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
/
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
(USC Thesis Other)
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 1
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH:
BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINED COLLABORATION
AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
by
Christiane Rhys Woerner
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2013
Copyright 2013 Christiane Rhys Woerner
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
2
DEDICATION
Rodney R. Fuller
(November 1963 – September 2001)
My brother would have turned 50 this year.
He never finished his dissertation on organizational learning,
so this is in his honor.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
An endeavor such as this does not happen without a great deal of assistance, and I would
like to thank those who helped me to reach this pinnacle in my education.
First, I’d like to thank God, my Heavenly Father. I would not and could not have done
this without Him. I am grateful He loves me and has directed my path in this endeavor.
My husband, Bryan, has been stalwart throughout this journey into graduate school,
especially as I restructured this document again and again and again. Our journey was not an
easy one, but he has been supportive and loving throughout it all. I am lucky to be loved by such
a tender, adoring man. I love you, Bryan. Thank you for loving me so very much and continuing
to be patient.
My parents, Cliff and Carolyn, ensured I learned about the world’s cultures when I was a
child even though there was no money for our family to travel abroad. I have been forever
grateful for those cultural experiences as they have enriched my life immeasurably. I also
appreciate the way my parents have always supported my educational endeavors. They scrimped
and went without many luxuries so all six of their children could attend college. I am proud to be
their daughter and to be one of three children with a graduate degree.
There are many family members, friends and associates who have helped me along the
way. My siblings, in-laws and extended family have always been my biggest fans. I am thankful
for their patient support. My friends helped me throughout this process even though I have
ignored them for years. I am most grateful for the cheers, tears, and laughter provided by
Lyudmila Flicker, Andrea Stein Figueroa, Lisa Goddard Fitzgerald, Laura M. Fuller, Melanie
Bennett Jacobson, Scott Leese, Giselle Richards, Lark O. Zunich, Jen Ebbeler, and Rebecca
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
4
Sears. I am thankful for the support of Ilda Jiménez y West through the writing retreats
organized by the USC Rossier Doctoral Support Center. Her smile and suggestions helped me
feel positive about the minor achievements I was making with the dissertation. My classmates in
the Orange County cohort, Educational Psychology track, and thematic dissertation group were
key to my success in this program. I am thankful they took this journey with me: Jane Forney
Rosenthal, Tomás Aguirre, Rashitta Brown-Elize, Lee Ann Cornell, Sveta Levonisova, Lorena
Patton, Peggy Smith, Chelvi Subramaniam, and Erin Vines.
I am also grateful for my many colleagues at Long Beach City College who have always
been supportive of my decision to pursue my doctoral studies. I want to thank my ESL
colleagues: Baruch Elimelech, Dennis O. Miller, William E. Bràzda, Fran Cahill, Teresa D.
Gaudiot, Maureen E. Mason, Laurie E. Potter, and David Thrift. You have helped make this
possible.
I would be remiss if I did not thank the two women in the Rossier Ed.D. program who
were my companions from the very first day until the end: Carla Beam and Maruth Figueroa.
The three of us together represent the K-16 public educational system in California and we
learned as much from one another as we did together. I am thankful for their example to learn the
material and make it part of my everyday practices. They are stellar educators, and I am proud to
call them my friends. I am especially grateful to Carla who worked with me when I thought I
could not cross the finish line.
I’d like to thank my dissertation committee members. Dr. Patricia A. Perez helped
redirect my study at a key point and was always so careful and constructive with her feedback on
my drafts. Dr. Shafiqa Ahmadi was my first professor in the Rossier Ed.D. program. She set the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
5
tone for a transformative journey. Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Alicia C. Dowd for mentoring
me. I am humbled she shared her expertise with me. She is methodical and passionate in all she
does as she challenges others to reflect on the complex issue of equity and to address it.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
LIST OF TABLES 9
LIST OF FIGURES 10
ABSTRACT 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 13
Introduction to the Problem 13
Access 16
Retention 18
Time to Degree 20
Organizational Change to Address Equity Issues 20
National Context 22
State Context 23
California Community Colleges 24
California State Universities 26
Statement of the Problem 29
Purpose of the Study 31
Research Questions 34
Importance of the Study 35
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 37
Introduction 37
Practitioners 37
Activity System Theory 38
Racial Knowledge to Address Inequities 39
Sociocultural Knowledge to Address Inequities 41
Organizational Learning to Address Inequities 45
CHAT-IT to Address Inequities 47
Action Research 51
Practitioners Becoming Equity-minded 52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 57
Developmental Evaluation in Organizational Change 57
Data Collection Procedures 63
Data Collection Methods 65
Data Collection Methods: Cognitive Interviews 67
Data Collection Methods: Document Analysis 68
Data Collection Methods: Ethical Concerns 69
Context of Institutions in Collective Study 69
Context of Assigned Institutional Field Site: Dynamic Community College 72
Context of First Syllabus Review Workshop at DCC (Activity System A) 78
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
7
Context of DCC Early Adopters Presenting at CUE’s Symposium 79
(Activity System B)
Context of Beta Adopter Planning Meeting (Activity System C) 81
Context of CUE Facilitated Workshop for New Faculty (Activity System D) 83
Data Analysis Procedures 93
Standards of Review: Credibility 99
Standards of Review: Transferability 104
Standards of Review: Dependability and Confirmability 106
Limitations 106
Reporting Results 108
Personal Reflections on Using the Syllabus Reflection Protocol 110
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 115
Introduction 115
Concepts 116
Research Questions 118
Summary of Coded Data and Nature of Inquiry 119
Summary of Prior Study at DCC 123
Data Analysis 125
Data Analysis: First Syllabus Review Workshop at DCC (Activity System A) 125
Data Analysis: DCC Early Adopters Present at Statewide CUE Symposium 128
(Activity System B)
Data Analysis: Beta Adopter Planning Meeting (Activity System C) 130
Data Analysis: Syllabus Reflection Workshop for New Faculty 134
(Activity System D)
Analysis of Themes 142
Theme Unique to this Study: Empowerment 142
Theme Unique to this Study: Cohesive Group ≠ Shared Goals 145
Theme Unique to this Study: Matching the Tool and Resources (Space and Time) 149
to the Right Group
Theme Unique to this Study: Scope of Equity Conversation within a Community 152
Findings Shared with Subramaniam’s (2012) Study 155
Summary 158
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 160
Introduction 160
Summary of Theme Related Findings 163
Summary of Theme Related Findings: Empowerment 163
Summary of Theme Related Findings: Cohesive Group ≠ Shared Goals 164
Summary of Theme Related Findings: Matching the Tool and Resources 165
(Space and Time) to the Right Group
Recommendations to DCC to Improve Practitioner Involvement for Change 167
Recommendations to DCC for Renewed Professional Development 169
Recommendations for Community Colleges and Institutions of Higher Learning 170
Recommendations for CUE 172
Implications of This Study on My Own Practice 175
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
8
Recommendations for Further Research 181
Conclusion 182
REFERENCES 184
APPENDICES 201
Appendix A: Observation Data Collection Template 201
Appendix B: Pre-workshop Cognitive Interview Protocol 203
Appendix C: Post-workshop Cognitive Interview Protocol 206
Appendix D: CUE Recruitment Letter 212
Appendix E: Handout for Reflection on CUE Symposium Morning Panel 215
Appendix F: Subramaniam’s timeline of events for Early Adopters 218
Appendix G: Syllabus Review Protocol, entitled Document Analysis for 220
Self-Assessment of Culturally Inclusive Practices
Appendix H: Student Syllabus Assessment Form 225
Appendix I: Handout on Microaggressions 230
Appendix J: List of DCC Participants 234
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Enrollment in California’s postsecondary institutions by ethnicity 24
Table 3.1: Collective Study Research Questions and Sub-Questions 62
Table 3.2: Summary of Data Collection Methods 63
Table 3.3: Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study 71
Table 3.4: Pertinent Activity Systems with Corresponding Planes of Analysis 77
Table 3.5: Deductive Data Analysis Codes 94
Table 3.6: Data Analysis Template (Excerpt, Code Category Attitudes/Beliefs) 96
Table 4.1: Frequency Counts from CUE Facilitated Workshop for New Faculty
(Activity System D) – Summary of Codes Assigned through
Deductive Data Analysis 120
Table 4.2: Exemplar Statements from Activity System D Relating to Strong Codes 121
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Activity System, Adapted from Engeström (1987) 50
Figure 2.2: Developmental Evaluation Methods Inform Multiple Modes of Research 56
Figure 3.1: Reflective Practice (Inquiry) as Driver of Racial-Ethnic Equity 60
in Postsecondary Outcomes
Figure 3.2: Data Collection Timeline 76
Figure 3.3: CUE’s Inquiry Model 86
Figure 3.4: An Image Identifying Purpose of CUE’s Inquiry Model 87
Figure 3.5: Who Institutional Agents Are and the Identities They Fulfill 88
Figure 4.1: The Cycle of Inquiry for New Faculty at CUE Facilitated Workshop 122
Figure 4.2: Activity System A: First Syllabus Reflection Workshop Facilitated 126
by CUE at DCC
Figure 4.3: Activity System B: DCC Early Adopters Sharing their Experience 129
at Statewide Symposium Facilitated by CUE
Figure 4.4: Activity System C: Beta Adopter Planning Meeting Facilitated 131
by CUE at DCC
Figure 4.5: Activity System D with Early Adopter as Subject 135
Figure 4.6: Activity System D with New Faculty as Subject 135
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
11
ABSTRACT
This study was a developmental evaluation that investigated whether practitioners’
involved in an action research project experienced changes in their attitudes, assumptions,
knowledge, behaviors, and beliefs by engaging in practitioner inquiry. The problem of the study
revolved around the pressing issues of access, retention and degree completion in how to best
achieve accountability for inequities experienced by racial minority groups in higher education in
the United States. Action research and inquiry is a strategy utilized by the Center for Urban
Education (CUE) to address these issues.
Purposeful sampling led to the selection of a case study site where practitioners were
engaging in inquiry with CUE. An urban community college that had engaged in continuous use
of CUE’s action research tools to understand how their attitudes, assumptions, knowledge, and
beliefs affected equity was the institution in focus in this study. The practitioners engaged in
inquiry in this study included an “early adopters” group and a potential “beta group” of
participants in the inquiry process. The experiences of sixteen untenured, new faculty members
at the college were of particular interest, because they were identified by the early adopters group
for recruitment into a broader college effort towards equity focused organizational change. This
group was selected because they were a cohesive group to participate in the action research
project.
The unit of analysis was a series of activity systems where early adopting practitioners
used CUE’s tools and a single culminating workshop that involved the new, untenured faculty.
The potential of one of CUE’s action research tools, the Syllabus Review Protocol, was analyzed
using activity theoretical analysis for its potential to act as a remediating artifact of practice. For
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
12
11 months, data was collected through document analysis, expert interviews, cognitive
interviews, observations and evaluations. The analysis employed activity theory to identify each
activity system’s subjects, tools, objects, norms, communities, and divisions of labor and how
those led to or failed to achieve desired outcomes.
The goal of the inquiry project, at the stage examined in this study, was to provide the
untenured faculty practitioners the opportunity to become aware that their attitudes, assumptions,
knowledge, and beliefs related to race and ethnicity may affect the way they view their students
and their students’ ability to succeed. The study revealed that when untenured faculty
practitioners lacked general knowledge about community norms of behavior regarding
practitioner inquiry, they were less likely to value the behaviors of their peers who promoted
inquiry as an effective strategy of organizational learning and change. By identifying hidden
disturbances, the study’s findings demonstrate that matching the right action research tool to
available resources and the entry point of the group was necessary for new inquiry participants to
effectively use the tool, and by extension other equity minded tools CUE or other action
researchers might design. This study contributes to the body of knowledge about the design of
action research intended to promote equity. It also establishes a basis for the design of
collaborative practices at other community colleges and universities embarking on an
investigation of their institution’s culture with the objective of developing plans for improving
student outcomes.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 13
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
In the past, the United States had the best-educated workforce in the world, but that is no
longer true. In 2010, the U.S. was positioned ninth following Korea, Canada, Russia, Japan, New
Zealand, Norway, Ireland and Denmark (Kanter, 2011). The majority of U.S. workers are
currently prepared for the workforce by colleges and universities, yet some racial and ethnic
groups are being better prepared than others. Scholars have expressed their concern regarding
how the lack of diverse human capital in the U.S. is becoming the norm (Blundell, Dearden,
Meghir, & Sainesi, 1999; Dowd, Sawatzky, & Korn, 2011; Lochner, 2004; Schultz, 1961). They
are critical that only certain populations are becoming educated while others falter and are left to
the wayside. This disparity between the groups causes great economic discord within our society
because so many individuals do not have sufficient capital to sustain themselves, let alone others.
Another set of scholars use the argument of social justice to hold the U.S. responsible for
educating all of its citizens, especially those that are most disadvantaged (Brown, 2004; DeBard
& Rice, 2009; Dowd, 2003; Kezar, Glenn, Lester, & Nakamoto, 2008; Malcom, Bensimon, &
Dávila, 2010). From both a human capital and social justice perspective, low college completion
rates are a pressing issue for the U.S. educational system and for society as a whole. The social
justice perspective brings an additional emphasis on equity due to the problematic disparities in
completion rates among members of different racial-ethnic groups.
Focus on equity in outcomes is relatively recent compared to concern for equal
opportunity in access. After World War II, the U.S. federal government created postsecondary
programs to address long standing educational inequities and create a surge in human capital.
These programs strove to provide underrepresented racial and ethnic groups with scholarships,
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 14
campus jobs and loans which led to a surge of higher education enrollment for low-income and
minority students (DeBard & Rice, 2009; Orfield, 1999). Between the late 1960s and 1970s, a
major goal of federal policies focused on access and equity, but in the early 1970s, the goals
shifted to being more competitive which forced education to become more standards-based
rather than equity-focused (Orfield, 1999). From K-12 to postsecondary education, an
accountability agenda emerged. An early initiative, named the “Excellence Movement” profiled
in The Nation at Risk, targeted the K-12 system, and those responsible for setting the agenda
increased the amount of testing within elementary and secondary schools in an effort for the
system to achieve higher levels of student performance (Orfield, 1999). This caused the nation to
adopt a culture of accountability through testing. Since being instituted 30 years ago, the testing
measures used in the K-12 system have trickled-up into higher education. More and more focus
is being placed upon postsecondary institutions to be accountable for the funds they are allotted
by the federal and state governments and to show results, specifically in graduation rates. Other
student outcome indicators, such as retention, transfer from the two-year to four-year sectors, and
timely course- or degree-completion, show that racial/ethnic inequities exist along the entire
postsecondary pathway.
Performance funding and performance reporting are two strategies for creating
postsecondary accountability. Performance funding differs from performance reporting since the
money needed to run these programs is assured regardless of any change in the outcomes. Both
types of programs and initiatives are often what proponents call “data-driven,” which means they
rely on data and reports to create incentives for greater institutional effectiveness. However,
these often report student outcomes in the aggregate rather than disaggregating by racial/ethnic
groups as would be necessary to reveal inequities in outcomes. Consequently, these reports do
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 15
not provide data that reflect increases in educational attainment for the most at-risk
1
student
population: underrepresented students (Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson, 2009; Dowd, Bishop,
Bensimon, & Witham, 2011; Malcom, et al., 2010). The higher educational institutions that are
subject to performance funding and reporting requirements are collecting data, submitting reports,
and receiving vast amounts of money to educate a poorly prepared, diverse student population,
but not being held accountable for the performance of their institution to educate all student
groups effectively. Some claim that this is why the educational outcomes in the U.S. are
weakening (Bowen, et al., 2009; Harbour & Jaquette, 2007). This type of funding is goal
orientated—providing students with access, continued enrollment and completion—but colleges
and universities continue to fall short in achieving these goals at high rates for underrepresented
students.
Students are categorized in an incongruent manner to how they are classified in their
communities. Schools categorize students according to achievement levels and then arrange
these data by racial/ethnic groups. In the U.S., Whites are the majority population and smaller
racial/ethnic groups—African American, Latinos, and Asians—are in the minority. However,
within in the field of education, Asians often perform at the same level or outperform the
majority population of White students. Asians who are from wealthy technologically advanced
countries (e.g., China, South Korea, Japan, or Taiwan) are not considered a minority in schools
because of their high academic achievement levels. This does not stand true for all Asians
however. Studies have proven that Asian students who emigrate from poorer Asian countries
1
The term at-risk is often used when studying minority or disadvantaged students, which
suggests that these students are to blame for their categorization. Rather than use the term
minority, this study will use the phrase, underrepresented students, to represent students from
racial-ethnic groups that have been underrepresented in higher education. However, this term can
also include low-income, first generation college students who are White which is beyond the
scope of this study.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 16
(e.g., the Philippines, Vietnam, or Cambodia) perform on par with African American and Latino
students (Ng, Lee & Park, 2007; Lew, Chang & Wang, 2005). These minute categorizations
between their countries of origin are often not used in data-analysis when comparing the more
global racial and ethnic groups.
Equity issues in higher education are observed through the categories of access, retention,
and outcomes. In regard to access, disparities exist in admissions to selective institutions and in
ensuring a space at open-access institutions, i.e., community colleges. Retention targets how
students are matriculating through the curriculum at an institution. Outcomes of concern include
undergraduate and graduate degree completion and time-to-degree because timely degree
completion costs students less and enables them to gain from their postsecondary education
sooner.
Access
Highly selective colleges and universities have historically focused more on external
research than reflecting upon their role to educate those who have been most educationally
disadvantaged (Taylor, 2009). These institutions greatly value their annual ranking in US News
and World Report and devote funds to attracting a select student body (Gallagher & Holley,
2003; Weinstein, 2010); therefore, selective colleges are not admitting historically disadvantaged
populations, e.g., Latinos and African Americans, in large numbers (Bowen, et al., 2009;
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC), 2009; Leonhardt, 2011; Perez &
McDonough, 2008). While selective admissions are viewed as meritocratic by some, this
practice contributes to inequities because high school GPAs are heavily influenced by parental
education levels (Bowen, et al., 2009) and African American and Latino high school students
have parents with the lowest education levels (Cataldi, Green, Henke, Lew, & Woo, 2011). The
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 17
context in non-selective state-funded institutions is different. In the non-selective sector, equity
in access revolves more around the overall number of places available, rather than on admissions
standards because open access institutions often cap their admissions based upon a number of
students the state has predetermined. These students are not selected according to their ability
levels, but access is rationed to those who register earlier or have completed more units
(Dougherty & Reid, 2007; Dowd, 2007; Murphy, 2004).
Another factor that impedes student success is early assessment of potential college
students. There is a disconnect between the K-12 curriculum and that of the colleges. This is
most evident with the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) which tests at a 10
th
grade
level, though colleges expect students to enter at the 13
th
grade level or higher. The results of this
statewide assessment leads students to believe two years before they graduate that they have the
skills necessary to “exit” high school. However, when they assess prior to enrolling in the
college, they find that the college has categorized them as basic skills students (Horn, 2005;
Westover & Hatton, 2011).
Equity issues have received some attention from the private sector. Some private
institutions are changing their admissions policies to give priority to students who come from
disadvantaged communities. They are doing so to build meritocracy for those who have the skills
to achieve despite their limited opportunities. Between 2003 and 2010, a highly selective
institution, Amherst University in Massachusetts, increased the number of students receiving
federal Pell Grants by 9 percent (Leonhardt, 2011). The president of Amherst sees this policy as
a template that builds human capital to serve the national good and that is correct from an equity
perspective. This model adopted by a private non-profit university has been modified from the
acceptance polices of the University of California (UC), a state-funded university system, which
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 18
has historically been more diverse in their acceptance practices (Barrio-Sotillo, 2007). In the
1960s, the UCs began to consider race, ethnicity and gender when granting admission to students.
This practice was changed in 1996 with the passage of Proposition 209 which ended affirmative
action policies in the admissions process at public universities in California.
The type of institutions that students enroll in is noteworthy since there are clear racial
and ethnic divisions. In a study conducted for the Department of Education, Cataldi, Green,
Henke, Lew and Woo (2011) determined that the students most likely to enroll at community
colleges are Latinos whereas Whites tend to enroll in private universities. Asians and African
Americans enroll in public four-year institutions at almost equal levels, but these two groups are
not on equal footing. African American students are the most likely racial group to be parents
while attending college whereas Asians are the least likely. Another way these four student
populations differ is through Pell Grant awards. Latino and African American college students
are more likely than White and Asian college students to qualify and receive this grant, which
indicates limited family financial resources. With limited family financial means and possible
parental responsibilities of their own, there are fewer options for low-income Latino and African
American students to benefit from attending a highly selective university or a private institution
(Leonhardt, 2011).
Retention
Once students are admitted into a college, the next challenge is to remain enrolled.
Retention issues are of most concern in open-admissions institutions because selective
institutions tend to have higher graduation rates. Community colleges, for example, have a
mandated open enrollment policy. Community colleges cannot screen their student population
prior to their enrolling at the college which might account for low graduation and transfer rates at
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 19
this type of institution (Center for Urban Education, 2007). For many formerly open admissions
four-year colleges, the way to improve student performance has been to raise the standards by
which students are admitted. In 2004, the Board of Regents for the University of California
raised the minimum GPA level
2
for entering freshmen from 2.8 to 3.0 (Sack, 2004). Some
administrators have been critical of this standard, most notably the former president of California
State University Long Beach, F. King Alexander, who said, “Everyone knows that to get your
graduation rates up, the best way to do that is to turn away all the academically challenged
students and there is evidence of this all over the United States” (as quoted in Bowen, et al., 2009,
p. 196). Students who do not meet these higher standards often lack sufficient academic
preparation and are labeled as “basic skills” students. This categorization, imposed by the state,
applies to students who lack college-level skills in three areas: English, reading and
mathematics
3
. Underrepresented students, already at a disadvantage in regard to academic
preparation due to lack of access to high quality primary and secondary schooling, are
disproportionately assessed for placement in basic skills (or remedial) classes. This has
repercussions for which college they attend, the type of classes they are required to take, and the
length of time they have until they complete their degree.
2
This policy did not go into effect until the entering freshman class of 2007. Given that these
students have only had five years to complete their degree, there is not sufficient evidence of
whether the graduation rate is higher than the cohorts that preceded those held to this higher
standard.
3
Students taking English as a Second Language (ESL) courses are also classified into this
category, but it is not because they lack strong skills in reading or mathematics. They are often
classified in this category because they do not know enough English to place into a freshman-
level English course. However, within the state of California, ESL is partnered with Basic Skills
initiatives, but classified as separate (Community College League of California, 2000).
