily the president. Throughout the course of the
project, the team members expressed great concern over the language they used and the
manner in which the recommendations would be received by colleagues outside of the
project as well as the president of Birch College. While trying to improve college
effectiveness at Birch College in creating equitable educational outcomes for Latino and
African American students, the inquiry group participants remained apprehensive about
using new language that they believed would deter others from assisting in creating
change at the institution.
In the following chapter, I will describe the implications of the findings and
discuss how they can be utilized to create a new understanding of how individuals can
learn about equity and issues of equity at their institution.
117
Chapter 5: Discussion
Inequities in transfer and remedial placement amongst underrepresented students,
as illustrated by inequities in outcomes, remain a problem at community colleges in
California. The manner in which student success is explored is color-blind. Data is often
not disaggregated by race and ethnicity thereby hiding issues of equity at a campus.
Issues of equity at an institution often remain hidden if opportunities for discussion and
learning within professional communities are unavailable. In this study I focused on how
individuals learn about equity and issues of equity by participating in practitioner-as-
researcher inquiry teams, which served as a community of colleagues. Practitioner beliefs
about inequities at an institution that particularly affected Latino and African American
students were explored by examining organizational learning through the participation of
individuals in an inquiry group.
Through the use of inquiry activities that served as a form of institutional
assessment, individuals at Birch College were able to examine equity and issues of equity
on their campus. Creating environments where discussions about equity can occur may
assist in highlighting inequities at an institution. The results of my study provide evidence
for three important assertions about the use of teams and teamwork to promote equity:
through the use of inquiry activities teams can hold dialogues about equity, but
participants will not necessarily be comfortable using language about equity beyond the
team setting. Support from leaders on campus is important if individuals are to focus on
issues of equity outside the team setting. The results of the Birch College case study offer
key findings to provide ways to promote equity on campus.
118
At the individual level, what people learned led to changes in practices. As shown
by what the participants learned in the Stand Up exercise and I Learn Best, gaining the
background history of the students’ led to modifications in their practice. The participants
changed their instructional documents, professional development engagements, and how
they viewed student success data. Although the team did learn more about the students at
their institution, the institutional culture appeared to prevent the individuals from taking
their learning beyond the team setting.
The participants at Birch College recommended a teaching community to the
president as a result of their involvement in the project. This is important because such a
community would have created a means for instructors to share effective teaching
practices while addressing issues related to equity and student learning. As we see from
the Birch College study, leadership was crucial. Structurally speaking, when the
institution began examining equity on campus it was hampered by the lack of
endorsement from the academic senate and the administration. As a result, when
individuals were ready to take their learning about equity beyond institutional assessment
to an action step involving professional development such as the creation of a teaching
community, buy-in and support from both academic and administrative leaders was
necessary but lacking.
Figure 2 below illustrates how the changes in behavior as a result of the inquiry
group activities led participants to recommend the teaching communities as an important
action step to address inequities in student outcomes. They believed teaching
communities would promote changes in behavior at their institution. The results of this
119
study support the premise that having teaching communities at an institution would allow
educators at institutions that adopt them an opportunity to discuss and become aware of
the problem of inequities on campus. Selected readings on the types of students entering
college, focusing on racial/ethnic backgrounds, social economic status, and issues
important to students, would contribute to the way educators understand students,
particularly in terms of their racial-ethnic background. Incorporating readings into the
teaching communities would allow participants’ exposure to additional information
beyond statistical data available at their institution. The creation of teaching communities
would also assist in altering professors’ practices by expanding their understanding of
their role as faculty inside and outside of the classroom. In addition to altering the manner
in which faculty teach, a teaching community would offer opportunities to practice using
new terms such as “equity-minded” and “Hispanic Serving Institution,” which ultimately
would contribute to eliminating the uneasiness related to the use of equity-minded
language.