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 20
Time to Degree
Where and when a high school graduate goes to college matters. Cataldi, Green, Henke,
Lew, and Woo (2011) interviewed over 17,000 students who received their bachelor’s degree in
2007-2008 as to the types of institutions the students attended and how long it took them to
complete their degrees. The researchers found that students who began their college experience
at a private non-profit college within months of graduating from high school were the most
successful (64.5%) in completing their bachelor’s in four years. Less than 45% of students
meeting the same criteria who attend state or for-profit four-year institutions completed their
degrees in the same amount of time. The figure drops to 26.3% for students who began by
attending a community college and transferred to a four-year institution. These numbers reveal
that the type of college or university one has access to and is admitted by has an impact on the
outcome of completing a college education. Additionally, when underrepresented students are
not accepted by or cannot attend a college of their choice, this leads to low graduation rates for
these populations, especially in the areas of math, science, and computer science (Gardner, 2008;
Margolis, Estrella, Goode, Holme & Nao, 2008). The ripple effect of low graduation rates is that
few underrepresented students within these marginalized populations attend graduate school,
especially in the sciences, and therefore do not become role models for other underrepresented
students to enter the professions.
Organizational Change to Address Equity Issues
According to Seo & Creed (2002), stable organizations, like colleges and universities, are
actively seeking solutions to outcome issues, but can be caught in a cycle of their own historical
practices that blind them to the culture they have created. In order to work toward solutions and
focus on equitable outcomes for underrepresented student populations, colleges and universities
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 21
are being asked by policy makers, accrediting agencies, and a number of postsecondary scholars
to engage in cultural change through organizational learning. Some cultural change models call
on postsecondary educators to develop “equity-minded” practices (AAC&U, 2011; Bensimon,
2005; Dowd, Bishop, Bensimon, & Witham, 2011). The notion of equity-minded practice and
the use of “inquiry” to address it have several distinguishing characteristics. Rather than focusing
on what students lack and being “deficit-minded”, the practitioners at the institution are asked to
gather to reflect upon data that prompts critical reflection and inquiry into equity. These models
aim for higher education practitioners to go through an inquiry process and become more
“equity-minded”. This would mean they understand how their and others’ “beliefs, expectations,
and actions … influence whether minority group students are construed as being capable or
incapable” (Bensimon, 2005, p. 102). This occurs when practitioners in institutions become
aware of gains and losses that occur to particular racial and ethnic groups which is important to
achieving social justice. As the practitioners continue their conversation with each other and
themselves, they develop the knowledge necessary and nomenclature to discuss equity. This
process of becoming critical of one’s own culture is an uncomfortable process that involves
cognitive dissonance (Aronson, 2007). When practitioners work through conflicting yet equally
valued beliefs, their perceptions of the culture may be transformed in ways that will change the
culture itself. Then the institution can establish equity measures that are tied to reports on
performance and outcomes which encourage the institution to continue the practice of inquiry
(Dowd, 2002; Bensimon, 2005). In order to create the conditions for inquiry to become part of
the practitioners’ dialogue, it is necessary to take into account the culture and policies that dictate
the structure of postsecondary institutions in both a national and state context so that critical
reflection can be prompted and the organizations can learn.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 22
National Context
One of the current issues in higher education is the graduation rate. Many colleges and
universities struggle to graduate at least half of their students; therefore, newly formed monetary
and policy incentives are being set to encourage colleges and universities to reframe how they
operate. Over 35 states in the U.S. do not tie the funding of state colleges and universities to
performance outcomes (Dougherty & Reid, 2007). However, in the few states that do, almost
half report their data is highly instrumental in improving their access and success policies. In the
states that do not, the institutions report that outcome data is moderately impactful on changes to
their college’s success initiatives. President Obama is encouraging every state to become more
accountable and implement performance-based funding. In his 2012 budget, a new grant
program rewards institutions when their graduation rates reach the target number of 50% by
2020 (Department of Education, 2011b). These promised funds from the federal government are
substantial and causing state governments to reconsider how they fund the colleges and
universities.
Additionally, the majority of state-funded four-year, two-year and private non-profit
colleges and universities are asked to meet standards of performance and program quality set by
their accreditation agency. For colleges in the western United States, that organization is the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). This agency reviews program quality in
three areas:
1) The school’s goals focus on successful student learning;
2) The school has a clear purpose and school-wide student goals; and
3) The school engages in external and internal evaluations as part of continued school
improvement to support student learning (WASC, 2011).
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 23
This agency expects to see at each institution a “cycle of inquiry” that consists of ongoing
assessment, planning, experimentation, reflection and evaluation to improve the gains that
students make. The global aspects of each college that are reported on are the mission and
organization, curriculum and instruction, support for student personal and academic growth, and
resource management and development. These accreditation reports are global snapshots of the
“how” and “what” of an institution. However, equity issues have not received tremendous weight
in accreditation standards.
State Context
In the United States, the most populous state is California; twelve percent of the nation’s
residents live within its borders. Since 2000, the population has grown by just over nine percent
to almost 37 million residents (US Census, 2011; California Postsecondary Education
Commission, 2009). Of those that reside in the state, 41 percent identify themselves as White
(non-Hispanic), 37 percent as Hispanic or Latino, 12 percent as Asian and 6 percent as Black.
Over the last decade, the number of Whites has dropped 6 percent, Blacks have remained the
same, while Hispanics and Asians have risen, 7 and 1 percent, respectively.
Given the diverse mix of the state’s population, this makes California the perfect Petri
dish in which to study issues related to race within higher education. In the United States, no
other state has as many postsecondary institutions (N=651) with the state of New York being a
distant second with 448 institutions and Alaska having only nine (California Postsecondary
Education Commission, 2009). Out of the sample size, almost a quarter of the postsecondary
institutions in California are publically funded in a three-tiered system with ten Universities of
California (UCs), 23 California State Universities (CSUs) and 112 California community
colleges (CCCs). The more diverse campuses are not the prestigious Universities of California,
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 24
but the CSUs and CCCs (see Table 1.1). The higher education system in California educates the
largest student-body population in the nation—3 million students. This monumental number of
students makes meeting each student’s educational needs difficult and is reflected in graduation
rates below 50% at state-funded colleges and universities (Department of Education, 2011a;
California State University, 2008; Pope, 2007).
Table 1.1
Enrollment in California’s public postsecondary institutions by ethnicity, 2009
4
White Asian Black Latino
UCs 34.32% 30.03% 3.26% 14.49%
CSUs 35.24% 12.94% 5.68% 25.21%
CCCs 30.34% 10.52% 6.58% 28.41%
Source: California Postsecondary Education Commission (2011). Total Enrollment by
Race/Ethnicity, 1995-2009.
At the UCs, African American and Latino student populations comprise less than 20% of the
student population; however, that is not true of the CSUs and CCCs. Their student enrollments
are much more diverse, and for studies that address issues of human capital within higher
education, it is vital to select institutions where practitioners are interacting and struggling with a
more diverse student population. In addition, the field site for my study is in California, so
conditions of access, outcomes, equity, and accountability in the state deserve particular attention
in defining the problem of study.
California Community Colleges
In 2000, the trustees of California Community Colleges developed a policy paper
promoting diversity for all within the system—students, staff, administrators and faculty. The
4
These figures do not total 100% as they only reflect the four largest racial/ethnic groups
enrolled at these state universities and colleges.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 25
goals within this policy exist at two levels—the state and local board level—and encourage open
access for students to graduate, transfer or obtain a certificate; obtain workforce skills or life
skills; and improve college operations through diverse hiring practices and student recruitment.
At the community colleges, school budgets are set by a predetermined number for the
full-time enrolled (FTE) student population. Institutions that do not meet their enrollment cap
over a series of budget years are placed in stabilization where they are given the same budget
from the state, but the institution must focus on increasing their FTEs to the agreed upon number
of students. Conversely, colleges are able to increase their budgets by over-enrolling FTEs over
the course of a few years. The enrollment report is a performance report and holds each college
more accountable to their incoming students than its exiting students (Dowd, 2002). Two new
gross reporting structures exist for California Community Colleges—Accountability Reporting
for Community Colleges (ARCC) and the Basic Skills Initiative (BSI)—that are restructuring the
types of reports being produced and how the institutions are being held accountable. The ARCC
data is a type of performance reporting that compares student performance objectives to prior
performance. At this time, the ARCC data is not tied to any additional monies, but the state is
adopting a culture of accountability for higher education since each college must produce this
report. On the other hand, the BSI is a type of performance funding since colleges must submit
their report to obtain extra monies from the state. Each college established their benchmarks in
2007-2008 and submitted a plan to address basic skills issues at their college. The colleges have
continued to submit this report noting their achievements and updating the state as to the
institution’s new goals to close the achievement gap (Boroch et al, 2007).
One public way in which community colleges are being held accountable is through a
scorecard on each college. The Chancellor of California Community Colleges recently released
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 26
the Student Success Scorecard, a report card for each community college in which the
persistence and completion rates of all students were made public via a website. The scorecard
compares each college to its prior performance data with data culled from the Accountability
Reporting for Community College (ARCC) data sent annually by each institution to the
Chancellor’s office and then published. Within the scorecard, specific measures of student
success—persistence, completion, remediation, and finishing 30 units—are separated by gender,
age, race and ethnicity (Bidwell, 2013). However, given that this instrument is newly
implemented, it is unclear at this time how it will be used by the general populace.
California State Universities
In contrast to the community colleges in California, the CSUs have not developed a
policy paper on achieving a commitment to diversity. Statewide, the CSUs have made it a
priority to hire diversely, but this effort has not been linked in any report to ensure that student
success is equitable (Community College League of California, 2000; California State University
(CSU), 2011; Access to Success (A2S) initiative, 2008). Within the CSU system, full-time
faculty who are White (both male and female) outnumber minorities at the CSUs by a 3-to-1
ratio
5
(CSU, 2008). Of the part-time faculty, Whites are again the dominant racial group with
Asian and Latino instructors comprising 10% each of the faculty groups and African Americans,
only 4%
6
. There has been a steady increase of minorities and women being hired in full-time
CSU faculty positions over the last fifteen years.
However, as diverse as the faculty ranks are, it does not match the racial and ethnic
5
The source does not list specific racial/ethnic groups of full-time faculty. Rather it focuses on
the classification of the instructor, e.g., professor, associate professor, assistant professor,
instructor and lecturer.
6
These numbers do not total 100% since the minority group of American Indian was excluded
(0.8%) and ethnicity unknown comprises 5%.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 27
constitution of the student body at the CSUs. In 2009, there were a total of 433,054 students
enrolled with the majority of students being White (35.7%) and next four most populous
categories being Hispanics (25.2%), Asians (16.7%) and Blacks (5.7%)
7
. These numbers attest to
the CSUs’ adherence to providing access through convenience, location, course availability and
cost to those who want it (Santos & Acevedo-Gil, 2013). However, there is a disparity between
the size/sequence of these groups and their graduation rates. In 2010, just over 95,000 CSU
undergraduate and graduate degrees were awarded. For undergraduate degrees conferred, the
largest racial group was White students (37.7%), with Hispanics following (20.3%), then Asians
(12.2%), and African Americans (4.2%)
8
. For graduate degrees, the ethnicity order changes
slightly to where Whites are first, Non-resident Aliens
9
are second, Hispanics are third, Asians
are fourth and African Americans are fifth (California State University, 2010). Of note here is
that Whites are over performing by graduating at a represented rate 2.5% higher than their
undergraduate enrollment rate, but Hispanics, Asians, and Blacks are underperforming.
Some policies at the CSUs have focused on the overall success of students and their
graduation rates. These reports are most often produced by the Analytic Studies department of
the Chancellor’s office for all 23 campuses which provide a global view of issues related to
retention, persistence and graduation. In 1998, the CSU Board of Trustees released a self-
assessment framework entitled “Cornerstones” in which each campus was asked to report on
high standards of undergraduate education, as well as their ability to meet educational demands
7
The fourth largest category was not included as it was “unknown” (11.7%). Also of note is that
non-resident aliens comprise 4.7% of the population.
8
For undergraduates, the third largest category of graduating students (17.6%) could not be
identified by their ethnic group as they were in the unknown category. This figure is substantial
and shows that CSUs have a blind spot for almost one in five of their graduating students.
9
Reports
provided by the Chancellor’s Office cannot identify if these students are listed in
multiple categories, Hispanic and non-resident, or singly classified.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 28
using the available resources. The overall goal of the report was for the universities to be held
accountable to California residents and adapt to the changing needs of the residents (California
State University, 2011). This plan was revised in 2008 when the CSU Board of Trustees adopted
a new self-accountability plan called “Access to Excellence”.
This new CSU plan is designed to reduce existing achievement gaps, but it makes no
mention of equity-seeking measures. Instead it places greater emphasis on increasing access
through more diverse acceptance policies rather than assisting the students already enrolled
within the CSUs. In essence, the plan targets equal access rather than equal outcomes which is
the current structure that exists at the CSUs and is known to be inequitable for underrepresented
students (Dowd, 2002). The “Access to Excellence” plan does include a brief reference to
improving the success rates by using the “Access to Success” initiative (A2S) which was
developed by the National Association of System Heads (NASH) and The Education Trust
(EdTrust). This initiative focuses on equity outcomes for underrepresented, low-income and
male/female students, but only in a cursory manner. The overt goal to achieve equity is a general
statement and not prescriptive in declaring what level is needed for the goal to be met. Another
issue with the A2S initiative is that there is a stronger focus on the achievements of first-year
students (minorities or not) than on transfer students. The outcomes or achievements of these
transfer students are set by an internal council, rather than by state or federal mandates. This
instrument makes the CSUs only accountable to themselves. They set the standards by which
they will show improvements and few of their measures focus on equity outcomes for the
underrepresented students who attend.
Within the Access to Success (A2S) plan, there is an effort to expand student outreach
through a multitude of programs—College Making It Happen, CSU Mentor, Early Assessment
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 29
Program, Equal Opportunity Program (EOP), Foster Youth, Gaining Early Awareness and
Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), Mathematics Engineering Science
Achievement (MESA), Parent Institute for Quality Education, Super Sunday, Upward Bound,
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) in addition to other
partnerships with K-12 intervention programs. Each of these programs targets a different
population at different stages in their educational journeys. However, the effectiveness of these
programs is not the goal of the A2S initiative; therefore, determining how effective they are
individually as well as collectively is an accountability measurement that is not clearly defined.
The CSU plan is mainly focused on improving access for at-risk students, but the accountability
plan targets outcomes for these universities. There is a disconnect between the organization’s
focus and the way they are holding themselves accountable.
Statement of the Problem
Scholars who study human capital and social justice acknowledge that a gap exists for
racial and ethnic groups to gain access to college (Blundell, Dearden, Meghir, & Sainesi, 1999;
Brown, 2004; DeBard & Rice, 2009; Dowd, 2003; Dowd, Sawatzky, & Korn, 2011; Kezar,
Glenn, Lester, & Nakamoto, 2008; Lochner, 2004; Malcom, Bensimon, & Dávila, 2010; Schultz,
1961). All races are welcome to apply to attend college, but whether or not they are accepted,
enroll, matriculate, and persist is another question. Statewide, the data show that there is a
racial/ethnic gap in enrollment levels for CSU students (California Postsecondary Education
Commission, 2009). This gap widens for students who transfer from community colleges to the
CSUs in regard to their graduation rates, especially for Latinos and African American college
students (Perez & Ceja, 2010).
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 30
One kind of solution focused on access is outreach programs targeted to minorities.
While they are in middle or high school, outreach programs (e.g., GEARUP or Super Sunday)
target students at school and in their communities; however, these programs are not reaching all
minorities due to limited resources. There have been significant cuts to student services at these
colleges statewide (California State University, 2011; Somerville, 2011). The Association of
American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) created another kind of strategy, a program
called “Inclusive Excellence,” whose core principles are to teach college faculty and
administrators to attend to the socially conscious precepts of diversity, inclusion, and equity, so
that the practitioners become equity-minded. AAC&U is also currently offering grants to CSUs
to partner with local California Community Colleges whose students tend to transfer to the CSU
in an effort to improve general education and transfer outcomes. The scope of this grant is
limited given that two or more colleges will be sharing less than $100,000 to make systemic
changes before 2015 (AAC&U, 2011).
Another solution addresses repeating the efforts of the K-12 system. The CSUs want to
end remediation of entering students and focus on teaching students who have the skills to
graduate. On average, 60 percent of first-time freshmen who enroll in the CSUs each fall do not
show college-level proficiency in English and/or math, but these students have taken the required
college preparatory courses in high school and received grades of B or higher. One way in which
the CSUs plan to address this issue is by instituting a mandatory “Early Start” program that
works with high school students planning on attending CSUs the next year (California State
University, 2010). This program assesses the students’ English and math skills and then spends
three academic terms (fall, spring and summer) ensuring that students are ready for college level
work. However, this program does not replace the required courses students need to complete
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 31
high school; therefore, students enrolled in this program will be taking courses after school. This
is a problem for students who must work, lack reliable transportation or take the bus which
makes underrepresented students prime candidates to not be included in the remedial instruction
program (Margolis, et al., 2008).
Scholars argue that accountability structures are not effective because state-funded higher
education institutions are funded by enrollment levels, not by completion rates. Because funding
is not goal driven, inquiry into how the institution’s goals are achieved does not occur
(Dougherty & Reid, 2007; Harbour & Jaquette, 2007). Grants are now requiring reports that
provide certain types of data that show achievement changes over time, but the government is
still funding the CSUs according to long-established policies of enrollment, not performance. In
addition to oversight by those who fund these programs, the reports for accreditation as well as
the annual US News and World Report ranking of colleges encourage the institution to highlight
what does work rather than address the inequities that exist. There are a multitude of reasons for
this, but at each college, it is possible to inquire as to what barriers exist that stymie students
from traveling on a pathway to graduation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine whether through action research, institutional
practitioners in higher education can learn to address issues related to equity for
underrepresented students. The study of action research will use developmental evaluation
methods which permit the researcher to account for uncertain, emerging, dynamic and adaptive
patterns and outcomes (Patton, 2011). The inequities faced by the student population of African
American and Latino college students are the catalyst for this study because students from these
groups have been marginalized and, therefore, are underrepresented among those attaining
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 32
postsecondary educational achievements. Those who will be studied are the practitioners—
faculty and administrators—who are the decision makers and culture creators at their institution.
These two groups work within a culture surrounded by the same artifacts yet perceive their
environments differently. Artifacts are observable and are made of the physical and social
environments, written and spoken language, as well as norms and traditions valued by the
community members. These artifacts are physical items, actions, or statements, (e.g., documents,
websites, defined policies, mission statements) as well as esoteric items (e.g., unwritten policies,
language, values, and beliefs) (Dowd, Bishop, Bensimon, & Witham, 2011). In this study, the
artifacts will be the lens by which analysis of social interactions within a campus’ culture takes
place. The objective of the action researchers is to observe how the practitioners’ cultural
practices are “remediated” by introducing artifacts of practice that have been designed from an
equity perspective. Organizational learning occurs when a disconnect in one’s alignment of goals
exists. The practitioners are being asked to achieve this through data-driven action research
which “seeks to change the social and personal dynamics of the research situation so that the
research process enhances the lives of all those who participate” (Stringer, 2007, p. 20). When
organizations inquire about equity through action research, they challenge their assumptions and
the culture of their institution in an effort to establish more equitable outcomes for minority
students (Bensimon, 2005; Dowd, 2007; Kezar, Glenn, Lester, & Nakamoto, 2008). The
intended result is that the process of institutional self-assessment creates a “culture of inquiry”
that brings about institutional change and improvements in institutional effectiveness and equity
in student outcomes.
In the field settings of this study, action research will be implemented by the University
of Southern California’s Center for Urban Education (CUE) to facilitate practitioner inquiry. As
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 33
action researchers, CUE creates activity systems with the aim of remediating educational
practices that contribute to inequitable outcomes for underrepresented student populations. In
order to do this, CUE relies on the tenets that learning and knowledge are constructed and co-
constructed in collaborative activities. The process begins with reviewing data which rouse
inquiry. The practitioners’ discourse reflects acceptances and disagreements regarding the data
and identifying the problem. The inquiry process promotes contradictions between participants’
views about their personal beliefs, assumptions and values, but the end goal is for the
practitioners to have a shared understanding of the problem. These contradictions may motivate
participants to gather data that reveal the beliefs, assumptions, and values held by themselves and
others at their campus.
CUE is able to assist practitioners through this process via an action research project that
designs social interactions as a “critical point of intervention.” This critical point of intervention
begins a cyclical process that involves purposeful social interactions that purposefully allow for
an exchange of practitioners’ knowledge and beliefs in specific cultural contexts. During the
interactions, the knowledge that the participants espouse may reveal their personal beliefs,
assumptions and values which in turn may provide issues to reflect upon for other participants.
The reflection then allows for problem identification which is conducted through data analysis.
Once the problem has been identified, problem solving can begin through action implementation.
Evaluation of the implemented plan will call for further evaluation, and assessment of the
intervention (Stringer, 2007). CUE’s action inquiry process emphasizes “how” as well as “when”
practitioners apply knowledge obtained through participatory inquiry and may impact the way
instruction and other educational practices improve equity and effectiveness.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 34
Research Questions
In this study, practitioners at a state-funded community college in California were
selected based on their potential involvement to become involved in action research inquiry
activities facilitated by CUE. At this higher educational site, a team of 16 practitioners was
assembled constituting a broad cross-section of faculty from instructional disciplines as well as
student services. These faculty were in their first year of full-time employment teaching at the
college. This community college has been purposely selected to study because it had been spent
the year prior participating in an action research project with CUE and these early adopting
practitioners were seeking to garner more support regarding the college’s equity initiative from
the newly hired full-time faculty.
Therefore, this study will try to determine:
1) What are the characteristics of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool?
2) What characteristics of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool are associated with changes
in practitioners’ beliefs, attitudes, knowledge and behaviors?
3) In what ways, if any, is the use of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool in facilitated
settings associated with cultural change at an institution, for example, through
changes in social interactions or educational practices?
In order to determine answers to these research questions, a qualitative method was implemented
to complete a collaborative study using developmental evaluation. This was accomplished
through conducting cognitive interviews and expert interviews, as well as observing CUE
workshops and analyzing the practitioners’ workshop evaluation forms.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 35
Importance of the Study
According to Orfield (1999), there is very little in educational research that “suggests that
education can actually solve very deep inequities without changes in other sectors of society” (p.
591). While it is beyond the scope of this study to view the change to other sectors of society,
this study explores practices that exist in an educational setting to determine the ways a
particular institution is addressing equity for underrepresented students.
Orfield (1999) stated that the “basic conservative policy about American schools argues
that schools can make a very large difference if only the right accountability or organizational
change is imposed, but that resources do not matter” (p. 586). This statement brings to light the
trend in education to make schools more accountable through more testing or the tendency to
shuffle pieces of the organization around hoping for better results rather than taking stock of the
resources that exist. Scholars suggest that resources be cataloged and highlighted in order to
build upon what is currently working and then determine which areas need improvement (Kezar,
Glenn, Lester & Nakamoto, 2007). These resources are artifacts that are used as well as the
expertise of those who work at the institution, their level of commitment to educating students,
the campus itself, the students, and the community.
This study acknowledges that practitioners at educational institutions can no longer be
racially/ethnically unaware. In order to address these inequities, changes within the organization
are necessary in order for practitioners to study the existing artifacts that reflect biased cultural
practices. When practitioners within the system become conscious of students’ races/ethnicities,
they can address the struggles their students encounter. This study contributes to the growing
body of knowledge about action research inquiry projects in which community colleges and
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 36
universities investigate their institution’s culture as they work to develop equity minded plans for
improving student outcomes.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 37
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Institutions of higher education are organized by their traditions, rules and schedules. At
times, these institutions rely upon their collective knowledge of past practices to address
upcoming problems; however, these institutions also face new challenges to which there is no
past practice. Given that the enrollment at colleges and universities has never been as racially
and ethnically diverse as it is now, these institutions face new challenges and have no past
practices to depend upon. Because there are many factors that contribute to their equity
discussion, no one overarching theory can account for the complexity of the issue and the
manner in which it is addressed (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Therefore, a collection of theories and
frameworks—critical race theory (CRT), sociocultural theory, organizational learning theory,
cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), institutional theory (IT) as well as action research—
were layered in this study to provide a multi-level view of the exact nature of how key
stakeholders participate in addressing the achievement levels of underrepresented college
students (Bensimon, 2012).
Practitioners
In colleges and universities, certain stakeholders or practitioners make changes to address
equity issues. These practitioners consist of higher education faculty, administrators, institutional
researchers and staff members from a multitude of areas around a college or university
1
(Bennett,
2011; Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). Stanton-Salazar (2010) identifies these individuals as
institutional agents that hold one or more high-status positions within the institution. These
1
Dowd and Bensimon (2009) also stipulate that researchers external to the college are
participants, but they act as facilitators to the inquiry team and do not replace any of the
practitioners.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 38
practitioners have strong social networks and procedural knowledge which give them the ability
to implement their acquired human, cultural and social capital to empower systemic changes
(Gurr, 2009; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Bensimon (2005) advises against selecting individuals
who are deficit-minded or diversity-minded since they blame forces outside of their control, e.g.,
students’ limited motivation levels or state imposed policies, for equity issues that exist at the
institution. These individuals are not change agents since they lack a sense of personal
responsibility toward the institution. Rather, she suggests selecting equity-minded practitioners
because they acknowledge that certain institutional practices are unequal and take personal
responsibility for the institution’s problems. These practitioners are willing to change
institutional practices to meet the goal of equitable student outcomes.
Activity System Theory
In addition to selecting specific practitioners that fulfill the role of being change agents
at their institution, it is necessary to define the environment in which they participate. Engeström
(1987) developed the activity system theory which is also called activity settings. Tharp and
Gallimore (1988) identify “activity settings” as problem-based tasks that engage institutional
agents in a goal-directed manner. At a college or university, the agents meet at a time and place
that permits them to identify problems that exist. Initially, there may be a pre-determined
problem to focus upon; however, the way in which activity settings are structured, other
problems may arise within the conversation. The structure of an activity setting permits the
institutional agents to come to “an evolving, developing, and converging common
understanding” (p. 79) of the issue at hand. External factors, as well as the beliefs and attitudes
of the practitioners, their knowledge of the system and their goals drive this process. Because an
activity setting involves goal directed behavior, the practitioners discuss the issue and determine
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 39
their desired outcomes. These established goals direct their interaction and future actions because
they delegate certain tasks to the best institutional agents on the team.
Racial Knowledge to Address Inequities
Vital knowledge to apply when studying the academic lives of underrepresented students
is critical race theory (CRT). CRT stems from the scripts and ideologies that sustain and
perpetuate hierarchies and biases based upon race and color within institutions (Nasir & Hand,
2006; Yosso, 2005). This theory focuses on the stories of those who are slighted within a system
of power because their stories are not being heard. By implementing CRT into formal
organizations, such as colleges and universities, attention to the needs of this ‘undervalued’
population helps to make their racialized experience explicitly clear to others.
From this perspective, these analyses address issues that are vital to share with a
multitude of communities that construct the education of a multi-racial society: educators,
administrators, politicians, parents, and the students themselves. These discussions are generated
to address the complex nature of racial issues because individual and subgroup “opportunities
and identities are negotiated, adapted and contested” (Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 455). It is these
discussions that are necessary to understand how underrepresented students are positioned
differently than those who are in the majority and this permits the conversation to turn to the
issues of power and privilege (Domhoff, 2005).
The theory of race is a construct because there are interwoven levels to how it operates.
Jones (2000) describes it as a tiered system. At the top tier, institutionalized racism is exhibited
by organizations and individuals that have power and the creature comforts that accompany it—
quality education, housing and employment. In the next tier down, personally mediated racism
encompasses the prejudicial notions one has about the abilities and motives of people of other
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 40
races. The final tier of race is internalized racism. This aspect of the theory focuses on how
certain members of a race accept the stigmatized view other racial groups have towards them.
When these three levels of racial theory combine, one can see how an individual’s self view can
affect his/her level of success, but often it is also affected by the views that one powerful group
has toward other weaker groups and how the institutions have only systemized these views to
perpetuate the self- and group views of how minorities are perceived as inferior.
Since race is infused in every aspect of our lives, educational researchers have focused on
the differences in achievement based upon race. One such study conducted by Margolis, Estrella,
Goode, Holme and Nao (2008) compared the levels of access minority students had to computer
science courses in three urban high schools for a two-year period. Within this study, they
indentified the three aforementioned levels of racism. As an example of institutional racism, one
of the three high schools provided the best instruction. It had more students enrolled in its
computer science courses and a well-trained teacher who had worked in private industry;
however, the targeted minority students (Latinos, African Americans and females) were rarely
taking these courses. The strength of this institution was based on its rank as one of the best high
schools in the U.S., which led to a greater focus on maintaining that ranking than equitable
educational opportunities for minorities. The next category, personally mediated racism, was
exhibited by the views students and faculty expressed at all three high schools. Every group,
faculty included, often claimed that only white and Asian males would be good at computer
science; this belief was reinforced at all three high schools since white and Asian males had the
highest enrollment rates in these courses. Lastly, internalized racism was evident in an interview
with one of the Latina students, Sara, at the lowest-performing high school. In her comments, she
claimed that Asians and whites go to college, but not Latinos. Her experience is that Latinos do
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 41
not go to college, so Sara has internalized her educational opportunities as limited because she
would never meet the criteria of someone who is college-bound—she will always be a Latina.
Race is a vital part of the discussion in order to reform the culture of a college campus.
CRT adjusts the lens of the research away from deficit views and permits practitioners to focus
on issues of importance for underrepresented students. This shift to highlight race, rather than
ignore it, is due to “accounts of power and social structure [that] need to be considered within the
treatment of local practices, for it is in these local contexts that broader forces, such as social
structure and power distribution, play out” (Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 455). Race is a discussion of
power and underrepresented students lack power (Domhoff, 2005; Yosso, 2005). When college
and university stakeholders openly discuss race, shifts occur in the social realms of the
institution.
For this study, CRT is too broad a lens by which to investigate the ways in which
colleges and universities address equity issues at their campus (Nasir & Hand, 2006; Rogoff,
1990; Gutierrez, Morales, & Martinez, 2009). Since applying this theory to this study would
compound the problem rather than solve it, it was not used as an analytical framework. Other
frameworks were employed to research the communities the practitioners’ exist in as they
attempt to change themselves, one another, and their community.
Sociocultural Knowledge to Address Inequities
The majority of research regarding sociocultural theory has focused on how the beliefs
and abilities of individuals occur through the activities in which they engage. The most notable
researcher of this theory was Lev Vygotsky who “examined the roles of social and cultural
processes as mediators of human thought and activity” (Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 458). He called
this the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Stringer, 2007). In an extension of Vygotsky’s
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 42
approach, Nasir and Hand (2006) argue that there are four aspects to sociocultural theory that
apply to learners:
1. multiple levels of analysis
2. focus on cultural practices
3. learning as a shift in social relations (related to identity), and
4. a perspective that includes the way tools and artifacts (including ideas) come to have
an impact on [practitioners]. (p. 464)
While Nasir and Hand applied their framework to students, it can also apply to college and
university practitioners who oversee the instruction of underrepresented students. These
individuals are administrators, faculty, counselors and staff members who create, enforce, and
sustain the formal and informal policies that constitute the culture of a university campus.
When studying a group that has power over the culture of an organization, it is important
to focus on the social dynamics that exist within that culture. For this reason, applying
sociocultural theory, developed by Vygotsky, permits the researcher to utilize multiple views to
analyze “complex social and cultural processes and spaces” (Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 464).
Vygotsky’s proposal inspired social science researchers to develop frameworks to explain the
connections between one person’s development as it occurs within a specific space with artifacts
and in interaction with others. Gutierrez, Morales, and Martinez (2009) claim that within any
sociocultural study, it is essential to determine how individuals and the communities they interact
within practice certain targeted behaviors. This is especially important when educational
stakeholders have deficit notions regarding the perceived abilities of underrepresented students.
Some stakeholders attribute these students’ struggles and lack of achievement to problems that
exist outside of the educational realm. However, their “focus should be on rethinking the social
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 43
organization of education and its effects” (p. 213) on student achievement. In this manner, the
educational learning of these students is “re-mediated” not by any action taken by the students,
but by those who have taken on the roles of mentors and advocates. Gutierrez, Morales, and
Martinez claim that re-mediation requires reorganizing the “entire ecology for learning” (p. 227)
so that the ways in which the stakeholders view the institution shift.
Engeström (2008) employs the use of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development in
studying group interactions through activity system theory. This sociocultural theory permits the
researcher to explain the connections between one person’s development on a specific task with
the help of more experienced others. Within activity systems, tensions (Yamagata-Lynch, 2007)
or disturbances (Engeström, 2008) can arise between interacting portions of the CHAT
framework. Engeström defines disturbances as:
essentially actions that deviate from the expected course of normal procedure. They can
be interpreted as symptoms or manifestations of historically evolving inner contradictions
in the given activity system. Such systemic contradictions are a key to understanding the
sources of trouble as well as the innovative and developmental potentials of the activity
(p. 27).
Within any activity system, disturbances may arise. By identifying them, it becomes possible to
identify difficulties, failures, obstacles, and conflicts that the practitioners experienced. By
employing activity system theory, the social dynamics that exist within the primary setting of
this study were able to be analyzed.
In conjunction with activity system theory, Vygotsky’s work on the ZPD is the basis for
Rogoff’s (1995) sociolcultural theory that all development occurs on three different planes:
personal, interpersonal, as well as community. Within any learning activity, the personal plane—
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 44
a person’s individual thought process, ideologies, emotions and behaviors—exists and
continually interacts with the other two planes. The interpersonal plane is where the learners
communicate with one another which leads to potential cooperation or conflict through their role
performances. The last plane, community, is where the collection of learners interact based upon
cultural practices, i.e., shared history, language choice, accepted norms, shared values and
prescribed identities.
2
Within Rogoff’s application of sociocultural theory, the value of the
activity is paramount since it frames an individual within the setting, while it also allows for
personal cognition, social interaction and cultural influence to impact what is learned in a
specific activity. During the data analysis of the activity systems in this study, it became
necessary to identify simultaneous cycles of activities on the planes of individual, inter-
individual, and institutional since multiple community members were present. Rogoff (1995)
suggests researchers look at one level or plane of analysis at a time to maintain focus; however, it
was employed to track differences in the types of community involvement that occurred in each
activity system since the types of community were multilayered in a few of the activity systems.
When studying a complex culture in which multiple levels of analyses take place, it is
vital to frame the study with a grand theory that is flexible. Sociocultural theory meets those
criteria through the use of Engeström’s (2008) activity system theory and Rogoff’s (1995)
sociocultural theory. It permitted me to examine the social and cultural roles of the practitioners
while focusing on their cultural practices. While the practitioners were engaged in certain
activity systems, “re-mediated” learning took place because they were engaged with one another
in an activity system interacting with tools and artifacts; however, “re-mediated” learning did not
2
In this study, I implemented these planes but changed Rogoff’s terms from “personal” to
“individual”, “interpersonal” to “inter-individual”, and “community” to “institutional” as this is
the nomenclature used in today’s literature (Yamagata-Lynch, 2007).
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 45
take place within every activity system analyzed within this study. These interactions occurred
on multiple levels—the individual, inter-individual, and the institutional—and revealed the
attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs the practitioners had regarding their student population. These
theories also permitted me to identify the disturbances that explained why the practitioners
encountered difficulties, failures, obstacles, and conflicts with the tool and one another.
Organizational Learning to Address Inequities
In order for new goals to be met and be determined as useful, the college or university
must engage in a cycle of inquiry that determines (1) existing ineffective institutionalized
practices, (2) practitioners’ beliefs and attitudes toward those practices, (3) newly shaped
practices to replace the ineffective practices, and (4) institutionalizing the new practices (Seo &
Creed, 2002). This entire activity is cyclical since the new practices may not be as effective as
initially considered. Once the cycle is complete, an assessment of the new practices is completed
to determine which ones are meeting the practitioners’ goals; otherwise, the new practices can be
further honed to suit the institution’s needs. A key component of this activity cycle involves
praxis, which is the practitioners’ sense of awareness of the ineffective practices and collective
ability to act with others to create new practices (Dowd, 2007; Gutierrez & Vossoughi, 2010).
When an institution has a variety of practices that are ineffective, the need for praxis becomes
more applicable since so many participants have determined that the institution’s activities are
misaligned with their own interests and goals (Seo & Creed, 2002).
This process of ineffective practices and using the process of praxis to address the issue
has been studied regarding equity outcomes for college students. Kezar, Glenn, Lester and
Nakamoto (2008) studied 14 colleges and universities that worked with USC’s Center for Urban
Education to address equity issues at their campuses. Two campuses were highlighted in the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 46
study because of disparities. At one campus, the practitioners were unwilling to reflect and
become aware of the ineffective equity practices; therefore the full cycle of inquiry was never
completed. At another campus, strong leadership provided a model for the practitioners to follow
which helped the college complete the cycle of inquiry. Kezar et al. (2008) suggest that because
each institution has a different context, no one pattern of inquiry will work for each campus. The
researchers stress the importance of beginning the process by taking account of the college’s
knowledge capacity, physical or material capacity, institutional willingness to reflect, connection
with institutional operations, leadership, as well as racial climate and intergroup relations. By
determining these elements prior to starting an inquiry project, the practitioners begin to
understand their current institutional culture and are more likely to be successful in changing it.
Another framework in learning and professional development addresses how learning is a
cyclical process. The four stages proposed by Tharp and Gallimore (1988) build upon
Vygotsky’s premise of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) with stage one requiring the
learner to receive assistance from others who are more expert (Santrock, 2009). The second stage
is when the learner can guide his/her own learning through conscious efforts while the third stage
is when the initial learning has become internalized, automated, and possibly fossilized. The
fourth stage of learning is when learning becomes de-automatized and the learning process
begins again at stage one. When an organization has identified that problems exist, they are
between the third and fourth stages of Tharp and Gallimore’s framework. The culture has
become internalized (stage 3) with problems, and the organization realizes that new learning
(stage 4) must occur to address the problems. Therefore, stage 4 is where the process of praxis
takes place in that practitioners’ assumptions are evaluated and they begin to learn anew
regarding their campus culture.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 47
CHAT-IT to Address Inequities
In studying practitioners at a college or university, researching the organization is vital.
Since institutions of higher education “dominate the social landscape of modern societies”
(Ogawa, Crain, Loomis & Ball, 2008, p. 83), there is a great need to study how they are
organized and operate. Within the field of organizational learning, two separate theories are
applicable to this study: cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) and new institutionalism in
organizational theory, or institutional theory (IT). These theories help researchers understand
how higher education practitioners transform themselves and their ideologies in their
institutional activity systems.
Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) accounts for how “learning is the process by
which people master and appropriate cultural tools and meanings while engaged in activity”
(Ogawa, et al., 2008, p. 84-85). Within this framework, there are six interacting elements: the
object, subject, mediating artifacts, community, rules, and division of labor (Engeström, 1987).
The first element, “object,” is the purpose or intent that directs specific actions in addition to
connecting a series of actions into a foreseen and/or unforeseen outcome. Engeström (2001)
states that “object-oriented actions are always, explicitly or implicitly, characterized by
ambiguity, surprise, interpretation, sense making and potential for change” (p. 134). The object is
where the other aspects of the framework centralize since from the object, “sense meaning”
occurs which results in an outcome. There is an implied assumption that the object will be a
shared purpose for the subject, especially if it is a team which is the case in this study; however,
the object is what holds the framework together since it is the reason why the participants or
group of participants are working together in this activity system (Engeström, 2001; Yamagata-
Lynch, 2007). If the subjects do not share the same object, then there is tension between the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 48
object and overall outcome to the activity; in essence, it fails (Engeström, 2008). Next, the
“subject” is an individual or a small group working toward a specific purpose. A subject can be
either a single individual or a group of individuals, and the term “subject” is kept singular even if
the subject is a group of people. The subject is assumed to have knowledge, skills and the agency
to manipulate the goal, artifacts and other subjects. The habits of the subject become cultural
scripts which influence the roles the subject plays in its organizational activities. Mediating
artifacts, the third element, are physical and symbolic “tools” used to connect the subjects to a
specific context. These tools mediate social interactions and permit the subjects to shape
activities. The tool artifacts are physical items, actions, or statements, as well as esoteric items
(e.g., unwritten policies, language, values, and beliefs) (Dowd, Bishop, Bensimon, & Witham,
2011). Physical or material tools are items that are designed or used for specific activities; for
example, in a college classroom, one would expect students to have the proper material tools of a
pen, some paper, a textbook and possibly laptop. In contrast to these tools, the symbolic ones use
nonmaterial, such as language, numbers, images, dress, or gestures that direct the way in which
the activity is mediated. Within the CHAT framework, a tool is designed to guide the experience
of the “subject” toward an “object.”
The next element within the CHAT framework, “community,” is the social and cultural
practices that exist in an object-subject-artifact relationship. These communities can be short
term, but when sustained over time, the community develops rules or divisions of labor which
permit it to be defined and separate from other communities. Often, communities are linked
through shared goals (e.g., objects, artifacts, and language). The “rules” are characterized by a
shared set of norms, rules and traditions that prescribe actions and the use of tools. The “division
of labor” is a separation of skill sets and knowledge to increase the efficiency of the subjects in a
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 49
specific setting. These six elements work together to construct and transform the actions of
people so they are purposeful in achieving goals within highly specialized organizations. The
reason to include the framework of CHAT in this study is to identify the artifacts, rules and
structure of the community that organize the way in which the practitioners act and reflect what
their institution values.
Ogawa, et al., (2008) provide a helpful lens for understanding the meaning of the activity
setting theoretical constructs. By comparing cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) to
institutional theory (IT), they show how activity theory terms can be understood with IT
concepts. Within this theory, five elements parallel the six within CHAT—the goal, participant,
technology, organization and formal structure (see Figure 2.1). The IT “goal” is the CHAT
“object” or purpose that is desired. Within organizations, there are social actors who are the IT
“participants” or CHAT “subjects”. These two interact with “technology” or CHAT “mediating
artifacts”. These are composed of participants’ technical knowledge and skills as well as
machines and mechanical equipment. These three aspects exist within the IT “organization” or
CHAT “community” that are bound by IT “formal structure” but in CHAT are divided into the
“norms, rules, and traditions” and “division of labor”. The aligning theories also share the same
result in the “outcome”. The analysis of this study did not employ IT theory as a framework.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 50
Figure 2.1.
Activity System, Adapted from Engeström (1987)
Using a CHAT framework permits the researcher to understand how practitioners in
activity systems are able to reach their intended object to address problems and how this
interactive activity affects the institution. Colleges and universities are specialized organizations
that are larger than a community because their practices and activities are socially and
historically embedded. They also have a profound impact on social activities and other
organizations. The structure of CHAT permits the researcher to study the activities that
practitioners participate in at institutions and “deepens the examination of learning contexts by
emphasizing the dynamic interplay of object, subject, and artifact” (Ogawa, et al., 2008, p. 91)
that exists in higher educational institutions. It is this deep examination of a contextualized
interaction between the practitioner, the environment, and artifacts that the researcher desires to
study.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 51
Action Research
In this study, the activity system is being studied at three levels—those who are insiders
(the creators and practitioners in the culture or activity system), those who facilitate the learning
process of the insiders (the facilitators), and the individual who is observing the whole process
(the researcher). Because this study involves participating individuals who know each other and
are communicating on a specific project, this study is not clinical in nature, but action oriented.
Action research is an interactive process by which individuals’ relationships, communication,
participation, and inclusion play vital roles (Stringer, 2007). It is also structured in such a way
that those working on the project, the practitioners and the CUE facilitators, look at the issue,
reflect upon it and then act based upon their reflections (Bennett, 2011). Part of the action
research framework aligns with other studies on changing the culture of organizations from
within (Seo and Creed, 2002; Schein, 1985), but these studies did not emphasize the inclusion of
an external facilitator to assist in the process.
One way in which this study differs from clinical research is that the process is the focus
rather than the end result. In order to begin this process, the practitioners on the inquiry team
identify artifacts, values and assumptions that exist at the institution (Bess & Dee, 2008).