120
• Opportunity
to Discuss
• Selected
Readings
• Practice Using New Terms
• Altering
Practices
Teaching
Communities
Figure 2: Development of Teaching Communities
Significant Key Findings
Facilitated action inquiry served as an opportunity for faculty, administrators and
staff members at Birch College to discuss ways to improve student success in basic skills
courses for underrepresented students. This study determined that:
• Teams can have dialogue about equity and issues of equity on campus
• Despite such dialogue, participants are often not comfortable using language
about equity outside of the team
Assumptions
about Students
Certain Ways of
Understanding
Students
Changes in
Awareness of
the Problem
Changes in
Interpretation of
the Problem
Changes in
Action/Inaction
Changes in
Language
Certain Ways of
Understanding
Faculty Roles
Certain Ways
of Feeling
Changes in
Behavior
Deficit
Thinking to
Equity-Minded
Thinking
Feeling
Uncomfortable
121
• Academic and administrative leadership is essential in bringing out
organizational learning
By participating in institutional self-assessment activities, individuals involved in the
project were able to examine data and uncover underlying assumptions about students,
particularly Latino and African American students, that can contribute to the issues of
equity on campus. This study illustrated how creating a culture of inquiry at an institution
could lead towards examining equity and issues of equity on campus by assessing
instructional practices and instructional documents. The Birch College case study
provides lessons for college leaders and faculty who aim to improve equity at their
institution. Creating opportunities for dialogue about equity and using language about
equity as well as obtaining support from academic and administrative departments is
important in order to address equity and issues of equity on campus.
Creating Opportunities for Dialogue about Equity
This study demonstrated that over time the participants gained a better
understanding of their instructional practices and documents through the team meetings
which served as a basis for dialogue for institutional effectiveness. Acquiring equity-
minded thinking through the participation in the inquiry process allowed faculty members
to examine their own teaching practices. The participants in this case study used their
syllabi analysis protocol as a process to generate dialogue. This demonstrates that we
should focus on ways to promote dialogue. The activity led to an authentic discussion
about ways to improve teaching, which does not necessarily take place in the absence of
such facilitation. Faculty found new ways of teaching that corresponded with what
122
students know and not necessarily what the professors thought students should know
about the subject. The inquiry self-assessments served as an opportunity for faculty
members to take responsibility for their own work as professors in helping students with
opportunities beyond the classroom. Simply taking family issues and a student’s life
outside of the class into consideration allowed for faculty members to re-evaluate their
role as an educator.
For faculty, obtaining an understanding of students’ background and history and,
as a result, changing the manner in which they relate to students, is important for higher
education practitioners to begin addressing issues of equity on campus. Students’ lives
today are much different compared to a faculty or administrator’s own life as a student.
Individuals cannot rely on using their assumptions about students when teaching students
since the ideas and topics they may use might not relate to students’ experiences. By
doing so, individuals at an institution will continue perpetuating inequities on campus. As
previously mentioned, a problem concerning the low transfer rates of basic skills students
stems from institutional data practices, which include how colleges report and perceive
such students. Therefore, understanding more about the students on campus, in terms of
how they prefer to learn and their experiences as students on that campus, can lead
towards the development of instructional practices and instructional documents that
promote student success. Learning who the students are allows individuals on campus
such as staff members, administrators, and faculty members to better serve students.
Changing the attitudes of individuals who work with students, particularly basic
skills students, is one way an institution can start to focus on accountability demands on
123
student success. The inquiry process allowed the team to learn about issues of equity
related to basic skills students, who may or may not be interested in transferring to a
university, but whose opportunities to do so are very limited. The inquiry group activities
served as an institutional assessment method in which team members could learn more
about their students and their own practices at the institution. At the same time, the
perceptions and beliefs of individuals at the institution arose through comments made
during team meetings and workshops. The attitudes of the individuals who participated
in the project evolved as they implemented the workshops and developed the notion of
teaching communities as the next step towards addressing issues of equity on campus.
Uneasiness using Language about Equity
Having discussions about equity and issues of equity on campus are not
necessarily received openly by individuals. Creating an environment where individuals
can learn more about the current status of equity on campus also serves as an opportunity
for individuals to practice using new language about equity. The transfer process is an
area where inequities occur at an institution. The manner in which individuals working at
an institution perceive issues of equity on campus could impact the way individuals treat
and help students to transfer to a university. The type of language individuals used
indicated how they perceived underrepresented students on campus.