Artifacts are directly observable and consist of the physical and social environments, written and
spoken language, as well as norms and traditions exhibited by the community members. The
values of the campus are inferred through the beliefs community members have towards items,
people and actions. Lastly, the assumptions of the community are the “unconscious driving
forces that collectively guide behavior” (p. 370). Assumptions differ from values in that they are
less concrete than values and difficult to defend. Assumptions are formed based upon external
and internal forces that have shaped the culture of the organization.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 52
These frameworks link developmental evaluation and organizational learning in an effort
to analyze how practitioners within higher education address equity issues and make changes to
their organization. This social design experiment is based on organizational learning theories
(e.g., Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), action research, and sociocultural
communication) in which practitioners within an activity system participate in a developmental
evaluation of their own individual, interindividual, and institutional cultural beliefs, attitudes,
and knowledge toward equity issues at their institution.
Practitioners Becoming Equity-minded
To research equity issues at an institute of higher education, the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California established the Center for Urban Education
(CUE) in 2000. Its purpose has been to highlight racial and ethnic disparities that exist within
higher education. CUE researchers have developed a series of tools to bring the issue of race to
the forefront with the goal of enabling users of those artifacts to become color-conscious rather
than remaining color-blind (Bensimon, Dowd, Daniels, & Walden, 2010). A main tool used to
accomplish this is the Equity Scorecard toolkit whereby student success becomes the focus of
practitioners (faculty, staff, and administrators) at a college or university. The reason for having
these individuals research their own institution is informed by a concept developed by Aristotle
to focus on “phronesis” or “What works?” (Dowd, 2007). By engaging the practitioners in the
inquiry practice to determine what works, they become part of the accountability process with a
focus on what can be improved upon rather than assigning blame to elements outside of the
group’s control.
One way for colleges and universities to effectively facilitate their recursive learning is to
invite those who are more capable to lead by adhering to Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 53
Development (Nasir & Hand, 2006; Santrock, 2009). USC’s Center for Urban Education
provides such a service to train administrators, staff, counselors and faculty on equity related
issues. These facilitators are experts with a particular set of equity tools developed by CUE that
guide the participants to reconsider their beliefs and assumptions regarding race and ethnicity at
the college. This inventory of tools is used by the facilitators and practitioners on the inquiry
team to complete an assessment of the institution’s culture. The various self-assessment
inventories and data investigation protocols, i.e., the Equity Scorecard, the Benchmarking Equity
Student Success Tool (BESST), and Organizational Learning Inventory, help the practitioners
learn about the institution, become more equity minded and add to their professional
development so that cultural changes relating to increasing student learning outcomes for
minority students occur (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009).
The theories this toolkit are based upon involve the activity system of the organization
and its practices, in addition to attending to race (Bensimon, 2012). By focusing on the socio-
cultural activity system, CUE applies Vygotsky’s theory on ZPD since learning is a shared social
process in which groups of people interact with artifacts in an activity system. The artifacts direct
the practitioners’ attention to newly acquired concepts which permits a preferred type of
cognitive process, double-loop learning, to occur (Bensimon, 2005). Within this type of learning,
the practitioner focuses on the root causes as well as his/her own beliefs and practices in an effort
to challenge established and accepted values as well as attitudes within himself/herself and the
institution. In implementing the Equity Scorecard appropriately, this double-loop learning is an
ongoing review of data targeting the success rates of minorities. This learning initially occurs in
a workshop, a formal setting, where practitioners are led by CUE facilitators to learn new ways
to view students and programs; however, the artifacts are designed for the practitioners to assess
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 54
the campus culture through informal ways as well. By shifting their perspectives and using
equity-directed artifacts, the practitioners’ learning transforms into a culture of inquiry. This type
of goal-directed professional development permits the practitioners to improve their campus
because they formally and informally “develop a mutual meaning structure, [and] an evolving,
developing, and converging common understanding” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 79) regarding
equity issues at their institution. In essence, they become racially and ethnically aware of the
beliefs and practices that are systemic within themselves, their organization and similar
institutions.
However, working well together in colleges and universities is challenging. Within
higher education, egalitarian collegiality is touted when in reality practitioners are separated and
stratified according to their rank within their departments and divisions (Greenwood and Levin,
2005). This self-imposed hierarchy makes administering faculty and staff quite authoritative and
creates silos. When implementing the Equity Scorecard at an institution, leaders disregard the
hierarchy and gather individuals into “inquiry teams” comprised of administrators, faculty,
counselors, and staff (Bensimon, 2005; Dowd, 2007; Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). These
practitioners are identified as (potential) institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2010) and selected
to break down the silo mentality that exists. This inquiry process is designed to bring together
practitioners who have a broad understanding of the campus culture and can assist one another in
determining goals to achieve and becoming equity-minded.
As the inquiry team begins to work together, they participate in a workshop that provides
the practitioner with benchmark knowledge on how the institution has been performing. Cohort
data is provided by the college’s institutional researcher to CUE. Then a CUE facilitator places
the data into the tools of the Equity Scorecard and BESST which is presented to the inquiry
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 55
team. This benchmarking process is participatory action research focused on collecting and
analyzing artifacts rather than anecdotes (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). During this process, the
inquiry team is assessing the data and artifacts, and the practitioners focus on “critical
assessment” rather than just on assessment alone. This concept of critically assessing the data
reflects the team’s “commitment to reducing the inequities of stratified resource distribution
within and across higher education sectors” (Dowd, 2007, p. 9).
As these workshop sessions occur, there are three active levels of participation. The
first level is that of the practitioner in the activity system. The next level is that of the CUE
facilitator working with the practitioner in action research to identify areas where inequities exist
and address them. The last level within the workshop sessions is that of the researcher who is
conducting a case study by observing the learning of the practitioner as well as the interaction of
the practitioner with the CUE facilitator. This tri-level relationship is reflected in Figure 2.2. The
fourth and final tier of the interactive relationship is correlational analysis which is beyond the
scope of this study.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 56
Figure 2.2.
Developmental Evaluation Methods Inform Multiple Modes of Research
This study is a developmental evaluation of action research in which the CUE facilitators
who are not experts examine the culture of each campus, but work as consultants to guide the
participants through the initial steps of becoming more equity minded (Stringer, 2007). The
college’s association with CUE works as a catalyst to stimulate discussion among the
participants regarding existing equity problems at the college.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
57
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
In the previous chapters, several concepts were discussed which established the reasons
behind prevalent unequal structures at institutions of higher education. Also discussed were how
these unequal structures contribute to a large number of underrepresented minority students not
transferring from 2-year community colleges to 4-year institutions or completing the
requirements to attain a college degree. In this chapter, specific research procedures and methods
are presented that were used to conduct the study. The first part of the study details the use of
developmental evaluation to investigate the impact of action research and how it was
instrumental to organizational change. The second section includes a detailed description of data
collection procedures and methods. The third section describe the institutional context of the
larger collective study as well as the context for this collaborative study as well as the data
analysis procedures applied. The fourth section addresses standards of review, including
credibility and limitations, and reporting of results and findings. The final section is a personal
reflection from my own experience using CUE’s syllabus analysis tool.
Developmental Evaluation in Organizational Change
Developmental evaluation was used to investigate and examine the manner in which
practitioners become aware of their cultural beliefs, assumptions, and values as they participate
in action inquiry to bring about organizational changes. Through the developmental evaluation
method, the researcher explored how practitioners recognize the notion of deficit mindedness
which contributes to underachievement of minority students at institutions of higher education
that exists at the individual and institutional level. Developmental evaluation was chosen as the
preferred methodology since it seeks to establish social and personal interactions that encourage
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
58
cooperative relationships amongst the participants involved in the project. Secondly,
developmental evaluation seeks to provide transparency, whereby all participants seek to agree
on the processes and procedures related to the project and how they will determine the kinds of
information necessary to move the project along. Developmental evaluation involves authentic
participation. Lastly, developmental evaluation encourages all participants to continuously work
towards establishing an on-going process of observation, reflection and action and then
evaluation of the plan (Stringer, 2007). In this instance, it has the potential to inform institutions
of higher education about how to incorporate action research into the assessment of institutional
effectiveness and equity (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a; Patton, 2011). Developmental evaluation
helps evaluators to fully participate in all aspects of the evaluation process in “decision making,
discussing how to evaluate the project, interpreting findings, analyzing implications and applying
the next stage of development” (Patton, 2011, p. 20). In developmental evaluation, the goal is to
provide avenues for further inquiry by asking evaluative questions, using evaluation logic, and
gathering data from these questions, which then makes on-going decision making possible
(Patton, 2011). The primary function of developmental evaluation is to elicit discussions that
bring about data-based decision making. The reservoir of knowledge that practitioners bring to
the table can then be used to design new social innovations (Patton, 2011). Practitioners can then
evaluate the effectiveness of institutional programs as they continue on-going assessments of the
programs.
The field site for my study and the larger collective study consists of colleges and
universities involved in action research projects conducted by CUE. Therefore, CUE researchers
and other higher education researchers involved in inquiry projects are the primary group of
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
59
practitioners who will benefit from the results of this study because the findings will inform
better designs of action research tools and processes.
CUE’s research involves understanding how practitioners can incorporate the “language
of equity and the characteristics of equity-mindedness” as they create institutional assessment
tools that can be used to purposefully design collaborative activities that address the problems of
equity existing at two- and four-year colleges. The study specifically examines the impact of
CUE’s action research tools that facilitate inquiry into the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and
practices of a small sample of faculty, counselors and administrators at a single institution. The
findings also draw from pooled data collected by a collaborating researcher during an
overlapping period of time at the same field site.
Developmental evaluation (see Figure 2.2) informs the development of CUE’s action
research tools, which are designed to foster equity among racial-ethnic groups in higher
education experiences and outcomes. As shown in Figure 3.1, CUE conducts action research to
facilitate practitioner inquiry. As action researchers, CUE creates activity systems with the aim
of remediating educational practices that are harmful to racial/ethnic equity. CUE’s focus relies
on the tenet that learning and knowledge are constructed and co-constructed in collaborative
activities. During the inquiry process, specific discourse can occur to bring about acceptances
and disagreements which then lead to a shared understanding of the problem. The inquiry
process promotes contradictions between participants’ views about their personal beliefs,
assumptions and values. These contradictions may motivate participants to gather data that
reveal the beliefs, assumptions, and values held by participants in the setting. CUE seeks to
conduct its action research projects at a “critical point of intervention.” This critical point of
intervention begins a cyclical process that involves purposeful social interactions that allow for
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
60
the exchange of knowledge and beliefs in specific cultural contexts. During the interactions, the
knowledge that the participants espouse may reveal participants’ beliefs, assumptions and values
which in turn will provide for reflection amongst the participants. The reflection will then allow
for problem identification which is conducted through data analysis. Once the problem has been
identified, problem solving can begin through action implementation. Evaluation of the
implemented plan will call for further evaluation, and assessment of the intervention (Stringer,
2007). CUE’s action inquiry process emphasizes “how” as well as “when” practitioners apply
knowledge obtained through participatory inquiry and may impact the way instruction and other
educational practices improve equity and effectiveness.
Figure 3.1.
Reflective Practice (Inquiry) as Driver of Racial-Ethnic Equity in Postsecondary Outcomes
Institutional
Structures
Instructional
Practices
Equitable
Student
Outcomes
CUE EQUITY MODEL: IMPACT
Intervention
Point
Mediating
Outcomes
Ultimate
Impact
State Policies
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
61
This study contributes to the efforts by institutions of higher education as they address
state and federal accountability and assessment measures. Action research provides practitioners
the tools to combine the inquiry process with the available accountability data as practitioners
learn how their personal beliefs, assumptions and values may contribute to the underachievement
of their minority students. Through the use of assessment processes and tools, practitioners are
brought together in a social setting to collect, observe, interpret, and make meaning of
institutional data that will foster reflection, problem identification and action (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2009a). CUE’s equity model seeks to provide practitioners with tools showing how
external and internal mediating outcomes affect equitable outcomes. The cycle of inquiry is
therefore not static and continues to evolve as state and federal policies challenge institutional
structures and instructional practices (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a).
The difference between traditional evaluation processes and developmental evaluation is
that developmental evaluation allows innovators to understand the problem as they experience it.
Unlike traditional program evaluation, developmental evaluation develops measures and tracking
mechanisms as outcomes emerge, and the measures can be modified along the way as changes
emerge. Traditional evaluation programs are controlled by the evaluator and input from other
stakeholders is limited; however, in developmental evaluation, the evaluator collaborates with all
stakeholders and together they co-create evaluations that reflect institutional goals (Patton,
2011).
Table 3.1 illustrates the list of research questions and sub-questions guiding the collective
developmental study. The overall study consists of the questions in Table 3.1, but I have further
narrowed these questions down to the research questions listed below the table.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
62
Table 3.1
Research Questions and Sub-Questions of the Collective Study
Research Questions
1. What influence does equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in
“remediated” social learning environments have on postsecondary
educators’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in regard to equity in
postsecondary education?
2. What characteristics of equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use
in “remediated” social learning environments are associated with changes
in postsecondary educators’ beliefs and attitudes in regard to equity in
postsecondary education?
3. What characteristics of equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use
in “remediated” social learning environments are associated with changes
in postsecondary educators’ social interactions, behaviors, and educational
practices in regard to equity in postsecondary education?
Sub-Questions
a. What are practitioners’ attitudes towards action inquiry as a strategy for
equity-oriented organizational change?
b. What beliefs do practitioners hold about racial-ethnic equity?
c. What are practitioners’ beliefs about action inquiry for the purposes of
equity-oriented organizational change?
d. How do practitioners behave in social interactions where attention is given
to racial-ethnic inequities?
e. What artifacts (language, media, tools) mediate attention to racial-ethnic
inequities?
f. What social interactions (roles, rules/norms, communities, division of
labor, power relations, racial relations, ethnic relations) mediate attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviors related to racial-ethnic inequities?
g. What environmental factors mediate social interactions, behaviors, and
educational practices related to racial-ethnic inequities?
Based on my own experiences and future opportunities to act on what I learn through this study,
I was particularly interested to examine the following questions:
1) What are the characteristics of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool?
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
63
2) What characteristics of CUE’s reflection tool are associated with changes in
practitioners’ beliefs, attitudes, knowledge and behaviors?
3) In what ways (if any) is the use of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool in facilitated
settings associated with cultural change at an institution, for example, through
changes in social interactions or educational practices?
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection phase of this study revolved around action research activities
conducted by CUE. The methods for data collection consisted of document analysis, interviews
with CUE researchers (expert interviews), pre-workshop cognitive interview with activity system
participants, observations in activity systems, workshop evaluation questionnaires, and post-
workshop cognitive interviews with activity system participants (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2
Summary of Data Collection Methods
Data Source Data Represents When Data Will Be
Collected
How Data Will Be
Summarized
Documents Policies
Discourse
Espoused beliefs
Environmental factors
Throughout study
(Summer/Fall 2011;
Spring 2012)
Descriptive text
Interviews with
CUE
researchers
(expert
interviews)
CUE analytical
objectives for action
research and
developmental
evaluation
Prior to CUE
facilitated
workshops
(Summer/Fall 2011;
Spring 2012)
Descriptive text;
Tabular summaries of
categories of analytical
objectives
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
64
Pre-workshop
cognitive
interview with
activity system
participants
Beliefs
Practices (self-reported)
Prior to facilitation of
action research in an
activity system (a
“workshop”)
(Summer/Fall 2011;
Spring 2012)
Categorical summaries;
Summary tables and
text
Observations
in activity
systems
(“workshops”)
Behaviors
Social interactions
Norms
Discourse
Knowledge
During workshop
(Summer/Fall 2011;
Spring 2012)
Deductive and thematic
analysis;
Numerical tables and
text (mode, range,
strength and direction
of impact)
Workshop
evaluation
form
Attitudes
Beliefs
Practices (self-reported)
Immediately after
workshop
(Summer/Fall 2011;
Spring 2012)
Bar graphs, line graphs,
counts, means, tabular
comparisons of means,
descriptive text
Post-workshop
cognitive
interview with
activity system
participants
Attitudes
Beliefs
Practices (self-reported)
Knowledge
2 weeks after
workshop
(Summer/Fall 2011;
Spring 2012)
Categorical summaries;
Summary tables and
text
Criterion sampling, a predetermined measurement, was established. In this study, for
example, establishing that all participants’ institutions were committed to participate in BESST
workshops and would be interested in further inquiry activities with CUE is an example of
criterion sampling. The unit of analysis was higher education practitioners (faculty, staff and
administrators) who engaged in action inquiry facilitated by CUE’s BESST and Syllabus Review
workshops at the practitioners’ institutions. All the practitioners participated in CUE workshops
and planning meetings. The average sample size per institution was between 5-10 participants.
Each CUE facilitated event held at individual campuses within the collective study became
activity systems.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
65
Data Collection Methods
The data collection methods consisted primarily of participant focused activity systems.
Methods encompassed interviews with CUE researchers, observations during planning meetings
and workshops at the assigned field site, reviewing workshop evaluations, and cognitive
interviews with the workshop practitioners.
Data collection consisted of compiling information from action research activities that
include observational and cognitive interview data. At each field site an observer was present to
record dialogue between the action researcher (CUE) and the expert (practitioner). Table 3.2
illustrates the variety of data collection methods used and how the different forms of data
provided evidence to answer the study’s research questions. Data to examine the impact of action
research on learning and change among higher education practitioners was collected from the
participants involved in the BESST and Syllabus Review workshops.
The project design consists of workshops and team meetings. At each first workshop, the
team met and examined student success data from the institution that was disaggregated by race
and ethnicity. CUE’s tool, the Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST), was
used at these workshops. The BESST was designed to guide practitioners in examining
successful course completion rates, persistence rates, and entering student cohort migration rates
from basic skills classes to transfer classes, disaggregated by race and ethnicity (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2009b). The data used at the BESST workshop showed trends in existing disparities
in transfer rates and placement in basic skills courses for all students. Student success was
tracked at specific milestones and transitions as an indicator of institutional progress and
effectiveness. The CUE facilitators asked the practitioners to establish performance benchmark
goals for these specific milestones and transitions. Through the use of diagnostic and process
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
66
benchmarking, the team was able to develop an action plan that would support student success.
Observational data (Appendix A) collected from the workshops represented attitudes,
assumptions, knowledge, behaviors, and beliefs of the practitioners. Prior to observing the
primary field site workshop, I scheduled cognitive interviews (Appendix B) with the potential
practitioners. Two weeks following this same workshop, I scheduled cognitive interviews
(Appendix C) with the activity system participants. Cognitive interview questions were
developed by CUE’s staff and Ph.D. students, who have captured what practitioners have learned
from their experiences during their engagement in previous workshops. Data collected from
these cognitive interviews and workshop observations represented the attitudes, beliefs, self-
reported practices and knowledge of the activity system participants. The observations at these
workshops took approximately two to three hours. The research team documented verbal and
relevant non-verbal communication during the workshops.
Patton (2002) describes program evaluation as “the systematic collection of information
about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs to make judgments about the
program, improve program effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about future programs” (p.
72). Evaluative-based research as well as measurement of the effectiveness and impact of action
research on learning and change among higher education practitioners was conducted through
the use of multiple data collection procedures. Reflections took place following each stage of the
activity systems. In addition to reflection, evaluation of the effectiveness of the project and its
goals were measured at regular intervals. If changes in the process were necessary, extended
dialogue and inquiry occurred among practitioners and CUE’s research team to modify
documents and procedures.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
67
Cognitive Interviews
Cognitive interviews were carried out with several workshop participants from my
primary field site. The interviews were conducted over the phone for a length of no more than 15
minutes, as well as in the offices of the participants and which lasted thirty to forty-five minutes
in length. The purpose of cognitive interviews is to “probe respondents to see if they understand
the closed-ended questions on a survey in the intended manner; to observe how they work
through the items; to assess if a response category is appropriate for the item; and to see if
rephrasing the item will make it clearer” (Ouimet, Bunnage, Carini, Kuh, & Kennedy, 2004, p.
235). In this study, cognitive interviews were used to support or dispute the data that was
collected from observations and documents analysis. The cognitive interviews also were used to
assess participants’ beliefs about equity and the impact of action research activities.
Cognitive interviews were designed based on the process described by Willis (2005). The
procedure used encompassed (1) developing a testing plan; (2) creating a cognitive testing
protocol that includes both target and probe questions; (3) setting up interview times with
members of the DCC team; (4) utilizing appropriate cognitive interviewing patterns (cognitive
probes and practitioners thinking aloud as they answered questions); (5) documenting and
reviewing notes, with the practitioner’s consent; (6) writing a test report; (7) reviewing results
and making modifications as needed; and (8) carrying out more testing and then reevaluating the
questionnaire form.
Concurrent probing and retrospective probing were used during the cognitive interview
process. Concurrent probing is a part of the actual interview and occurs while the interview is
taking place. Retrospective probing occurs at the end of the actual interview. The format for the
cognitive questions (Appendices B and C) was modeled after Willis (2005). The cognitive
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
68
interview protocol was designed to evaluate the analytic objectives of the evaluation protocol
and, by extension, of the action research processes and protocols themselves. Several steps were
taken to identify the analytical objectives. First, the objectives were based on observations made
during the spring 2011 workshops. Second, the objectives were derived from CUE’s
publications. Third, theories in chapter 2 provided the basis for the kinds of questions to
formulate. Extensive notes were taken during the interview to be sure to capture vital details.
Immediately after the interviews, the notes were transcribed and analyzed for common themes.
Document Analysis
By studying documents and records, researchers gain a significant amount of information
(Stringer, 2007). Documents for analysis in this study were of three types. First, the documents
included meeting notes and agendas from the BESST and Syllabus Review workshops, and team
planning meetings. Additionally, worksheets were used by participants during the workshops.
The worksheets were added to the audit trail and were instrumental to support the integrity of the
research process. Lastly, workshop evaluations were analyzed. Open-ended questions were given
to workshop participants so they could provide additional comments and feedback on
information presented during each CUE facilitated workshop. These documents became
beneficial because relevant data about the participants and their roles can be made available that
cannot be accessed through observations or cognitive interviews alone. Patton (2002) states that
“documents prove valuable not only because of what can be learned directly from them but also
as stimulus for paths of inquiry that can be pursued only through direct observation and
interviewing” (p. 101). Analysis of the documents included the language that was used in the
meeting descriptions and whether agendas were followed in regards to presenters and topics. By
analyzing the documents, evidence pertaining to the institution, as well as what is valued about
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
69
the project itself was gathered.
At each workshop, an evaluation form was provided to each participant. The evaluation
tool created by the CUE research team was used to gather quantitative data that would reveal
participants’ behavior, opinions, feelings, and other kinds of knowledge, including the
participants’ motivation for becoming involved in the inquiry project. The workshop evaluation
questionnaire was used to gather data that reflects participants’ beliefs and their self-reported
practices. It provided the researcher with information that could not be seen through
observations. In alignment with the main goals of the study, the workshop evaluation form was
used to inform action research practices within the Center for Urban Education.
Ethical Concerns
In research, ethical concerns are very important. In qualitative research, participants may
give very personal responses, and their privacy and rights are important (Patton, 2002). The
rights and privacy of the participants in the study were protected in a number of ways.
Interviewees were provided the “Dear Colleague” letter (Appendix D) to inform them about the
study and provide contact information. Pseudonyms were used to protect the privacy of the
participants and their respective institutions throughout the study. In order to ensure human
subject protection, all researchers completed Institution Review Board (IRB) training and the
study proposal was submitted and approved before the research began.
Context of Institutions in Collective Study
This study was part of CUE’s larger action research and evaluation agenda that is based
on seven major research and action initiatives that began in 2004. The projects conducted by
CUE were the Diversity Scorecard; Equity for All; the Study of Economic, Informational and
Cultural Barriers to Community College Transfer Enrollment at Selective Institutions; the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
70
“Missing 87”: A Study of Transfer Ready Students Who Do Not Transfer; the California
Benchmarking Project; the Institute for Equity and Critical Policy Analysis; and the Wisconsin
Transfer Equity and Accountability Study (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009b).
Fourteen community colleges and one state university provided field sites for the
collective CUE developmental evaluation study. Table 3.3 presents the pseudonyms for each
institution and indicates which of CUE’s tools were used at the workshops that were held
involving participants from that particular institution. For the purposes of this study, eleven of
the community colleges that participated in CUE workshops in Spring 2011 are referred to as the
“CUE Network Alliance Colleges.” The majority of these colleges are designated by the federal
government as Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) because their Hispanic enrollment meets or
exceeds the HSI designation threshold of 25% of the student body. Three additional colleges
(Dynamic Community College, Amarillo College, and Las Flores Community College) were
given individual pseudonyms because leaders at the colleges engaged in more extensive planning
and inquiry processes with CUE from Spring 2011 until Spring 2012.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
71
Table 3.3
Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study
Pseudonym Type of institution CUE Tools Used in Workshops
Involving Individuals at this Field
Site from Spring 2011 – Spring
2012
CUE Alliance Network
Colleges
Eleven community
colleges that participated in
CUE workshops during
Spring 2011, most of
which are Hispanic Serving
Institutions
CUE Modules; Benchmarking
Equity and Student Success Tool
(BESST); Action Planning Tool
Dynamic Community
College
Community college with
federal designation as an
Hispanic Serving
Institution
CUE Modules; Benchmarking
Equity and Student Success Tool
(BESST); Syllabus Review
Reflection Protocol;
Microaggressions informational
handout
Amarillo Community
College
Community college
Defining Equity CUE Module;
Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST);
Las Flores Community
College
Community college
Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST); Syllabus
Review Reflection Protocol;
Microaggressions informational
handout
Monarch State University
(MSU)
Selective state university
with emphasis on science
and technology education
and a predominantly white
and Asian student body
Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST); Action
Planning Tool; Document Analysis
Protocol; The Racism cartoon
“Who helped you through college”;
Microaggression informational
handout
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
72
The following data give background information on three field sites and familiarize the
reader with site demographics. Two California Community Colleges included in the overall
study offered both certificates and associate degrees. Dynamic Community College is located in
a large urban city with 31,000 students. Dynamic Community College’s service area racial-
ethnic breakdown in 2009 is as follows: White 10%, Hispanic 79%, Asian 8% and Black 1%. On
the other hand, Amarillo Community College’s enrollment was just above 22,000 and is located
in a suburban midsize city. Amarillo Community College’s service area racial-ethnic breakdown
in 2009 is as follows: White 50%, Hispanic 23%, Asian 14% and Black 10% (US Census, 2009).
The only state university in this collaborative study has a very different profile than the
community colleges. Monarch State University has a selective admissions process. Monarch
State University is a four-year degree granting university offering bachelors and master degrees
located in a remote mid-size city. It serves just fewer than 20,000 students. In 2009, there was a
predominantly white and Asian student body with only 12% Hispanics and 1% Black students
enrolled at the university. The racial-ethnic breakdown in the region where Monarch State
University is located is as follows: White 91%, Hispanic 20%, Asian 3% and Black 2% (US
Census, 2009).
Context of Assigned Institutional Field Site: Dynamic Community College
In fall 2011, as part of a CUE research team, I was assigned a field site, Dynamic
Community College (DCC). Like other field sites in the collective study, this particular field site
was chosen since several of the team’s participants had attended previous CUE workshops. To
begin my study, the first process in the action research project was to determine where they were
in the inquiry process since they had been working with another CUE doctoral student. The
participants expounded on how they viewed the problems they saw through their personal
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
73
experiences and perspectives so they could make sense of the problems in their own way based
on their beliefs, assumptions and values (Stringer, 2007). The basic process that was used in the
action research project was to:
1. gather data, and then based on the data, identify the problem;
2. analyze what is happening and theorize why the problem exists; and
3. develop a plan, implement the plan and then evaluate if the plan has successfully
addressed the problem (Stringer, 2007).
The data sources I reviewed in Fall 2011 and spring 2012 are documents that contain
institutional policies, discourse, espoused beliefs, and environment factors that relate to the
institution. The documents I reviewed included:
1. DCC’s mission and vision statements which articulated the institution’s core values;
2. DCC’s “Plan to Plan” for 2011 which specified the vision, recent achievements and
recommendations for the institution’s goals for 2012;
3. DCC’s Winter Convocation presentation in which recent efforts were highlighted for
DCC employees; and
4. DCC’s “12 Measures of Success” report which set a wide-range of success standards for
DCC employees.
For the last decade, Dynamic Community College had engaged in community-wide practices to
promote equity for its basic skills students (Subramaniam, 2012). The three-pronged approach
targets (1) secondary school achievement; (2) financial support for college students; and (3)
parental involvement and empowerment. The outcome of these initiatives resulted in significant
improvements in regard to the number of students transferring to the local state university, record
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
74
levels of scholarship funds distributed, and providing thousands of parents with knowledge of the
educational system (Fulks et al, 2010). These efforts work well with DCC’s multi-year partnered
relationship with the Center for Urban Education (CUE).
Just prior to DCC’s first workshop with CUE, the research department for Dynamic
Community College produced a report entitled “12 Measures of Success”. These standards
included: access to students, successful course completion, course retention, college-level skills
attained by placement-test takers, graduates, transfers to four-year institutions, student
satisfaction, matriculation of continuing education students to credit coursework, vocational
technical education act (VTEA) core indicators of performance, employee diversity, financial
indicators, and resource development. By establishing a wide-range of measures, this prepared
DCC in 2011 to study a variety of new topics throughout the year and into 2012, namely basic
skills, student satisfaction, enrollment trends, student demographics, and outcome performance
data within the region. The most notable of these reports was a study comparing enrollment
trends and characteristics of students from every student cohort from fall 2007 to fall 2011.
Within this report, the ethnicities of students were disaggregated for Latino and Asian students.
Those categories included for Latinos: Mexican American, Central American, South American,
and other; and for Asians: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian and other
1
. The report on
enrollment trends provided DCC administrators and faculty with data in real-time rather than a
static snapshot of the past. By including data from 2007, a baseline was established and the
trends could be determined. In the 2011 and 2012 vision statements for DCC, the college was
“committed to access, equity and success for students by providing comprehensive educational
1
Filipino was not part of this disaggregated Asian category as it was already separated into the
other larger ethnic categories of Native American, African-American, Asian, Latino, Caucasian,
Pacific Islander, Other, and Decline to State.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
75
opportunities” (2012 vision statement). By disaggregating the racial/ethnic data of student
enrollment trends, DCC ensured that they would be able to reflect upon the current trends and
address major problems that the practitioners identify.
Figure 3.2 outlines a timeline snapshot for data collection and the kinds of CUE
facilitated activities that took place at DCC when data were collected. There are seven events in
the timeline. Four of these which are shaded in Figure 3.2 are analyzed in this study.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
76
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
77
At DCC, there were three distinct activity systems that occurred prior to the fourth activity
system, a workshop seeking new adopters. This series of activity systems helps explain the
development of activities related to DCC adopting a culture of inquiry with the object to have
more subjects join the effort. Activity System D is the direct result from three prior activity
systems (A, B, and C) as outlined in Table 3.4. This table also provides a summary on all four
activity systems. Also included in Table 3.4 is the plane of analysis and community. It is from
these four activity systems that the analysis will be completed. I took field notes at three of the
four activities. At Activity System A, I was present for the entire workshop but as a presenter,
not an observer; therefore, I used Subramaniam’s field notes. I collected data at subsequent
workshops scheduled throughout summer and fall 2011 and spring 2012.
Table 3.4
Pertinent Activity Systems with Corresponding Planes of Analysis
Activity System Plane of Analysis Community
Activity System A (April 2011)
CUE holds a Syllabus Reflection
Workshop at Dynamic
Community College (DCC). The
researcher was a presenter, not
an observer.
Inter-individual Dynamic Community
College
Activity System B (June 2011)
CUE’s Symposium for
community college consortium.
A faculty member and
administrator from DCC reported
their recent activities to the
consortium.
Institutional State-wide
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
78
Activity System C (December 2011)
Faculty and administrators (all
former workshop attendees) from
DCC meet with CUE to plan
additional workshops.
Institutional Dynamic Community
College and State-
wide
Activity System D (February 2012)
CUE facilitates syllabus training
workshop for newly hired full-
time faculty at DCC. Prior
workshop participants report on
their learning.
Inter-individual &
Institutional
Dynamic Community
College
Context of First Syllabus Review Workshop at DCC (Activity System A)
Eleven faculty and administrators attended a CUE facilitated workshop using the
Syllabus Analysis tool. Of those in attendance, only three (two faculty and one administrator)
had attended the BESST workshop the month before. In Activity System A, three were
administrators and the rest were faculty from Language Arts, Social Science, Mathematics,
Sciences and Student Affairs departments. This workshop included a presentation by the CUE
co-director on the theory of change targeting equity in higher education. After this presentation,
the participants completed an experiential review of the syllabus reflection tool that included
sample syllabi and the protocol comprised of numerous indicators reflecting culturally
responsive pedagogy. The purpose for this workshop was for the practitioners to inquire about
their syllabi in a culturally responsive manner. CUE researchers developed these indicators in the
protocol from a literature review on culturally responsive pedagogy. They included respect for
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
79
students, desire to help students, information students need to successfully act on the information
in the syllabus, validation of racial diversity, validation of diversity in terms of ethnicity (shared
ancestry, language, national heritage, religious beliefs, community norms), validation of other
forms of diversity, validation of the value of differences in prior educational experiences and
several other indicators. Then the DCC participants were given presentations from two CUE
research practitioners who are community college professors on how the syllabus reflection tool
remediated how they used their syllabi. I was one of those presenters and we both shared with
the participants our pre- and post-syllabi. At this point in the workshop, the participants were
grouped into pairs or triads and asked to analyze their own syllabus by using the Syllabus
Review Protocol. Only eight faculty participated; the three administrators did not. Four CUE
research practitioners were partnered with these groups to address any questions the participants
had. The participants examined their syllabus for completeness, clarity, classroom policies, and
equity-mindedness. At the end of the activity, there was an open discussion in which the
participants shared their findings based on the discussion questions found in the protocol. During
the discussion, the participants shared their assessment of their syllabi as it pertained to the
protocol.
Context of DCC Early Adopters Presenting at CUE Symposium (Activity System B)
In June 2011, CUE held a statewide symposium for Network Alliance Colleges and other
institutions that had partnered with them to conduct equity-related inquiry trainings at their
campus. Ten colleges sent 32 representatives comprised of faculty, counselors, institutional
researchers, directors, deans, vice presidents, and a president. Also in attendance were
representatives from a state legislator’s office, the California Community College Chancellor’s
office, and the state Academic Senate. CUE began the morning by framing the issues and
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
80
providing an overview. Then the morning panel session consisted of key players from three of
these institutions reporting on their inquiry efforts from their equity planning process. Two
Dynamic Community College members, an administrator and a faculty member in a leadership
role, were part of this panel. The themes that CUE asked the panelists to discuss were how they
obtained buy-in, the culture of inquiry and standard of evidence, having sustained focus, and
resource leveraging. They were also asked to share their points of pride, strategic challenges, and
strategic leadership efforts. The attendees were given a three-page handout to keep a record of
their insights, questions, and dilemmas as each college reported on their efforts (Appendix E).
These handouts were not collected for analysis.
The DCC Administrator discussed how their institution got buy-in to become more
equity-minded. She claimed that blaming the victims is the wrong first step. Their institution
focused on the goal and used multiple measures to do so. Then a team created a map of assets
available to determine the student pathways. They contrasted the experience of full-time students
to part-time students in order to determine the strategies the college uses to get both groups of
students to transfer. After their initial work, the team determined that they had a rising trend line.
The team then determined its long-term goals with every area having specific tasks to complete.
Then the faculty leader, Cynthia, spoke on what preceded DCC’s work with CUE. The
college had held workshops on “What Works” and “On-Course” in which a collaborative group
of interdisciplinary faculty began to inquire about ways to improve the pipeline for students.
Cynthia discussed how they got buy-in through the Student Success committee at DCC. The
team developed an early alert system for the topics they explored, they chose their projects well,
and they chose areas that would impact culture changes. In regards to team development, they
purposely did not hire a director to do this work since DCC sees it as the responsibility of the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
81
deans and vice presidents to take on these types of projects. They also actively worked to ensure
there was not a divided culture between administration and the faculty. They selected faculty
who would overlap instruction and student affairs; they also sought faculty who are or would be
early adopters and had chemistry to work in an interdisciplinary manner. The team met
frequently and the whole committee decided where money should be allocated. They also looked
at how to measure each goal and if there were any sub-set measures for each goal the team had
determined.
At the end of the symposium, evaluations were collected by CUE facilitators. Each of the
32 attendees was provided with an overall workshop evaluation. Twenty-six were completed.
The evaluation had 9 evaluative statements which employed a four-point Likert scale (strongly
disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree) as well as five open-ended questions. Relevant data
from these evaluations is analyzed in Chapter 4.
Context of Beta Adopter Planning Meeting (Activity System C)
Six months after the Symposium (Activity System B), six DCC early adopters met with
three CUE facilitators to develop a plan to finish the work with the early adopter group of
participants and take the project into its beta stage. At this meeting, a CUE doctoral researcher
presented the DCC participants with a timeline of what had occurred thus far and what was
proposed (Appendix F). The planning meeting was broken into four separate tasks—identify the
beta group, establish a timeline, determine what tasks to target for both groups, and share input
from the community.
A series of cohesive groups were discussed as possible candidates for the next training.
The group of department heads was suggested, but it was determined that this group was not
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
82
ideal. The Administrator of the group suggested the new faculty be the beta group which was
supported by one faculty member. Then, the group spent time discussing whether a cohesive or
non-cohesive group was the goal. Later, the CUE co-director queried if the new faculty should
be the beta group, and the Administrator and lead faculty member supported that suggestion.
The Administrator suggested that an upcoming half-day training session for the new
faculty would be the time to schedule the CUE facilitated workshop. Next the group needed to
determine what would occur at this workshop. The Administrator shared knowledge that an
upcoming training for the new faculty could be reorganized to offer a CUE facilitated workshop.
From there, the CUE co-director as well as the Administrator determined who would be
presenting information at the workshop.
Once the division of labor for the upcoming workshop had been determined, the
conversation turned to ideas and input from individuals from the institution. The CUE co-
director shared with the DCC participants an equity-minded syllabus from another college to
show how that institution’s process had been different. Then the Senate President mentioned that
the state Academic Senate President had mentioned being more equity minded in our practices.
Next the Administrator mentioned how she talked with the chancellor of California community
colleges regarding the link between equity, academic utility, and the curriculum of organic
chemistry.
After this meeting, the Administrator contacted the 17 new faculty via e-mail regarding
the topic for the February training: CUE’s Syllabus Project. She provided a brief summary of
DCC’s work with CUE, specifically the Syllabus Project. She instructed them to bring a syllabus
from a course they are currently teaching, have taught, or are interested in teaching to their next
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
83
training. The Administrator reminded them that they may have heard about the topic from their
Academic Senate leaders in the fall. She also mentioned they might be contacted prior to the
workshop for a cognitive interview to determine their interest and experience with projects such
as this.
One week before the workshop, I conducted cognitive interviews with 6 of the 17 new
faculty members. I asked them about their knowledge of CUE’s mission, and if they considered
themselves as individuals who address issues of equity.
Context of CUE Facilitated Workshop for New Faculty (Activity System D)
The workshop was held at Dynamic Community College one winter morning in an
auditorium with 72 seats. There were two large tables with 14 chairs around them in the stage
area between the auditorium seats and the screen. In attendance, there were three CUE
facilitators (myself included), 17 newly hired full-time faculty, and four early adopters (three
faculty and an administrator)
2
. Of the 17 new faculty, ten taught academic courses in the areas of
social science, language arts or mathematics. The remaining seven faculty worked in the student
affairs division of the college. These seven hold tenure-track faculty positions and they serve
students in the Counseling, Library, and tutoring departments at the college. Each DCC
participant was given a packet prepared by CUE. Most DCC attendees were sitting in pairs or
triads while 5 were sitting by themselves with no one next to them. The workshop was scheduled
from 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.. The workshop did not begin until 9:12 when the DCC administrator
welcomed everyone, introduced the DCC “early adopter” faculty, and the CUE facilitators. She
then described the workshop schedule:
2
A full list of the DCC practitioners is in Appendix J.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
84
1) Reflections from early adopter DCC faculty,
2) Two CUE facilitators present a review of the model,
3) Pilot the tool (Syllabus Review Protocol) in breakout groups, then
4) Debrief dialogue about the activity.
Cynthia, an early adopter, gave a brief overview of how the topic for this workshop was
determined by referencing a series of meetings at the college and one facilitated by CUE. Then
the Academic Senate president, Brian, shared his experience from a prior Syllabus Review
workshop [Activity System A] facilitated by CUE. In his remarks, he discussed how his views
on the syllabus had shifted.
Brian: When the Academic Senate did the workshop, personally I found it valuable. …
For many years, I had the ‘just the facts’ syllabus. … One page, one side. I got
the important information to them. … So I decided I’m going to shift. Instead of
meeting my dean’s needs, I’m going to meet my students’ needs. I see how that
works. … I need to be more of a life coach.
After Brian’s statements, the Administrator mentioned how “the syllabus review workshop also
changes you.” The Administrator reflected upon Brian’s comments and she stated, “the comment
made about the life coach shows that you as the academic senate president see yourself
differently.” Brian responded with, “It can only help with what I do. The conversations I have
with colleagues have changed as well as with my students.”
Another early adopter, Abigail, shared how after she attended one of the syllabus review
workshops, she revised her syllabus to include a welcome statement, which she shared with the
group:
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
85
Abigail: Welcome to our class! I am excited to have you in this class. All students have
an opportunity to succeed in this class and at the college. We appreciate the
richness of your ideas, your cultural background, and your life experiences.
Education is a gift to yourself. Take advantage of the opportunity to improve
your English language skills and your life in our community.
After hearing this statement, the attendees clapped and Cynthia, the lead early adopting faculty
member, claimed: “If we all do this, then they’re (students) going to feel welcome.”
Next one of the new faculty members, Carlos, who had attended an earlier CUE
workshop, shared with the attendees an informal study group on how his students view a
syllabus. In his presentation, he included a video of a student focus group. In the focus groups,
students were asked questions like “What is a syllabus?” and “What are some characteristics that
makes a good and a bad syllabus?” After the group watched the video, three of the early adopters
(the Administrator, Brian, and Cynthia) restated specific quotes that students said in the short
film that stood out for them: “It needs to be clear”, “I just skip the first three pages”, “It’s a
worksheet”, “I track my progress for each requirement” and “too much of the wrong stuff.”
Then one of the new faculty members asked the Administrator if she could “take things
out [of the syllabus]? We’ve been warned about some information that needs to be in there.” The
Administrator responded by making light of the question, “You don’t want to start breaking all
the rules now.” This caused the entire group to laugh. Then the Administrator stated: “There’s
positioning of the information to consider. You can put the welcoming messages at the
beginning. It’s important to not truncate things that are important like the disability statement
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
86
and the opening welcome statement.” Then the Administrator introduced CUE’s co-director, the
next presenter.
CUE’s co-director defined for the practitioners target terms, i.e., “equity mindedness”,
“culturally inclusive pedagogy”, “action research”, “inquiry”, and “developmental evaluation”,
which would be used throughout the workshop. Next the practitioners were presented with
information regarding the structural and interpersonal inheritance of legal racial discrimination
within education. The diagram contrasted the best practices model [data à gaps in educational
outcomes à solutions (best practices] to CUE’s inquiry model [data à gaps à inquiry into
causes à informed interventions à evaluation of interventions]. CUE’s inquiry diagram linked
the last category, evaluation of interventions, back to the midpoint, inquiry into causes, which is
structured in such a way as to permit double loop learning to take place (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3.
CUE’s Inquiry Model
Then the practitioners were provided with two visuals identifying the impact of CUE’s inquiry
model. The first was a graphic of “small actions x lots of people = BIG CHANGE” (Figure 3.4).
Next was the image of a person identified as an institutional agent who was positioned between
Data
Gaps
Inquiry
into
Causes
Informed
Interventions
Evaluation
of
Interventions
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
87
“direct support” on the left and “bridging/brokering support” on the right of the slide (Figure
3.5). Then surrounding the person were eleven identities that the institutional agent fulfills in
between the two types of supports. Those identities are, clockwise from the top: advisor,
bridging agent, institutional broker, advocate, coordinator, knowledge agent, integrative agent,
networking coach, cultural guide, resource agent (positional resources), and resource agent
(personal resources).
Figure 3.4.
An Image Identifying Purpose of CUE’s Inquiry Model
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
88
Figure 3.5.
Who Institutional Agents Are and the Identities They Fulfill
Next within this same introductory PowerPoint presentation, CUE’s co-director presented the
definition of key foundational concepts to CUE’s inquiry model. The first term defined was
“praxis”. It is the combination of reflective practice and collective action. Next the practitioners
were presented with characteristics and indicators of culturally inclusive practices: affirming,
high expectations, validation, empowerment, and rigorous learning. The last item within this
initial PowerPoint presentation that the practitioners were shown was a sample syllabus produced
by faculty at a different community college that had been written more like a newsletter and
depicted community college students as transfer students. The CUE co-director included this in
her presentation to suggest a larger community of practice to the DCC faculty.