This study revealed that by developing a culture of inquiry at an institution
individuals are more likely to encounter opportunities for dialogue about equity which
can lead to the use of equity-minded terms. Although focusing on using terms related to
underrepresented students may not be well received from the onset, engaging individuals
124
in dialogue about equity and issues about equity on campus can lead towards improving
student life at an institution. Incorporating language about equity into institutional
assessment and into the institutional culture is important due to the increase in
underrepresented students attending community colleges. Compared to white and Asian
students, a larger number of Latino and African American students enroll in a community
college instead of a school in the University of California or California State University
system (Moore & Shulock, 2009). As a result, incorporating language related to equity,
specifically issues of equity on campus is important if individuals at an institution are
striving towards increasing student success amongst the entire student population.
Since the transfer process is an area of interest in uncovering inequities at an
institution, the type of language individuals use when referring to underrepresented
students in the transfer process is important. Presenting a comfortable environment where
students can feel that they will receive assistance without instantly being labeled as a
result of their basic skills status may assist students in seeking out help during office
hours or from specific individuals they begin to see as mentors. These individuals
become valuable allies for students, particularly underrepresented students. Greater
attention to underrepresented students is needed since many first time college students are
not aware of the transfer process. The type of language individuals at an institution utilize
to describe such students indicates their beliefs in addition to the culture of the institution.
The perception individuals at an institution have of Latino and African American basic
skills students is reflected in their language choice when referring to such students. If
underrepresented students become aware of how individuals at an institution perceive
125
them by the words they use, they may well become discouraged to seek out help at an
institution regarding the transfer process.
Obtaining Academic and Administrative Support
Individuals interested in conducting inquiry groups at their institution should take
steps to make sure they have support from the academic senate or administration to
institutionalize their work. One reason the participants in the Birch action inquiry project
were not comfortable with equity-minded language was because they did not feel
supported by the college or their team leaders who did not attend the meetings on a
regular basis. The person with the role of leader plays a symbolic role as a representative
of the team but also impacts the direction of the project. Therefore, the manner in which
participants addressed issues of equity on campus varied depending on the environment
and people present.
The leaders on campus did not support inquiry as an accountability strategy to
promote equity. Therefore, although the participants were able to learn at an individual
level, they “hit a wall” when they tried to share the learning beyond the group. The
manner in which the senior administrators perceived equity and issues of equity on
campus impacted what team members utilized as a result of the project. Although the
team was able to develop an environment that encouraged dialogue about equity,
administrative leaders did not respond positively to the team using equity-minded
language. Leadership at the institution, especially at the higher levels, prevented further
learning about equity amongst individuals working at an institution.
126
In the Birch College case study, leadership from three different levels did not
support the promotion of equity on campus. At the team level, the team leaders did not
encourage the participants to discuss equity or issues of equity. The leaders’ lack of
attendance and hesitation towards assisting participants in using equity-minded language
beyond the team meetings impacted the manner in which the learning was taken beyond
the team setting. The participants also perceived that they needed the support from the
academic senate to get project ideas to move beyond the team. The participants did not
receive support from the academic senate from the beginning of the project which led to
barriers in trying to promote equity outside the team setting through professional
development opportunities or incorporating institutional self-assessments into flex-days.
In this study, the administrative leadership did not support the promotion of equity,
particularly using equity-minded language, when discussing basic skills students and
underrepresented students. As a consequence the team was hampered in moving beyond
the team setting. This finding emphasizes that when adopting inquiry as a strategy for
promoting equity, it is essential to have effective and committed leadership. If the
leaders’ perspective of equity differs from the overall perspective of the group, the
inquiry group activities developed could avoid addressing equity and result in little
support in the implementation.
Implications
The findings of my study build on the work of Bensimon (2004), Bauman (2005),
Kruse (2001), and Henze & Arriaza (2006). Bensimon (2004) has shown in her research
that individuals can go from deficit thinking to equity-minded thinking. The inquiry tools
127
in this study helped in the reframing of thinking for individuals. However, if a team
desires to continue using these tools, the team would require the approval of both the
academic senate and the administration if the team hopes to extend the learning to the
entire campus. Unlike Bensimon’s (2004) study, my study focused on only one
institution.