Resource
Agent
positional
resources
Resource
Agent
personal
resources
Knowledge
Agent
Bridging
Agent
Networking
Coach
Institutional
Broker
Advisor
Coordinator
Advocate
Cultural
Guide
Direct
Support
Bridging/
Brokering
Support
Integrative
Agent
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
89
The next presentation given to the group was by a doctoral student who was concluding a
study at DCC. Subramaniam shared with the attendees her preliminary results of the action
research study on CUE’s Syllabus Review Project with the early adopters. The majority of the
six faculty she interviewed believed that CUE’s 10-page syllabus review protocol was laborious
to work through and repetitive, but all agreed that it made them rethink how they communicated
with their students. She had organized her data providing their thoughts about this action
research project using five themes:
(1) agency in the classroom and institutionally,
(2) uncertainty about how to include culturally inclusive pedagogy,
(3) wishing for broader institutional involvement and buy-in,
(4) conformity vs. academic freedom, and
(5) application of beliefs and past experiences to current context.
The presentation included pertinent quotations that reflected each of these themes from eight
DCC faculty members who had each been teaching for 20 years. The CUE co-director was an
active participant throughout Subramaniam’s presentation. At one point, she said: “You’re new
faculty and new faculty have new ideas. You have permission to share your great ideas with
other faculty. The invitation to converse for this dialogue is present here.” Then Subramaniam
concluded her presentation highlighting her findings regarding applications.
In this 2 ½ hour workshop, one hour had passed and comprised a series of faculty
reflections, an informal study, and CUE facilitated presentations. Then the new faculty were
directed by the CUE co-director to the tools within the CUE packet. The physical tools they were
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
90
presented with in their packets were the syllabus reflection tool, a document analysis protocol,
student syllabus assessment form, and a handout describing microaggressions. They were
instructed to take a few minutes with the documents to quietly reflect and then share their
thoughts with other faculty in small groups. The Administrator reiterated that the faculty should
work in groups for 45 minutes. Of particular note during this portion of the exercise is that only
16 of the new faculty participated
3
. Four remained in their auditorium seats while the remaining
12 moved to the two tables in the stage area. A few faculty did not bring a syllabus to the
workshop as instructed, so in their group discussions they used one attendee’s syllabus that was
unfamiliar rather than their own. No mention was made of using the syllabus they had been
asked to bring.
The primary tool the practitioners were given to use, “Document Analysis for Self-
Assessment of Culturally Inclusive Practices,” is a five-page document (Appendix G). The first
two pages are instructions which provide the practitioner with the purpose of the tool. It is
designed to frame the practitioner’s self-assessment of how the individual and group could use
culturally responsive pedagogy to help underrepresented student populations succeed. The
practitioner is instructed to individually assess a sample of his/her own documents, in this case
the syllabus the new faculty were asked to bring, then to record his/her reflections in relation to a
number of culturally inclusive practices listed. The instructions also direct the practitioner to
suggest plans of action in taking next steps. On the third and fourth pages, indicators for
culturally inclusive practices are listed regarding the practitioner’s affirming attitude, high
expectations, validation, empowerment and rigorous learning; there are either two or three sub-
3
Although one student affairs faculty member did complete pre- and post-workshop cognitive
interviews with the researcher, he did not stay for the inquiry exercise during the workshop. His
interviews have been excluded from this study.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
91
indicators listed for each culturally inclusive practice indicator. Next to each indicator is a space
for the practitioner to note reflections and next steps. The last page of the tool is blank which
could provide space for the practitioner to write additional reflections or next steps during the
group discussion portion of the activity. However, since there are no instructions on that page, it
is difficult to determine if that is the intent. This tool is considered a personal reflection tool and
was not collected for further analysis.
Also included in the packet were two CUE tools: a five-page document entitled “Syllabus
Assessment Form” (Appendix H) and a four-page document, “Worksheet: Understanding and
Avoiding Microaggressions” (Appendix I). While the participants were not directed to look at
these handouts, they could have done so during the breakout session.
In the last 30 minutes of the workshop, the CUE co-director asked the DCC participants
to share any reflections they had on the exercise. One faculty member commented on the equity
minded issues and expressed a desire for the right answer from more expert individuals:
Ruth: I’ve struggled with being able to acknowledge different culture and adapt
students to the college culture. Students come from where family is important,
but so is college. They have to care for siblings. When they are adapting to the
college culture, how do they balance those two things?
CUE: Any suggestions?
Ruth: We’re looking for answers.
Brian: You can provide answers.
Ruth: How to put [adapting to college culture] in a document is difficult.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
92
Another new faculty member from the Math and Engineering department stated:
Megan: [An early adopter] from the math department shared information with my
department. So my syllabus this term looks different from the one I used last
term. It has more welcoming language. I reworded things. I do feel that they
(her students) understand it better. Young instructors struggle. My syllabus is
more welcoming. I talk about my teaching philosophy. My syllabus was dry.
Now I tailor every section to my students. Having a diversity statement makes
people understand all of your background and they appreciate it. The word is
getting out.
In this final portion of the workshop, the majority of new faculty commented on non-equity
issues when reflecting on the exercise. The tangential yet non-racial/ethnic equity related topics
included revising the syllabus for disabled students, the use of technology, the tone in which a
syllabus is presented to the students, the timing and manner of introducing the syllabus to
students, and the pressures that new faculty feel in writing a syllabus.
As the CUE co-director was concluding the group’s discussion, she acknowledged that
setting behavior parameters within a syllabus may take up to a page of a syllabus. Then she
reiterated to the attendees that an equity minded statement in the syllabus would be supportive of
students’ efforts: “But to have a short statement that I’m here and I want you to be here too.” The
lead DCC early adopters, Administrator, Cynthia, and Brian, closed the session by thanking the
attendees and CUE.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
93
Data Analysis Procedures
This study used observational data to analyze cultural artifacts such as language to
examine the beliefs, attitudes and behaviors of practitioners and their impact on equity-oriented
practices. Scholars believe that the use of language shapes practitioners’ understanding about
being equity minded. Figures 3.2 and 3.3 illustrate the learning and change model informing
CUE’s action research methods. This model guided my data analysis. The model is informed by
the theoretical frameworks described in the previous chapter, and includes practice theory and
cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). Practice theory calls attention to a cycle of inquiry
among individual practitioners, as well as the role of social interactions in shaping opportunities
for practitioner learning and experimentation with new educational practices. CHAT emphasizes
the role of social interaction and cultural artifacts in shaping practices. Following each
workshop, all notes were transcribed and analyzed for common themes.
In order for the transcripts to be analyzed, shared categories were used in an effort to
determine major themes. The transcripts were coded according to eight different deductive
codes: workshop participants’ attitudes/beliefs (A/B), knowledge (K), social interaction (SI) in
activity systems, reflection (R), problem identification (PI), experimentation/problem solving
(EXP), action (inaction)/experience (A/E), or other (not coded above) (See Table 3.5).
According to Participatory Action Theory (PAR), the community or institutional plane
emphasizes the historical dynamics that involves “language, rules, values, beliefs, and identities
which are institutionalized artifacts that disclose the institution’s culture, beliefs, assumptions
and values that practitioners bring to the activity setting” (Rogoff, 1994 as cited by Nasir &
Hand, 2006, p. 459; Schein, 1985). When there is social interaction, participants learn that their
beliefs may contradict the next person’s; this dissonance may lead to an awareness of the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
94
differences. Through dialogue and inquiry, participants will be able to arrive at the problem,
which may then enable them to collaboratively formulate solutions. Therefore, the codes listed in
Table 3.5 enabled the researcher to classify and code qualitative data that supports the conceptual
theory discussed in the previous chapter. Any behavioral change that is documented may indicate
that CUE’s tools contributed to the change.
Table 3.5.
Deductive Data Analysis Codes
Code Category Examples
Attitudes/ Beliefs (A/B) “You will be successful if you dedicate yourself.”
Knowledge (K) “We’ve been warned about some information that needs to be in the
syllabus.”
Social Interaction (SI) “Our group had a discussion about how technology has changed
things.”
Reflection (R) “Several semesters of disruption with technology have added changes
to my syllabi.”
Problem Identification
(PI)
“I’ve struggled with being able to acknowledge the different cultures
and adapt students to the college culture.”
Experimentation/
Problem Solving (EXP)
“My syllabus was dry. Now I tailor each section to my students.”
Action (Inaction)/
Experience (A/E)
“My syllabus is on Blackboard. It has cool colors. It looks different. I
want it to be generic.”
Other (not coded above) “One situation regarding the syllabus is when students with
disabilities have to ‘read’ it.”
The quantitative analysis included counting each code found in all the data collected.
Proportions were calculated to inform CUE’s research team of the most frequent areas of impact.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
95
Qualitatively, all codes utilized presented evidence of impact of design experiment using action
research. The constructs represented by the codes characterized as weak or strong were based on
the frequency of code count relative to the total code count at each field site. The direction of
impact was analyzed as being negative/positive or neutral based on the proportion of the data
exhibiting positive correspondence with the general hypothesis. Codes for each document were
qualitatively described (Table 3.6).
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
96
Table 3.6
Data Analysis Template (Excerpt, Code Category Attitudes/Beliefs)
Attitudes/Beliefs (A/B)
CODE CATEGORIES
Attitudes/ Beliefs (A/B)
Knowledge (K)
Social Interaction (SI) in
Activity Systems
(non-CUE) mediating
artifacts, language,
roles, rules/norms,
community, and division
of labor
Reflection
Problem Identification
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
(includes perceived
behavioral control;
environmental factors)
(1) Frequency, Tally # = the number of times you have
used this code in coding the data from this particular
activity system ______
(2) Characterize the data…
Based on evidence of impact [weak/strong, based on
frequency of code count relative to total code count for this
activity system]
and direction of impact [negative/positive/neutral, based on
proportion of data in this code exhibiting positive
correspondence with the general hypothesis, i.e. there is a
typical response and it is positive]
(3) Data Excerpts: Typical
Quotes that illustrate the typical meaning of the data
coded in this category (include reference #s with data
note page and line number, e.g. 10.5 means page 10,
line 5)
(paste excerpts and let pages flow, retaining the page
breaks)
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
97
Action (Inaction)/
Experience
(includes perceived skills,
ability, self-efficacy)
Other (not coded above)
Insert data excerpts here
(4) Data Excerpts: Variation/Range
Quotes that illustrate the variation and range of
meaning of the data coded in this category (include
reference #s with data note page and line number)
(paste excerpts and let pages flow, retaining the page
breaks)
Insert excerpts here
The evaluation form analysis included basic descriptive statistics characterizing (non-
identifiable, pooled, site and activity specific) respondent experiences. Practitioner responses to
evaluation questions indicate receptiveness to new concepts such as equity mindedness, action
inquiry and performance benchmarking.
The analytic objectives of CUE researchers include the examination of practitioner
beliefs. Practitioner beliefs towards the project were revealed through their attitudes and
behavior. Practitioner beliefs are shaped by the knowledge that they hold. If practitioners have
knowledge that a problem exists, then they might be willing and motivated to change their
“practices and agency to change institutional norms” (Seo & Creed, 2002, p. 243). If
practitioners do not have knowledge about their beliefs, then they might not be willing to change
their practices and agency in bringing about institutional changes as they address the
achievement gaps that exist at their institutions.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
98
At each field site, practitioner’s attitudes toward action inquiry were examined as the
project reveals beliefs about the legitimacy of action inquiry and perceptions of self-efficacy and
collective efficacy to carry out projects. It is important to measure beliefs and changes in beliefs
because beliefs are important drivers of behavior (Azjen & Fishbein, 2000; Patton, 2011).
Fishbein and Azjen’s (2010) framework was utilized to examine practitioners’ behavioral beliefs
(beliefs surrounding the consequences, positive or negative of a behavior), normative beliefs
(perceived norms or the expected approval or disapproval from others), and control beliefs
(beliefs about personal perceived self-efficacy and environmental factors that may aid or hinder
the ability to carry out a behavior). If there are no incentives or motivation for practitioners to
change their behavioral beliefs, they will continue the same practices of blaming students for
their own shortcomings or failures. Also, there are situations whereby practitioners, because of
institutional policies or because they feel that they are not capable of introducing change, may
refrain from changing their behavior. Finally, pressure from others at the institution may also
stifle practitioners from changing practices because of a fear of reprisal. Thus, even if
practitioners are aware that they can do more to narrow underrepresented student achievement
gaps, they may still refrain from making changes.
After compiling information from planning meetings, workshops and cognitive
interviews, analytical memos were created to summarize results regarding emergent themes,
tensions and unresolved issues that were gathered through the code categories in Table 3.3.
Additional themes were added as part of the deductive process and were used to categorize
themes that arose during the data analysis.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
99
Standards of Review
Credibility
Social constructivists are aware of the bias that exists in the world and therefore seek
multiple perspectives in understanding how things work and do not rely on a single truth or
perspective (Patton, 2002). What social constructivists consider important is to understand the
operations of particular contexts and setting without making generalizations over time and space.
Their focus is on dialogue and interaction that reveals the world as people see it. The focus is to
understand how each one’s view or perspective is based on personalized experiences and
background and that it is through these differences in everyday life. This phenomenon also
includes how individuals act in inquiry (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, Patton (2002) states that
“Quality and credibility are connected in that judgments of quality constitute the foundation for
perceptions of credibility” (p. 542), which means that if one does not find the study to be of high
quality, then it will cause one to question the study’s credibility.
Action researchers argue that generalizable knowledge through scientific research fails
to provide remedies or solutions to the problems that individuals experience. Action researchers
argue that generalized solutions cannot be applied to all situations and that the dynamics of
inquiry lead to finding solutions that can be applied in particular contexts or settings. Therefore
the primary purpose of systematic inquiry is for individuals to experiment with solutions and to
collect data to reflect and improve in the cycle of inquiry that can help solve the problems
individuals face. At the same time, the inquiry will lead to evaluating the effectiveness of the tool
in use.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
100
Action researchers believe that the quality of the study has to be derived from
“credibility, impartiality, and independence of judgment; confirmability, consistency and
dependability of data; and explainable inconsistencies or instabilities” (Patton, 2002, p. 93).
Credibility is established when the researcher takes a neutral stance to the phenomenon that is
being studied. Therefore, as a qualitative researcher, the study involves gathering data as it
emerges and reporting the findings with no regard to an ultimate conclusion. To prepare for data
collection, the research team practiced observing the process of action research as practitioners
from a variety of institutions participate in BESST and Syllabus Review workshops.
Additionally, credibility is reached when the researcher carefully reports data as it unfolds,
whether it supports or contradicts the study’s hypothesis. Establishing systematic data collection
procedures, rigorous training of observers and interviewers involved in the study, collection of
multiple data sources, and triangulation of sources will add to the credibility of the study (Patton,
2002; Stringer, 2007). When action researchers do not take a neutral stance, they bring their own
perceptions and interpretations to the problem that is studied. This may lead to issues of
trustworthiness in the researcher. To avoid this problem, the researcher must state his
preconceived notions about the problem ahead of time and return to the data frequently to
establish that his prior perceptions and interpretations are not clouding the study’s findings
(Patton, 2002). This is provided in a personal reflection at the end of this chapter.
Triangulation of data sources is required to increase credibility of findings (Patton, 2002).
Patton believes that the greater the triangulation of the data sources, the more rigorous the
supporting evidence which then validates the study. Triangulation of multiple data sources and
the use of diverse sources increase the credibility of the study by avoiding bias and distortion
during data analysis (Patton, 2002; Stringer, 2007). Triangulation can be accomplished using
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
101
both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Four types of triangulation exist that can establish
credibility of a study: data triangulation; investigator triangulation; theory triangulation; and
methodological triangulation.
Data triangulation involves the use of multiple data sources using the same method. The
data that was collected at different times or in different settings are cross-checked for
consistency. Cross-checking was conducted by comparing observation and interview data;
comparing what participants see in public and in private; comparing what was said over a period
of time; comparing data collected from different practitioners who have different perspectives;
and comparing for consistency between interviews and documents or other written evidence
(Patton, 2002). Investigator triangulation provides credibility through the use of a number of
researchers or investigators who gather data. Multiple observers and/or interviewers were
involved in gathering the data so as to reduce bias that could occur if only one person observed
or conducted interviews for the study. Similarly there is analyst triangulation whereby several
different people independently analyze the data to arrive at findings. Analyst triangulation allows
researchers to see data from multiple perspectives without seeking consensus. A variation of this
form of triangulation is team triangulation which compares the results of a goals-based team with
a goal-free team. The goals-based team assesses the outcomes of a particular program, and the
goals-free team gathers data related to the problem and then compares the data as it relates to the
program. Action researchers use goals-free concepts as they work off of hunches. The researcher
is not evaluating an existing problem but why those involved in the problem are unaware of what
is causing the program to fail. The goals-based approach assesses the stated outcomes or
effectiveness of the program; this is summative in nature (Patton, 2002). Developmental
evaluation is focused on supporting on-going decisions that are made when changes are needed;
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
102
it involves thinking and acting as new reactions or discoveries are made by practitioners in an
activity system. There is continuous and on-going development and rapid feedback involved in
developmental evaluation (Patton, 2011). Therefore, triangulating data gathered by a team can
improve the credibility of the study.
Theory triangulation entails the use of multiple lenses or perspectives to interpret data.
Theory triangulation helps in understanding how different assumptions and perspectives affect
the findings and interpretations of the findings (Patton, 2002). Figures 3.1 and 3.2 provide a
visual representation of how theory triangulation occurs. The developmental evaluation methods
model (Figure 3.1) allows for various ways to look at what is being studied. For example, the
activity system in the figure identifies the culture that exists at the setting. The reflective practice
model (Figure 3.2) shows that a particular culture at the setting will produce social interactions
which create different results depending on the existing knowledge and belief systems of the
practitioners.
Finally, methodological triangulation uses multiple methods to study the problem
(Denzin, 1978). Usually, a study can be conducted either quantitatively or qualitatively or as a
combination of both. Multiple methods triangulation complements the data or shows divergence
in data which provides additional insights to the qualitative researchers. My study used
quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Quantitative data was collected through
evaluations questionnaires, and qualitative data was gathered through cognitive interviews and
observations.
Credibility can also be attained through referential adequacy whereby the study’s results
are drawn from the participants’ or stakeholders’ experiences and perspectives and not
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
103
interpreted from existing theoretical knowledge. Therefore, when concepts or ideas in the study
are supported, the evidence reflects the participant’s perspective and not what has already been
grounded in the form of a theory (Stringer, 2007). After observation data was collected, follow-
up cognitive interviews were conducted to strengthen evidence that what was observed during
the workshops was in fact what the participants truly felt about the workshop and its objective.
In qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument in the inquiry. Therefore, essential
information about the researcher and his/her training and the purpose for the research study is
required to establish credibility. As a researcher in CUE’s action research study, training on how
to complete observations and cognitive interviews was critical before actual research began.
Training on how to conduct and use the observation and cognitive interview protocols was
conducted prior to field site visits. Several practice sessions (i.e., three cognitive interviews)
were required before actual field site visits were scheduled. Additionally, practice on how to
document and complete observations was completed at two different field sites. Access to the
field sites was initiated by CUE’s staff who communicated with site participants who have
attended other workshops conducted by CUE. Arranging workshops at new field sites was less
challenging owing to the rapport that had been established between CUE’s staff and the field site
administrators who had attended prior workshops. The field site administrators were then tasked
to select the project team’s participants based on institutional goals.
Member check or debriefing involves participants being provided the opportunities to
verify that the data that has been gathered is accurate and if additional information is required to
make the data collection complete. Furthermore, when participants were given the opportunity to
clarify information, it allowed them the opportunity to deal with emotions and feelings that may
cloud their initial interpretations of the workshop and the purpose of the study (Stringer, 2002).
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
104
This too established credibility in the study as the participants were not coaxed or pressured to
reveal incorrect information. Through the probing technique involved in cognitive interviews,
member check and debriefing confirmed that the data collected were accurate.
Transferability
Nationally, higher education policy makers are concerned that the number of
underrepresented students they enroll and the number of them who earn degrees or transfer from
two-year to four-year institutions is disproportionate. Similarly, California community colleges
are beginning to address the problem that a large number of underrepresented students are
enrolled in basic skills courses. The persistence and retention rates for these students to progress
on to college-level work or transfer to four-year institutions has prompted community colleges to
seek solutions to improve the inequities that underrepresented students experience. Many of
these institutions are taking measures to address these inequities by implementing action inquiry
projects to study their transfer and completion policies. Action research studies that have been
conducted can be used to provide these institutions the ability to extrapolate the findings from
one study to another context or group. Extrapolation allows for speculation that findings from
one study can possibly be applied to other similar situations which may not have identical
conditions. Therefore, findings from one study, even though they are contextual, may provide
potential for best practice applications. Transferability of findings from one context to another
can be achieved through descriptive narratives. The information-rich samples and designs that
will be gathered in the study can then be used to target other similar research studies at other
institutions. My study involved documenting and describing all data collection methods and
procedures, including summarizing observations and cognitive interviews. Data analysis
procedures and reporting mechanisms were also described for transferability purposes.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
105
For example, CUE’s Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST) and
Syllabi Review tools involved using individual institutional data to facilitate dialogue and
decision making amongst institutional practitioners. The data at the DCC BESST workshop was
used to identify the number of students who had been placed in basic skills Math classes. Based
on this data, the various pipelines of cohort students were easily seen. In the case of the Syllabi
Review workshop, the practitioner’s syllabus was reviewed using a protocol template. At the
conclusion of the workshop, participants completed evaluation questionnaires to reflect on the
Syllabus Review workshop. When vivid descriptions and details are available, other institutions
can use this information rich sample to begin their inquiry projects. The setting too can be
replicated since the study can be conducted in any educational institution, as long as the required
institutional information is available to begin the process of inquiry. The inquiry process assists
institutions of higher education to begin their assessments on student outcomes and also address
the accountability issues related to underrepresented student outcomes. Similarly, the participants
involved in the inquiry process at DCC can be found in any institution. At DCC, the participants
who were involved in the workshops held many roles and responsibilities and the data collected
from their interactions during the workshops provided other practitioners insights on how they
too can begin the inquiry process at their own institutions.