Bauman (2005) showed the difference between characteristics of high and low
learning teams. This study aligns with Bauman’s category of high learning teams. The
participants in this study focused on the basic skills data and their own hypotheses based
on the data. Through the inquiry self-assessments some participants began questioning
their own practices and later adapted some of the changes into their instructional
documents or professional development commitments. It is not enough to be a high
learning team. Teams also need to be high learning on issues of equity. In my study,
dialogue about equity developed over time which is a characteristic of becoming an agent
of advocating equity.
Kruse (2001) explored the notion of creating professional communities as a
means of organizational learning. My study builds on Kruse’s belief that people learn
more in professional communities. The team in my study eventually created an
environment where individuals could openly express some concerns regarding classroom
practices, students on campus, or their disapproval of their colleagues. This study
emphasizes the importance of creating professional communities as suggested by Kruse.
Having the opportunity to engage in open dialogue about equity at a campus that had
128
difficulty addressing such issues created a sense of community amongst the participants
that was not necessarily present prior to the project.
Henze & Arriaza (2006) assert the importance of language in promoting equity.
My study builds on the authors’ notion that individuals in leadership positions who
critically examine language influence advancement towards equity at an institution. In the
Birch College case study, participants experienced lack of leadership at a team,
administrative, and academic level which resulted in them “hitting a wall” when they
tried to promote equity beyond the team. The participants examined language use in the
development of institutional reports to the administrators, but the individuals with the
greater ability to create change across an institution – the team and institutional leaders –
did not fully support the inquiry process of the team. When participants engaged in
inquiry self-assessment they were able to uncover perceptions individuals had of
underrepresented students on campus. As the authors note in their study, the beliefs of the
individuals did contribute to issues of equity at the institution. The uneasiness of using
language related to race, Latinos, and Hispanic Serving Institution was evident amongst
the participants in my study as well as the leadership on campus.
Recommendations
The findings of my study show that the creation of inquiry groups can provide an
opportunity for people to share ideas, meet others on campus, and become aware of what
is occurring on campus. Creating an environment where individuals can discuss equity
and issues of equity is important to assist individuals learn more about their students and
campus. The teaching community recommendation made by participants in this study
129
will only work if the participants have institutional support. In order to have support from
academic and administrative departments, the structural home of the project needs to be
clear from the beginning. The group thought it was housed under the administration since
administrators agreed to have the college participate in the action inquiry project, but they
encountered an administrative struggle and discovered the administration was not
supportive. The findings related to dialogue, language, and leadership pointed to the
design of the teaching community. The participants in the Birch College case study
recommended the creation of teaching communities to the president based on their
institutional self-assessment. Reflection based on the analysis of instructional documents
led the team to highlight the need to create an environment where professors could share
information with one another while examining inequities in student success rates based
on data disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
In order to develop the teaching communities at community colleges and other
campuses, the findings show it is essential for administrative and academic leaders on
campus to support the initiative. A number of steps are possible and desirable to promote
such support. The academic senate should meet with the facilitators of the teaching
communities to ensure that the group is not infringing on academic freedom, to use an
example that emerged as a concern in the Birch College case, and to gain additional ideas
about what would work best for the institution. The facilitators of the teaching
community would also need training to make sure that all groups have the same
foundation or initial information to use although each group will differ in its dynamics
depending on the needs of the students and the groups’ goal.
130
The individuals involved in the teaching community would also need to look at
the student success plan at the institution to see how the goals of the teaching community
relate to the institution’s overall plan. Doing so would create greater support since the
teaching communities’ goals would align with what the organization is already working
towards. The individuals involved with the teaching communities should also become
knowledgeable about student services available at the institution, especially those related
to academic assistance. Becoming aware of the location as well as the people who work
at student services may assist instructors in directing students to appropriate services in
addition to having a specific person that students can go to for help. Since the teaching
community concept would be new at most institutions, the group should begin by
meeting weekly to ensure that goals are established and everyone understands how the
group will continue to grow as the semester continues. Individuals involved in earlier
faculty community groups could serve as mentors for the later groups since they will
have experience utilizing inquiry tools and will be familiar with the process.
Rarely do reports give thought to the need for tools for practitioners to talk about
racial/ethnic inequities. Inequities amongst underrepresented students should not be
ignored. “Latinos make up 43% of the college-age population but only 13%, 23%, and
30% of students enrolled in the UC, CSU, and CCC respectively” (Moore & Shulock,
2009, p. 12). With the Latino population growing at a rapid rate and only a smaller
percentage of Latinos attending institutions of higher education, community colleges in
particular need to address issues of inequity on campus. The recommendations at the
national level are well intentioned but they are not truly grappling with the difficulty of
131
increasing the number of Latino and African American students who are earning a
college degree. The lack of common assessment practices amongst community colleges
creates a problem when examining issues of equity on campus. The creation of teaching
communities establishes a means for professors to assess effective and ineffective
instructional practices as well as instructional documents in order to better assist students.
Conclusion
This study has addressed the question of “how do participants in an inquiry
project learn about equity and issues of equity?” The findings show that individuals learn
through the creation of communities where people can discuss equity and issues of equity
on their campus. Although teams can have conversations regarding equity and issues of
equity on campus, some individuals are not comfortable using new terms or language
about equity beyond the team setting. However, the results support the notion that the
creation of teams or a teaching community can be an effective approach to improving
equity if the team has academic and institutional support from on campus leadership.
With the emphasis on assessment and accountability in higher education,
institutions are under pressure to address the needs of policymakers, students, and
families. Inequities at institutions of higher education, such as community colleges,
present obstacles for students, particularly for those students interested in transferring to a
university. Current inequities in the transfer process are creating barriers for students who
desire to pursue their education at a university. An increase in inequality and a decreased
number of skilled workers may result if individuals do not attempt to reduce obstacles to
higher education (Gudrais, 2008). Understanding ways that individuals working at an
132
institution can assist students in the process regardless of their position will ultimately
benefit the success of that institution. Eliminating negative perceptions of
underrepresented basic skills students may assist in moving students towards transfer
level courses. Understanding the types of students on campus in terms of their
background and experiences can help in promoting equitable educational outcomes for
Latino and African American basic skills students.
By disaggregating data by race and ethnicity, individuals can become aware of
current inequities at their institutions. While the process is difficult for individuals since it
involves reflecting on one’s own practices and beliefs, implementing inquiry as part of
assessment and accountability practices at an institution leads towards needed changes in
behavior and language. This study reveals how inquiry group participants learn about
equity and issues of equity on campus and how they transform their own practices as a
result. By analyzing current data at an institution in new ways and in a new format such
as an inquiry group, educators, with support from the administration and the academic
senate, can begin to address the inequities in educational outcomes in basic skills
students, particularly amongst Latino and African American students.
133
References
ARCC/AB 1417 Fact Sheet. (2007). Retrieved February 8, 2008, from California
Community College System Office, ARCC
http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/TRIS/research/ARCC/ab1417_perf_framework_h
andout.pdf
Bauman, G. L. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to achieve
equity in educational outcomes In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in
higher education (Vol. 131). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bennet, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bensimon, E.M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change, 36(1), 44-52.
Bensimon, E.M. (2005a). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131,
99-111.
Bensimon, E.M. (2005b). Equality as a fact, equality as a result: A matter of institutional
accountability [Monograph]. American Council on Education, 2, 1-20.
Bensimon, E.M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in
the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education 30, 441-469.
Bensimon, E.M., & Dowd, A.C. (2007). Developing advising capacity for institutional
transfer effectiveness. Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California,
Center for Urban Education.
Bensimon, E.M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership: teams and
teamwork in higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
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), 104 –
126.
Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
134
Brown, R. S., & Niemi, D. N. (2007). Investigating the alignment of high school and
community college assessment in California (No. 07-3): National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education.
California Benchmarking Project. (2007). Retrieved February 8, 2008 from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/projects/benchmark/benchmark.htm
California Benchmarking Project: Characteristics of Equity Mindedness (work in
progress). (2008).