Other similar inquiry projects facilitated by CUE that can be used for transferability
purposes are Bridging Research Information and Culture (BRIC), Basic Skills Initiative (BSI)
and Research and Planning Group’s Bridging Research (CUE, 2011).
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
106
Dependability and Confirmability
Dependability of a study can be attained when a systematic approach to data collection is
conducted. This systematic approach can be completed using an inquiry audit where the
procedures are described in detail and the processes and procedures are documented and
available for review. Confirmability suggests that an audit trail is present to show that all
documents pertaining to the research study have been compiled and are readily available to
support the procedures that were actually conducted.
Audit trails essentially have a two-fold purpose. One is to establish the rigor of the
fieldwork and the second is to confirm that the data collected is accurate and that, based on the
data collected, bias can be reduced in presenting the findings. The audit trail also improves
accuracy and removes the researchers’ personal perspectives, which in turn provides grounded
empirical findings (Patton, 2002). Transparency, another manner to establish dependability and
confirmability, can be attained when all documents, data and other evidence are compiled and
available to support the validity of the study. Documentation of the methods used and its rigor
show that a high-quality study was carried out.
Limitations
Several limitations exist within the study. I have only recently become involved in the
field of action inquiry. My participation in the action research was limited to six workshops. As a
researcher, my credibility can be acquired through training and experience. Role playing in
workshops, as a participant and an observer, provided additional insight to action research. To
overcome my limited involvement in the field of action inquiry, extensive reading of literature
involving action and participatory research was conducted.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
107
Another limitation to the study involved the observation data source. Participants in the
workshop, even though their activities were not recorded, may have felt uncomfortable when
unfamiliar faces are present in the setting. Therefore, they may not have conducted themselves in
a typical manner and the data collected may not be accurate. Sampling too may be another
limitation in the case of my one community college case study. Limited sampling may affect the
credibility of the study since small or limited samplings as in the one community college case
study or the limited selective participants were bias for those who may not understand the
reasons for the intended design (Patton, 2002). However, the multiple member participants
whom I interviewed compensated for the one case study sampling. Time was another constraint
when coordinating interviews with the action research participants. Educators have busy
schedules teaching classes and attending to other obligations like serving on committees and
participating in campus wide meetings. They may not have had the time to participate in
cognitive interviews after their participation in the workshops. Additionally, administrators have
many additionally responsibilities on and off campus that they are committed to that limited their
availability to be interviewed. Still others may have been afraid to be interviewed since they may
believe that the interviews may force them to divulge information that they are not comfortable
revealing, and they may not agree to being interviewed.
Best practices and evidence based on practices work best when applied to simple
problems. However, in this case study, the research surrounds the belief systems that exist with
practitioners. In cases where practitioners are unaware that their belief, values and assumptions
affect the success of their students, there cannot be a simple best practice that can be applied to
address the problem. The context of the study can lead the reader to understand the problem
being studied and the reasons for the study, and the reader can then interpret meanings from the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
108
study and how it can be significant to his/her organization (Patton, 2002; Denzin and Lincoln,
2000). Finally, the credibility of findings relate closely to the credibility of the researcher. If the
researcher had not been trained in the process and procedures used in data collection and the
process developed to analyze the data to lead to the findings, then the credibility of the findings
would be diminished (Patton, 2002). If methodological rigor is absent from the findings,
credibility then becomes an issue. Methodological rigor includes the methods used in fieldwork
data collection and the systematic and consistent method of data analysis. The method of coding
establishes a classification system that the researcher can carefully record all findings based on
establish themes which can be easily verified and explained. If the method for data analysis is
absent or is not clearly defined, the study would lack credibility. Additionally, credibility
limitations exist when fieldwork data derived from purposeful sampling are not systematically
analyzed to answer the research questions.
Reporting Results
Field notes were collected by the researcher and transcribed. Reporting the results took a
variety of forms, including descriptive text, tabular summaries focused on categorical data, and
thematic analysis based on emerging issues/new themes revealed by the data (See Table 3.2).
Typical and atypical data were reported, including the range of participant experiences. The
observational data were collected from a variety of activity systems that provide a contextual
view of the campus, but were then narrowed to a core group of practitioners. The contextual
view of the activity system, Dynamic Community College (DCC), was obtained through
presenting the BESST tool, Syllabus Review Reflection protocol, reviewing college policy
documents, attending to the discourse of the participants, and tabulating the evaluations of
workshop participants. They are the Vital Signs, the Benchmarking Equity and Student Success
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
109
Tool (BESST), Self-Assessment Inventories, Dissemination Templates, and the Equity
Scorecard. These tools helped in triangulating data.
The research team conducted a design experiment which engineered particular forms of
learning to systematically study forms of learning within the context (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa,
Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003). The design experiment allowed for practitioners and researchers to
bridge theory and educational practice (Design-Based Research Collective). As suggested in
Cobb, et al. (2003), the research team needed to have a clear understanding of the learning
pathways and establish an ongoing committed relationship with the practitioners, and there is
supported emphasis on reciprocal learning. Learning in this sense, according to the CHAT as
discussed in Chapter 2, takes place when people create new artifacts from existing artifacts
which then change and regulate their previous behavior (Dowd, Bishop, Bensimon, & Witham,
2011; Ogawa, Crain, Loomis, & Ball, 2008; Salazar-Romo, 2009).
By means of action research, the study sought to “engage higher education
practitioners—faculty, administrators, counselors, and institutional researchers—in ‘action
inquiry,’ a systematic process of problem identification, data collection, reflection, decision
making, and action” (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). Data was gathered through participatory action
research using CHAT. Developmental evaluation methods (see Table 3.6) permitted the
examination of how activity systems would be impacted by action inquiry and research.
Prior to analyzing data related to the research questions through a series of activity
systems, field notes and cognitive interviews, I will describe my personal experience with using
an earlier version of CUE’s syllabus analysis tool. The reason why I am inserting this here is
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
110
because I know the syllabus tool does prompt reflective practice. My reflections have an impact
on the themes developed within this study. These themes are analyzed in Chapter 4.
Personal Reflections on Using the Syllabus Reflection Protocol
During the summer of 2007, I was approached by my dean to join a college-wide team
for the California Benchmarking Project in which our college would work with CUE and a
collaborative alliance of community colleges and four-year institutions. I joined the team even
though I did not understand the full scope of the project, and I was unaware of CUE’s mission. I
joined because I was a faculty member seeking tenure and my dean had asked me to be on the
team. I felt compelled to agree. Our college’s team was comprised of faculty and administrators
from many areas of the college: articulation, institutional research and basic skills. The team
attended an initial training session at USC in which they were shown equity achievement gaps
for a sample college and taught pertinent vocabulary. From the very first lesson, I was captivated
to learn about CUE’s tools namely in benchmarking, disaggregating the data and viewing student
outcomes from such a unique and fresh manner. From there, our team was asked to develop
hunches as to why our basic skills students were low performing. These hunches were broken
into four themes: students, faculty, policies and practices, as well as academic and student
services.
From this, a series of monthly meetings occurred at my college in which the team and the
CUE facilitators continued to discuss the gaps and apply CUE developed tools to further our
understanding of the issue. In the fall, a major project was to implement a syllabus review
protocol to our own syllabi. At the time, I did not understand how the team had developed this
particular focus and how it would help improve student success at the college. I also did not see
the connection between the team’s hunches and trying to improve student completion rates with
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
111
a syllabus. The syllabus reflection exercise was agreed upon by the CUE facilitators and Long
Beach City College team members since for most college students, the syllabus is the first
interaction they have with their instructors, and the team saw a need to bridge the gap they had
identified.
CUE then developed the tool which permitted the user to assess the expected information
one sees on a syllabus (office hours, course description, calendar, etc.). This activity was not a
shared activity, but one done alone by each team member. To begin the activity, each team
member was given a packet that included a timeline, an instructional coversheet, an assigned
syllabus from a team member, the review protocol itself, a sample syllabus with a sample
syllabus review report. The assigned syllabi were from outside of each team member’s discipline
and the faculty member’s identifying information had been redacted (e.g., name, contact
information, course section number) to ensure the reviewer’s objectiveness in the reflection
activity. In total, the team reviewed 13 syllabi for core courses. While I enjoyed the exercise, I
struggled with it since I worked alone. When I answered the questions trying to identify
indicators of equity-conscious practices, there was a lack of supporting evidence for culturally
responsive pedagogical indicators. The one page single-sided syllabus shared the vital
information about the class but was not used as a teaching tool for students. This negative data
provided evidence that the syllabi were not communicating the traits that the culturally
responsive pedagogy indicators suggest are important.
The purpose of this exercise was to review syllabi used at the college in gateway courses
with low completion or pass rates for underrepresented populations and to develop one’s level of
equity awareness. The protocol itself was not difficult to use, but suggestions were made by the
team members on areas where the tool was unclear when team members used it. I found the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
112
shared reflection on the tool to be especially helpful in my viewing the tool differently than I had
before. From this exercise the Long Beach City College Benchmarking team members
determined that the syllabus has an impact on the tone of a course and reflects the instructor’s
attitude toward the subject matter and students. One topic, student discipline, seemed to be
prevalent in the syllabi reviewed whereas three other non-present themes, instructor accessibility,
forms of support, and relevance of course to students’ learning, were discovered by the team
members since students were not given clear or consistent information on those topics.
What resulted from this reflection exercise was a revised syllabus reflection protocol. A
few faculty found the original syllabus reflection protocol valuable since they reported changing
their syllabus the next term so that it was more equity conscious and reflected themes that the
protocol targeted. I was one of those faculty members. I remember the impact the syllabus
reflection protocol had on my approach to composing a syllabus since I looked at everything in
the document. I looked at how it was formatted, the text and fonts. I also looked at the tone and
the type of information I was including. I made changes to the documents I shared with my
students throughout the term. After using the syllabus reflection protocol, I was more attuned to
the college culture regarding scholarship opportunities, transfer events, and job fairs. I promoted
these types of events in my classes and students benefitted from them. What is most notable
about the Benchmarking project is that through inquiry, I changed my syllabus and behaviors to
be more equity minded. In fact, I have continued these practices so my syllabus is a teaching tool
for students. I also show my students I am an advocate for them and provide them with
knowledge about the support services the college has. These changes have taken a lengthy time
to unfold through much reflection.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
113
It was clear to me that my initial purpose, to complete a task assigned by my dean,
changed through the social interaction and personal reflection regarding the tool. My new goal
after using the syllabus reflection protocol was to share this knowledge with others at my
college. This goal was shared by others in the Benchmarking team, so the team developed a
workshop that shared what the Long Beach City College team members had experienced with
other faculty at the college. This workshop was not solely focused on the tool of the syllabus
reflection protocol since the team had also used some of CUE’s other equity-minded tools. The
Benchmarking team members at Long Beach City College worked with CUE’s facilitators to
develop three separate workshops that would introduce equity related issues to the attendees.
Each two-hour workshop had a different focus on equity and the second one was designed to
introduce and use the syllabus reflection protocol. The implementation of this reflective activity
was different than the one the team members experienced a few months before. It was structured
as a group activity in which a Long Beach City College team member who had already used the
protocol was designated as a group facilitator. Having a more expert participant within each
group was a structural change to how I had experienced this same activity. In this setting, I took
on a new role as a knowledge producer generating the knowledge needed to change my own
practices as I discussed the tool with my colleagues.
As the Benchmarking Project continued, support from some groups waned. Very few
administrators attended all six hours of the three-day workshops since these workshops were
designed for faculty to learn from rather than all Long Beach City College employees. Also, in
the spring term, I noted that my dean who was an on-site co-leader of the Long Beach City
College Benchmarking team was no longer attending our monthly meetings. I began to devalue
these interactions with CUE since my initial motivation was to please my dean and be seen as a
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
114
team player. I determined my efforts on the project were not supported nor valued by
administration and I stopped participating. When the project ended, I did not place strong
personal significance in implementing CUE’s tools into my teaching philosophy. However, when
I began my doctoral studies, I renewed my interest in equity and CUE; therefore, I was motivated
to further understand the use of CUE’s tools within a community college setting.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
115
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Introduction
Chapter Four presents the results of my study of the equity focused collaborative inquiry
project between the Center for Urban Education (CUE) and Dynamic Community College
(DCC). This study was designed to inform whether social learning processes through
participation in an inquiry process with CUE tools affect practitioner beliefs and attitudes toward
more equity-minded practices. As stated in Chapter 1, this study is couched within a broader
mission of the Center for Urban Education to increase colleges’ and universities’ focus on equity
through reflecting upon institutional capacity, social responsibility and outcome accountability
(Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). Therefore, this study addressed the following research questions:
(1) What are the characteristics of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool?
(2) What characteristics of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool are associated with changes in
practitioners’ beliefs, attitudes, knowledge and behaviors?
(3) In what ways (if any) is the use of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool in facilitated
settings associated with cultural change at an institution, for example, through
changes in social interactions or educational practices?
This chapter has seven sections. The first section addresses the overall concepts discussed
in this chapter. The second section provides brief answers to the three research questions. The
third section is a summary of the coded data as it applies to the cycle of inquiry. The fourth
section summarizes the findings of a prior “sister” study at Dynamic Community College, the
same institution that I am studying. The fifth section is a summary of the activity systems that
chronicle both Subramaniam’s study (2012) as well as this study. The sixth section provides the
analysis of the themes and the seventh section is a brief summary of this project’s findings.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
116
Within this study, there are three unique main themes that center on the empowerment of
untenured faculty, a cohesive group not sharing the same goals, and providing a group with the
right tools and resources (space and time) for the assigned task. A unique minor theme is the way
the community had an equity minded conversation that shifted between two or three participants
at a college workshop to statewide conversations amongst key stakeholders at many colleges.
Lastly, this study shares two findings to a prior study at DCC, namely that the faculty using
CUE’s mediating artifacts expressed concern regarding academic freedom, but they were able to
apply past beliefs to present intervention (Subramaniam, 2012).
Concepts
During workshops and meetings, CUE’s tools were used at DCC. These tools facilitated a
collaborative effort between faculty and administrators during the action inquiry processes. At
most activity systems profiled within this study, the practitioners reflected on pertinent data and
these reflections occurred during a social interaction with colleagues. CUE’s tools gave the
practitioners the opportunity to reflect and collectively address the issue of equity at their
institution. In my role as a developmental evaluator, I observed and interviewed the practitioners
in an effort to produce knowledge of how CUE’s inquiry tools work, in what ways they do or do
not structure the inquiry process, and determine changes or outcomes that occurred during the
action inquiry process. This study has three main findings listed below:
1) Empowerment
2) Group cohesiveness ≠ Shared goals
3) Matching the tool and resources (space and time) to the right group
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
117
Three additional subsidiary themes emerged during the analysis. The first minor theme was
unique to this study, but the latter two were collaborative and resonate with Subramaniam’s
(2012) study:
4) Scope of equity conversation within a community
5) Conformity versus Academic Freedom
6) Application of past beliefs and experiences to current context
In the primary setting of this study, the three major themes emerged that were unique to
this equity-focused collaborative action research project. First, the CUE facilitators and DCC
early adopters were aware of the need for another group of faculty to be introduced to CUE’s
tools. Their efforts centered around empowering a group of beta adopters to share their
knowledge base and teach those who were more familiar with the tools; however, in selecting the
new faculty as the potential beta group, the relations of power and desired outcomes remained
hidden throughout the activity. Next, when the DCC early adopters sought out a potential beta
group, they selected what they considered a cohesive group. On the other hand, the new faculty
did not share the rationale for attending the workshop as the DCC early adopter team did; this
lead to an unforeseen tension that resulted in the DCC not developing a beta group at the time.
The last major theme centered around hidden issues of matching the right group to the best
reflection tool and then structuring the workshop to ensure an appropriate space and sufficient
amount of time for the tool to be used by the group.
In this study there were also three subsidiary themes that were not as strong in evidence
or were shared with Subramaniam’s sister study at DCC. Throughout the data collection process,
it became clear that DCC was shifting the scope of its “collective” conversation. CUE’s
reflection tools are designed for an individual to reflect, then for inter-individual conversation to
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
118
take place to share those reflections. This results in an institution communicating what issues it
sees and how to address them. DCC’s early adopters conversed in an unexpected manner by
shifting the institutional communication to the state-level at various times with and without state-
level stakeholders present. Also, through the use of the syllabus analysis tool, Subramaniam
(2012) and this study were able to investigate in what way the syllabus analysis tool acts as a
remediating artifact (Dowd, Sawatzky, and Rall, 2011; Dowd, Pak, and Bensimon, 2013). It was
developed based on culturally responsive pedagogies and is an instrument used interaction and to
promote inquiry through social interaction/reflection. The tool touches on respect for students,
desire to help students, information students needs to successfully act on the information in the
syllabus, validation of racial diversity, validation of a multitude of diversities, validation of other
forms of diversity, validation of the value of differences in prior educational experiences, and
several other indicators.
Research Questions
The analysis presented later in this chapter led me to conclude the following regarding
each research question:
(1) What are the characteristics of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool?
The syllabus analysis tool is intended as a remediating artifact. It was developed based on
culturally responsive pedagogies. The issues the tool addresses are whether a syllabus includes
the faculty member’s expressions of respect and desire to help students, information students
need to act on to be successful, as well as validation of racial diversity; ethnic diversity (shared
ancestry, language, national heritage, religious beliefs, community norms); other forms of
diversity; and valuing differences in prior educational experiences.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
119
(2) What characteristics of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool are associated with changes in
practitioners’ beliefs, attitudes, knowledge and behaviors?
Subramaniam (2012) determined CUE’s syllabus reflection tool influences the beliefs,
attitudes, knowledge and behaviors of practitioners within the activity system. This study
determined the tool does not work when practitioners lack sufficient time and space to
communicate about the tool in a reflective manner with one another, and do not have a shared
sense of purpose (same object). Within the primary activity system, these elements were not
present. Therefore, the syllabus reflection tool was not effective of this study.
(3) In what ways (if any) is the use of CUE’s syllabus reflection tool in facilitated
settings associated with cultural change at an institution, for example, through
changes in social interactions or educational practices?
In the primary activity system of this study, a cultural change at the institution did not
occur for the new faculty. However, within other settings in the collaborative study, there was an
impact (Levonisova, 2012; Smith, 2012; Subramaniam, 2012). Most notably, the early adopters
in Subramaniam’s (2012) study had completed the cycle of inquiry and developed an adaptive
expertise. They were sharing their knowledge, beliefs, and reflections through social interaction
at the primary activity system in my study. Additional details as to how I was able to arrive at
these conclusions are included in the data analysis section of this chapter.
Summary of Coded Data and Nature of Inquiry
Table 4.1 provides insights as to how participants reacted and behaved during the action
inquiry process at the primary activity system of this study: a CUE facilitated workshop for new
faculty (Activity System D). The data gathered from the observations were different. The faculty
and administrator from Subramaniam’s study (2012) are labeled as early adopters (EAs) and had
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
120
attended at least one of two prior syllabus review workshops. However, the main focus of this
study was potential new adopters, the newly hired full-time faculty (NF). Out of the sixteen new
faculty who completed the workshop, all but two had not attended a CUE workshop before at
DCC. The two new faculty who had attended at one CUE facilitated workshop had worked at
DCC as part-time faculty the year before. Consistent with an inquiry process and my conceptual
framework and as shown in Table 4.1, the data I coded was categorized across the steps of the
inquiry process with a large amount of data coded in certain ways which resulted in themes
discussed in the data analysis section of this chapter.
Table 4.1
Frequency Counts from CUE Facilitated Workshop for New Faculty (Activity System D) --
Summary of Codes Assigned Through Deductive Data Analysis
Data from
Early Adopters
(EAs)
Data from New
Faculty (NF)
Total # Total %
Attitudes/Beliefs 11 11 22 35.0%
Knowledge 2 2 4 6.3%
Social Interaction 7 1 8 12.7%
Reflection 5 2 7 11.1%
Problem
Identification
2 3 5 7.9%
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
6 7 13 20.6%
Action (Inaction)/
Experience
1 2 3 4.8%
Other 0 1 1 1.6%
Table 4.1 shows the distribution codes that were applied to the data gathered from DCC in
February 2012. There are two codes in which both groups were strong: attitudes/beliefs and
experimentation/problem solving. There are four codes in which both groups were considered
weak—knowledge, problem identification, action (inaction)/experience, and other. In regard to
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
121
these codes, there are not sufficient examples to draw from to include in this study. Lastly, there
are two codes in which the early adopters were strong, and the new faculty were classified was
weak. These codes have also been excluded since this study is seeking to determine if a CUE
facilitated syllabus review workshop had an impact on a beta group, specifically the new faculty.
In regard to the two areas in which the tally counts were considered strongest for both groups,
namely attitudes/beliefs and experimentation/problem solving, example statements from both
groups are included in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Exemplar Statements from Activity System D Relating to Strong Codes
Early Adopter New Faculty
Attitude/Belief Brian: “When the Academic
Senate did the workshop,
personally I found it
valuable.”
Administrator: “The syllabus
review workshop also changes
you.”
Dave: “Syllabus is not as
important. For me, I place an
emphasis on how I deliver it in
class.”
Emma: “I don’t have any
cultural or diversity issues.”
Experimentation/Problem
Solving
Cynthia: “We got this
checklist. And I revised my
syllabus from this checklist.
Now, I use the syllabus as a
teaching tool.”
Donna: “Several semesters of
disruption with technology
have added changes to my
syllabi. I mention ear buds,
toner in printer, and
parameters of laptops.”
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
122
The early adopters and the new faculty had very similar levels in regard to their attitudes/beliefs,
knowledge, problem identification, and experimentation/problem solving. Where these two
groups differed widely was in regard to their statements regarding social interaction and
reflection. This is because of the amount of time the early adopters had had within the cycle of
inquiry (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1. The Cycle of Inquiry for New Faculty at CUE Facilitated Workshop
Three of the early adopters at the workshop had attended the first CUE facilitated workshop at
DCC eleven months before. Also, the task the early adopters at the workshop were asked do was
to reflect on their prior experiences at one or more CUE facilitated workshops or social
interactions that followed those workshops. The new faculty were at a disadvantage in these two
areas since all but two were new to CUE facilitated workshops. This was their first social
CUE Tools for Promoting
New Knowledge
• Workshop PPTs
• Microaggressions
handout
• Equity minded
terms
CUE Activity System
• Syllabus review
workshop
CUE Data Tool
• CUE facilitator
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
123
interaction within the activity system. It should be noted that a significant portion of the new
faculty statements regarding their attitudes/beliefs, problem identification, and
experimentation/problem solving did not employ equity minded language. This is reflected in the
manner in which their comments related to portions of the cycle of inquiry (Table 4.1), but their
comments did not follow the pattern in which they identified problems through data analysis.