California Benchmarking Project: Glossary (2007). Retrieved
November 8, 2008 from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/projects/benchmark/glossary.htm
California Benchmarking Project: Frequently Asked Questions (2008). Retrieved
February 8, 2008 from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/projects/benchmark/benchmark.htm
California Education Code, Title 3, Part 4, Art. 3, § 66010.1-66010.8 (2005).
California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Division 6, Chapter 5, § 54220.
Center for Urban Education. (2006). Contextualized problem-defining in basic skills
instruction in community colleges. Phase II of “equity for all”: Institutional
responsibility for minority student success. Los Angeles, CA: Bensimon, E.M.,
Dowd, A., & Rueda, R.
Center for Urban Education: About CUE (2008). Retrieved November 1, 2008 from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/about.html
Center for Urban Education: Diversity Scorecard Executive Summary (2007). Retrieved
November 1, 2008 from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/projects/ds/execsum.html
Center for Urban Education: Equity for all: Institutional Responsibility for Student
Success Executive Summary (2007). Retrieved November 1, 2008 from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/projects/equity4all/execsum.htm
Center for Urban Education: The Missing 87: A study of the “Transfer Gap” and
“Choice Gap” (2007). Retrieved November 1, 2008 from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/projects/missing/ExecutiveSummaryMis
sing87(2).pdf
135
Center for Urban Education: Overview of Equity Scorecard (2007). Retrieved November
1, 2008 from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/CUE/projects/equityscorecard.htm
College Facts Fall 2007. (2008). Retrieved June 22, 2008 from
http://ie.lbcc.edu/research_docs_files/College%20Facts%20FA%2007%205_19_0
8%20(2).pdf
Dowd, A.C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess community college performance. Lumina Foundation for Education
Research Report.
Dowd, A.C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond
the access “saga” towards outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 1-18.
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): Springer Publishing.
Ewell, P. (1987). Assessment, accountability and improvement: Managing the
contradiction. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED287330).
Garvin, D.A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 2-15.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2005). Reform of the social sciences and of universities
through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Grubb, W. N., & Badway, N. N. (2005). From compliance to improvement:
Accountability and assessment in California community colleges: Higher
Education Evaluation and Research Group.
Gudrais, E. (2008). Unequal America: The growing gap. Harvard Magazine, 22-29.
Henze, R., & Arriaza, G. (2006). Language and reforming schools: A case for a critical
approach to language in educational leadership. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 9(2), 157-177.
Horn, L., & Lew, S. (2007). Unexpected pathways: Transfer patterns of California
Community College Students. MPR Research Brief. Retrieved January 14, 2008,
from
http://www.mprinc.com/products_and_publications/pdf/MPR_Research_Brief_2.
pdf
136
Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115.
Interim Report to the President. (2008). Long Beach City College.
Kezar, A. (2005). What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the
learning organization. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning in higher
education (Vol. 131). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Kirkpatrick, D.L., & Kirkpatrick, J.D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four
levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kaehler Publishers, Inc.
Kirst, M. (2007, Winter). Who needs it?: Identifying the proportion of students who
require postsecondary remedial education is virtually impossible. National
CrossTalk, 15, 11-12.
Kruse, S.D. (2001). Creating communities of reform: Continuous improvement planning
teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 359-383.
Melguizo, T., & Dowd, A.C. (2007). Baccalaureate success of transfers and rising four-
year college juniors. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 55-89.
Melguizo, T., Hagedorn, L.S., & Cypers, S. (2008). Remedial/developmental education
and the cost of community college transfer: A Los Angeles county sample. The
Review of Higher Education, 31(4), p. 401-431.
Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A. (2000). Remedial education in colleges and universities:
What's really going on? Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 67-85.
Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2009). The grades are in-2008: Is California higher education
measuring up? Sacramento: Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy,
California State University.
Moore, C., Shulock, N., Ceja, M., & Lang, D.M. (2007). Beyond the open door:
Increasing student success in the California community colleges. Sacramento:
Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy, California State University.
New England Resource Center for Higher Education. (2005). Creating a culture of
inquiry. Boston, MA.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
137
Shulock, N., Moore, C., Offenstein, J., & Kirlin, M. (2008). It could happen: Unleashing
the potential of California’s community colleges to help students succeed and
California thrive. Sacramento: Institute for Higher Education Leadership and
Policy, California State University.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review,
67(1), 1-40.
U.S. Department of Education. A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S.
higher education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.
138
Appendix: Interview Guide
Introductory Script: Project Overview
I have asked to interview you because you were a member of the Action Inquiry Project.
The goal of this study is to investigate factors that promote success in basic skills
education at your campus. If you agree to participate, the interview today will last
approximately one and half hours during which I will ask you about your roles and
responsibilities, and instructional [administrative] views and practices. Here is a 1-page
summary of the project along with my own bio and interests.
All information you share with me during our interview will be kept in strictest
confidence. For example, your identity will not be revealed, nor will the information you
share with me influence your instructional [administrative] and teaching
[administrative] assignments. Your participation in this study is voluntary. How much
you decide to share with me in the interview is completely at your discretion. You may
decline to respond to any questions I pose throughout the interview and you may
withdraw from the study at any point.
Do you have any questions for me before we begin?
1. Recall: Let’s think back to the team meeting where the team was preparing the
presentation to the President and discussing the recommendations in the interim
report to the President. Do you recall what topics we discussed with the team
members?
Probing Questions:
• What did you think of the recommendations made in the report?
• What was your role in the presentation?
• How was this discussion different from the following meeting where the team
presented to the President?
2. The term “equity-minded” was a strong component of the Action Inquiry Project
throughout the year. Can you think of other meetings where equity issues came up?
(Discussed/not discussed but they noticed it was an issue)
Probing Questions:
• What was the topic of discussion?
• How did you participate in the discussion?
• Is equity an issue/topic of discussion in other committees that you are
involved in?
• How is equity discussed in other committees?
139
3. The team at LBCC conducted several inquiry activities such as the syllabus review.
What did you learn from participating in the syllabus review activity?
Probing Questions:
• How have you changed your practices as a result of the activities?
• What discussions during the activities caused this change?
• If not, why is that?
4. Have you changed any of your work practices as a result of participating in the
Action Inquiry Project?
Probing questions:
• If they have, ask about what specifically they have changed (syllabus, how
they relate to students, the way they look at work related data)
• Have you shared any of these changes with colleagues outside of Action
Inquiry Project team members?
• If not, why is that?
5. Can you speak about an event/time when you spoke about equity?
Probing questions:
• What happened?
• How was the information received?
• Who was your audience? (Teachers, administrators, students)
6. Throughout the project we have discussed the notion of equity on campus. Equity
and issues of equity can have many different interpretations. Can you describe the
term equity-minded to me?
Probing questions:
• What does that mean to you?
• How has the meaning of equity changed for you? What made you change?
• Would replacing the term student-centered be the same as using equity-
minded?
• How would you describe the difference between the terms to a colleague?
7. Thank you so much for your time. This will be the last I will be conducting with you
in my work. Would you like to add anything else what we have talked about?
8. Do you have any questions for me?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access
PDF
Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities
PDF
How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
PDF
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices
PDF
Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges
PDF
The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university
PDF
Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education
PDF
An evaluation of individual learning among members of a diversity scorecard project evidence team
PDF
Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors
PDF
Faculty learning and agency for racial equity
PDF
Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents
PDF
Reframing the role of transfer facilitators: using action research methods for new knowledge development
PDF
Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions
PDF
The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change
PDF
Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research
PDF
Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes
PDF
An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students
PDF
Institutional researchers and organizational learning for equity
Asset Metadata
Creator
Enciso, Martha
(author)
Core Title
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/30/2009
Defense Date
04/29/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
equity,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational learning
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Dowd, Alicia C. (
committee chair
), Bensimon, Estela M. (
committee member
), Tobey, Patricia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
bots1@aol.com,menciso@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2424
Unique identifier
UC1500447
Identifier
etd-Enciso-3141 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-562996 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2424 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Enciso-3141.pdf
Dmrecord
562996
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Enciso, Martha
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
equity
organizational learning