They also expressed few statements regarding action/experience. Therefore, adaptive expertise
was not developed by the new faculty within the workshop and the cycle of inquiry was not
completed.
Prior to analyzing the data in the series of activity systems A through D introduced in
Chapter 3, I will summarize Subramaniam’s (2012) study conducted at DCC which overlapped
with my data collection. Of particular note is that many of the events in this study used as data
points are shared with Subramaniam’s (2012) study. Note that the primary setting of this study
(Activity System D) is not included in the data of her study.
Summary of Prior Study at DCC
Prior to this study, Subramaniam (2012) conducted a developmental evaluation of action
research at DCC which focused on how practitioners’ involvement in action inquiry remediated
their beliefs, assumptions and values. This study used a different combination of CUE’s tools
than those profiled in this study: the BESST and two versions of the Syllabus Review Protocol.
The practitioners’ inquiry process was comprised of their reflecting on the data, planning to
address the problems identified, engaging in an inquiry plan and additional assessment of their
planned remedies. From this study, five themes emerged based upon reflective activities that
targeted six practitioners’ beliefs, assumptions and behaviors. These themes center around (1)
agency: in the classroom and institutionally; (2) uncertainty about how to include culturally
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
124
inclusive pedagogy; (3) wishing for broader institutional involvement and buy-in; (4) conformity
versus academic freedom; and (5) application of beliefs and past experiences to current context.
Only the collaborative themes that relate to my primary study will be summarized in this section.
The practitioners engaged in the inquiry process and their level of participation permitted
them to determine that the way in which they communicate with their students has an effect on
learning outcomes. Therefore, the practitioners’ self-view and behaviors were necessary to begin
institutional changes in the college’s stated vision to “ensure access, equity and success for
students by providing comprehensive educational opportunities throughout our communities”
(District Vision Statement, 2012).
The theme of conformity versus academic freedom was also raised in Subramaniam’s
study (2012) in which one faculty member asked if the syllabus is a legal document. She did not
receive a clear answer from the sole administrator at the workshop, so she reiterated, “We have
to know if it is a legal document.” This frame of mind provides the context for determining if the
college was adopting a template-like syllabus that all faculty must use as opposed to allowing
them their academic freedom to present information as they choose.
The theme of the practitioners applying their beliefs and past experiences to the their
current context was also relevant. The Syllabus Review Protocol exposed the practitioners to the
opportunity to collaborate as well as to create planned actions and remedies that would result in
behavioral changes at the college. This joint-effort resulted in co-constructed knowledge in
which “sense making, synthesis, reflections, and mediated practices … ultimately [led] to action
and change” (Subramaniam, 2012, p.162). The practitioners’ purposeful dialogue that occurred
through CUE’s tools in this study—the BESST and Syllabus Review Protocol—created an action
research project at DCC: the Syllabus Review Project. The process in creating the Project
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
125
strengthened the practitioners’ personal relationships and permitted them to become alert to their
personal beliefs and attitudes by “identifying historical roots of both individual and collective
belief systems” (Subramaniam, 2012, p. 162).
Data Analysis
This section analyzes the series of activity systems in regard to the CHAT framework,
sociocultural community, and disturbances. The context of these four activity systems was
provided in Chapter 3.
First Syllabus Review Workshop at DCC (Activity System A)
At the first syllabus review workshop at DCC, the faculty participants engaged in an
activity with the object to close student achievement and persistence gaps (Figure 4.2). The DCC
faculty who attended the CUE workshop are the subjects in this activity because they completed
the entire workshop and interacted with the tool. The tool that supported this activity was CUE’s
Syllabus Reflection Protocol. The rules that guided this activity were some modeling from CUE
research practitioners, the participants’ academic freedom, and during the presentation, adhering
to the status quo by paying attention and taking notes. This activity was situated as an inter-
individual community in which the faculty attendees are working with one another and the CUE
research assistants to use the tool. They are also being observed by DCC administrators who
attended the presentation portion of the workshop but did not complete the activity. The division
of labor was defined by specific roles that occurred during the presentation and while the tool
was being used by the subjects: faculty worked in groups using the protocol, and CUE research
practitioners worked with each group. The outcome from this activity system was DCC faculty
stating their intention to produce more equity minded syllabi and a professed desire to share the
tool with other DCC faculty.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
126
Figure 4.2. Activity System A: First Syllabus Reflection Workshop Facilitated by CUE at DCC
The thick shaded line denotes a disturbance between two elements in the activity system.
Within this activity system, it might be assumed that the setting is institutional since
administrators and faculty are at the same activity. However, there was a division of labor in that
the faculty used the tool whereas the administrators in the room either left the room, observed the
faculty or talked with the CUE co-director during the break-out session in which the syllabus
reflection protocol was being used. The object was influenced by the separation between the
community–the subjects (faculty) were being observed or ignored by administrators rather than
the administrators interacting with them throughout the entire activity. Therefore, the community
is classified as inter-individual since the subject in Activity System A was the collaborative
group of faculty that used the tool rather than the institutional group of faculty and
administrators.
Object
Close DCC student
achievement and
persistence gaps
Tools
Syllabus Reflection Protocol
Subject
DCC faculty
participants
Community
Inter-individual (DCC)
Administration
Division of Labor
CUE facilitators present
Faculty in breakout groups
CUE research assistants advise
Rules
CUE research practitioners’
reflections on tool
Academic freedom
Status-quo
Outcome
Intent to produce more equity-
minded syllabi
Share this tool with other DCC
faculty
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
127
The outcome was achieved and addressed within Subramaniam’s (2012) study in which
the participants reflected on their partner’s syllabi and this gave them the chance to assess their
own syllabi through using the list of equity-minded indicators that may not have been considered
before this workshop. In this activity system, a disturbance (noted with a thick shaded line)
existed between the rules and the outcome of the activity. A concern was shared during the
reflective discussion that the faculty were fearful whether other DCC faculty would accept the
college requiring a standard syllabus template with culturally responsive pedagogy elements. In
Subramaniam’s (2012) study, Brian said,
I have a bad feeling about taking it to the larger group to ask them if their syllabus has the
indicators listed. If they don’t then what is next? Should we then ask if these indicators
are needed on the syllabus; if yes, then where should they go? I feel faculty will be
threatened. (p. 125)
Brian’s reflection refers to the tension that exists between faculty having academic freedom and
being held to decisions made through collegial consultation
1
. There are times that key
institutional players—faculty leaders and administration—will make a shared decision to
prescribe one way to do an activity. This tension is a historically deep one in that faculty often
support a similar-role group (e.g., Academic Senate, Curriculum) making such a decision since
they are members of the same group; however, if the group is a divided-role group, e.g.,
academic council comprised of administrators and faculty, then faculty are less likely to support
any locally decided mandates (Engeström, 2008; Standler, 2000). However, this disturbance was
resolved over time when the DCC faculty achieved the outcome of sharing the tool with other
1
The historical tension between academic freedom and adhering to legal mandates is beyond the
scope of this example.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
128
DCC faculty rather than mandating that a template be shared with all DCC faculty. The
resolutions of this tension exist in Activity Systems C and D.
In the above activity, the DCC faculty and administrators faced a disturbance between
improving student achievement levels and what classroom-level interventions faculty could
implement to result in a positive change. In order to alleviate this tension, the DCC faculty and
administrators who already had a working relationship with CUE invited them to introduce
faculty to a tool that seeks to have faculty reflect upon and remediate the manner in which they
use their syllabus. Through the discussion at the workshop, it was clear that the majority of
faculty would be implementing some culturally responsive practices in their future syllabi.
DCC Early Adopters Present at Statewide CUE Symposium (Activity System B)
Within the CHAT framework, the tool that was being used in this activity system (Figure
4.3) was the CUE reflection handout in which the attendees kept a record of their insights,
questions and dilemmas for each college that was reporting. These categories were broken into
four themes that each college was asked to report on: buy-in, culture of inquiry/standards of
evidence, sustained focus, and resource leveraging.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
129
Figure 4.3. Activity System B: DCC Sharing their Experience at Statewide Symposium
Facilitated by CUE
The subject of this activity system were the 32 attendees who represent 10 colleges from within
the CUE Alliance Network and other colleges. The outcomes for the activity were based on the
high level of evaluation responses in which the evaluators found the symposium highly valuable
and stated they planned to discuss topics from the symposium with a colleague who had not
attended that day. The object of the morning panel was to provide the subjects with suggestions
of best practices as well as pitfalls that may occur in moving an equity minded practices forward
at their institution. This task was divided up among faculty and administrators who were willing
to share what had occurred at their campus with the attendees. The rules of the activity system
was the status quo since presentations were being given and there was little time left for
discussion in each session. The community was institutional in its scope since it was comprised
of CUE’s Alliance Network colleges and other colleges.
Object
To share best
practices and pitfalls.
Tools
CUE reflection handout for
College Panel Discussion
Subject
Symposium
attendees
Community
Institutional (State-wide)
CUE Alliance Network
Colleges
Division of Labor
Administrator: administrative
point-of-view
Cynthia: faculty & operational
point-of-view
Other presenters on morning
panel
Afternoon panel
Rules, Norms, & Traditions
Listen to presenters, ask
questions, and take notes using
tool
Outcome
Found symposium highly
valuable
Plan to discuss symposium
topics with non-attending
colleagues
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
130
What is most unique about this activity system is that the object of the activity was
socially oriented for the subjects. This was different from the objects analyzed in the three other
activity systems in this study. This is due to this activity system having a different structure than
the other three settings and the attendees’ prior experiences. Each of the 32 practitioners at the
symposium had attended at least one prior CUE facilitated workshop in the past. Their
motivation to learn more about CUE’s tools was more intrinsic than extrinsic (Schunk, Pintrich,
& Meece, 2008). They valued what they were learning since they had chosen to attend the
symposium. By dedicating their time to this topic, they deepened their understanding of equity
minded practices as well as well as developed a broader community with which to discuss it in.
All of the evaluation comments confirm this is no longer an institutional community, but
a state-wide one. In applying Rogoff’s (1995) framework of three types of sociocultural activity
within communities, the best practices that were shared at the morning presentation were being
shared across institutions rather than within institutions [emphasis added]. Since all in attendance
work within the same field of higher education, they adhere to many of the same regulations and
cultural practices; they also might have similar goals. Therefore, Rogoff’s framework permits
this to be an institutional discussion on a broader scale. The data being considered for analysis
only includes that related to Dynamic Community College rather than the entire morning panel.
Also of note is that no tensions or disruptions were clearly identifiable within this activity
system.
Beta Adopter Planning Meeting (Activity System C)
At the next activity system I collected field notes at, the tool being used was not a CUE
tool, but a timeline that Subramaniam used to communicate to the DCC participants of the work
that had been accomplished and to ensure they knew the timeline for upcoming tasks (Figure
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
131
4.4). This timeline was drafted in August 2011 to plan out the year of activities that
Subramaniam would undertake as well as DCC participants. The tool had 13 steps listed on it;
however, revisions were noted with text that had been struck through.
Figure 4.4. Activity System C: Beta Adopter Planning Meeting Facilitated by CUE at DCC
The subjects are the DCC participants who had met multiple times with CUE facilitators. The
object of this planning meeting was to build upon the momentum that existed at the college. That
was accomplished by the outcomes of updating the CUE doctoral researcher’s timeline and
determining who the beta group would be and what they would be learning. The rules that
directed the planning of future activities were the academic calendar and the practitioners’ prior
experience. The division of labor was clear but coordinated between three groups: CUE
facilitators, administrator, and faculty. The CUE facilitators would lead the workshop, report on
the initial early adopter results, and conduct pre- and post-workshop cognitive interviews; the
DCC administrator would invite the faculty to the event and provide an introduction at the
Object
Build on momentum
at DCC
Tools
Subramaniam’s timeline
Subject
DCC
Participants
Community
Institutional
State-wide
Division of Labor
CUE facilitators
Administration
Faculty leaders
Rules
Academic Calendar
Tasks accomplished
Outcome
Early adopter timeline set
Beta group identified and
workshop developed.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
132
workshop; and the early adopter faculty, specifically the Academic Senate President, would
attend the workshop and share their personal experiences with the beta group.
The community was the institution of DCC and toward the end, the participants discussed
equity-issue related points based on their interactions with individuals who are at other
institutions or serve in a state-wide role.
A major discussion point throughout the planning meeting was DCC claiming it was
gaining momentum using CUE’s tools, so the participants wanted to share the knowledge they
had gained with other faculty at the institution. They acknowledged that not every prior DCC
participant at CUE facilitated workshops valued the training, but this group was seeking for a
beta group that would share the knowledge with a larger section of the faculty.
Brian: “I felt a lot of nay saying. There’s every reason why this won’t work. There’s a
little bit you could pick up on. We need more traction on this. It happens all the
time.”
Keith: “We’re seeding these groups.”
In this statement, Keith references that the intent with identifying the beta group was to expand
the faculty’s knowledge of the CUE tools being used at DCC. By selecting a group that was
different from the Early Adopter group, the planning team hoped to gain more momentum. In
order to achieve the desired outcome of this meeting, the DCC participants wanted the input
from the CUE facilitators as to which type of group to select:
Cynthia: “Let’s brainstorm who will be in the next group with Alicia.”
Cynthia: “Do we want cohesive groups? Or non-collective groups?”
CUE Doctoral Researcher: “Cohesive groups.”
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
133
The DCC early adopters determine that they want a unified group but it is not determined which
group that would be without prompting from the CUE doctoral researcher.
CUE: “Are we following up with the new faculty?”
Administrator: “That would be a new group to bring on board for the spring.”
Practitioner: “That’s the group we want. We want additional members.”
The issue of mandatory attendance was discussed. When the department heads were under
consideration as a beta group, two faculty members discussed time constraints would be an issue.
The team considered selectively choosing which department chairs would attend as well as not
making the training mandatory. The academic senate president couched it as advisable to
participate:
Brian: “It’s not mandatory, but a good thing to do.”
One reason why the new faculty were chosen to be the beta group was that their attendance was
mandatory at the training meeting whereas the faculty acknowledged that department heads as a
group would not attend. The DCC early adopters debated selectively inviting department heads
to join the group. After more consideration, it was determined that a cohesive group that would
all attend a CUE facilitated training would more easily achieve the desired outcome of spreading
the word about equity-based tools.
These concerns raised in this planning meeting circled around issues that remained
hidden until the new faculty workshop (Activity System D) occurred. Within any activity
system, there are limitations on space, time, division of labor, and the categorization of
knowledge. Some of the issues were raised in the planning meeting (Activity System C), namely
the timing of the workshop and the division of labor. At the close of this meeting, all the
participants felt as if answers addressing these hidden boundaries had been addressed. In regards
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
134
to time, the planning team had looked at time at a macro-level – when during the semester to
hold the workshop. What was not discussed was the micro-level in the timing of each portion of
the workshop. Also determined in the planning meeting was the division of labor in the new
faculty workshop. Two parties, the CUE facilitators, and the DCC early adopters, would divide
the work and share the knowledge they each have about CUE’s tools. These hidden boundaries
are not disturbances within Activity System C itself, but will have an impact on the number and
type of disturbances that exist within Activity System D.
Syllabus Reflection Workshop for New Faculty (Activity System D)
Within this activity system, there were two overlapping CHAT frameworks for the two
subjects; one was for the Early Adopters and the other for the new faculty (potential beta group).
Even though these two subjects were in the same setting, the tools, communities, division of
labor, and objects varied. With such differences, it was necessary to create two CHAT
frameworks delineated by the subjects. Both groups shared the same outcome.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
135
Figure 4.5. Activity System D with Early Adopter Team as Subject
Figure 4.6. Activity System D with
New Faculty as Subject
Object
To have a beta group
inquire about culturally
responsive pedagogy
Tools
Mediating artifact:
Syllabus / Syllabus Reflection Protocol
Subject
Early Adopter
Faculty
Community
Institutional
DCC
Division of Labor
CUE facilitators worked with
DCC Early Adopters to achieve
object – a beta group of
adopters.
Rules, Norms & Traditions
Empower new faculty
Outcome
Beta group as a team did not
inquire about culturally
responsive pedagogy to
promote student success.
Object
To attend a new faculty
training
Tools
Mediating artifacts:
Equity minded language
Syllabus / Syllabus Reflection Protocol
Subject
New Faculty
Community
Inter-individual (DCC)
Division of Labor
New faculty worked by
themselves and in teams
CUE facilitators were resources
throughout activity.
The whole group participated in
reflection of activity
Rules, Norms & Traditions
To attend new faculty training
To bring own syllabus to training
To listen to the presenters
To get tenure by doing what is expected
of untenured faculty.
Outcome
Beta group as a team did not
inquire about culturally
responsive pedagogy to
promote student success.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
136
In the activity system (Figure 4.5) in which the Early Adopter faculty are the subject, and
the mediating artifact is the syllabus reflection tool. Note that this activity system targets the
earlier portion of the workshop, that of preparing to use the tools and reflecting upon prior
activity systems. The object for these subjects is for a beta group to value the tool so they reflect
upon their own syllabus and inquire about its contents through the lens of culturally responsive
pedagogy. The rules, norms and traditions in this activity system were to express a message of
empowerment to the target group, the new faculty. Within this setting, the community is
institutional at the college. The division of labor was divided between the CUE facilitators
presenting their findings and the Early Adopters working towards the goal of obtaining a beta
group. The new faculty were not included in this category since they were the recipients of the
labor rather than being active themselves. The outcome from this activity was that the beta
group, the new faculty, did not inquire about culturally responsive pedagogy to promote student
success. The reason for this will be discussed later in this chapter during the analysis of the
themes.
In Figure 4.6, there is an overlapping activity system at the new faculty workshop with
the subject being the 16 newly hired full-time faculty. Note that this activity system targets the
latter portion of the workshop, that of using the tool and reflecting upon it. The tool that this
subject was using was their own syllabus with CUE’s syllabus reflection protocol written with
equity minded language. The object for these faculty was to attend a mandatory training for new
full-time faculty. The rules for the subject were to attend this mandatory training and listen to the
presentation. This type of activity is viewed by the untenured faculty as one of many
requirements to obtain their career goal of being tenured. They were also instructed to bring a
syllabus to the training; however, since seven of them work in student affairs, a good portion of
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
137
the faculty did not bring a syllabus. During the activity, the community was inter-individual
since the new faculty were instructed to reflect upon their syllabus, use the tool to evaluate their
syllabus, and then discuss their thoughts with those in their breakout group. The division of labor
was the new faculty worked by themselves for a few minutes (exact time varied for each
individual and group) and then worked in their breakout group using the tool. CUE facilitators
went to each group to ensure any questions were answered about using the tool with the syllabus.
Then when the group reassembled, the CUE facilitator asked the new faculty to share their
reflections with all the workshop attendees, DCC early adopters included.
Equity minded terms was one set of tools the workshop participants were given. These
terms existed in the pre-workshop interview, a practitioner’s self-view, the Syllabus Review
protocol, the post-workshop survey, and other documents. The Center for Urban Education uses
them in an effort to encourage personal reflection and thereby organizational learning that
involves the “(a) the presence of new ideas, (b) the cultivation of doubt in existing knowledge
and practices, and (c) the transfer of knowledge among institutional actors” (Lorenz, 2012, p.
46). During the reflection portion of the workshop, these terms were not widely used by the new
faculty. So this tool was not deemed effective in this activity system.
There is a difference in the communities within these two overlapping activity systems
(Figures 4.5 and 4.6). For the early adopters, their community was at the macro-level of the
institution. This was exhibited when the early adopters presented their reflections using CUE
tools in prior workshops. Their object was to have the new faculty become the beta group to
adopt CUE’s culturally responsive pedagogy and inform their reflection into their past and
present practices regarding student success. During the breakout session in which the syllabus
reflection tool was being used, the community for the new faculty was not that of the institution,
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
138
but between themselves. Therefore, it was inter-individual in nature since the DCC early
adopters did not interact with the new faculty during this reflective exercise. The CUE
facilitators did interact with the new faculty, but only to address concerns they had in using the
tool as it applied to their syllabus. During the discussion portion of this activity, the CUE co-
director asked for the new faculty to share their reflections. The DCC early adopters listened
during this time rather than participated in the conversation, except for the Academic Senate
President who responded to one faculty’s request for answers through an empowerment
statement: “You can provide suggestions.”
2
One disturbance that occurred within the new faculty activity system is that of the
purpose of the tool and the object of the subject. The tool is designed to promote reflection on
one’s own practices through an equity lens; however, the goal the new faculty had in attending
the workshop was to meet their contractual obligation as untenured faculty members. They
attend meetings they are directed to since they are viewed by the institution as “at-will”
employees rather than “for cause” employees (Standler, 2000). An “at-will” employee can have
his/her contract ended for any reason whereas a “for cause” employee can only be terminated for
good reason followed by a formal review. Tenured faculty are insulated from what they may
consider minor infractions of stated and unstated breaches in policy, e.g., not attending a
meeting. Therefore, attending this workshop was a priority for the new faculty since they are
untenured and are not actively seeking reasons to end their contract with the college. Their
motivation for attending the workshop was not the same as those practitioners in Activity System
A in which a majority of faculty were tenured. This disconnect between the two subjects
2
In this study, no follow-up queries were made of the early adopters and what they learned by
listening to the new faculty’s reflections on the syllabus reflection protocol. This is because the
new faculty were the target population of this study rather than the early adopters.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
139
(Activity System A = DCC early adopters versus Activity System D = New faculty) had a direct
impact on the outcome of Activity D in which the potential beta group did not share the same
object as the early adopters in Activity System A: an intent to produce more equity-minded
syllabi and to share the tool with other DCC faculty.
The majority of disturbances within these activity systems are unique in that they occur
across the two activity systems rather than within them. The first disturbance between the
activity systems is that between the rules, norms and traditions in Figures 4.5 and 4.6. One of the
major rules that was established in Activity System C was the need for this CUE facilitated
workshop to seed the beta group. This led to a plan by which the early adopters and CUE
facilitators sought to empower the new faculty and it is evident in statements made in Activity
System D:
Cynthia: “If we all apply CUE’s culturally relevant pedagogy to our syllabi, then
students are going to feel welcome.”
CUE: “We as educators can rethink how we can push against legacies of
discrimination.”
Brian: “You can provide suggestions on how your syllabus can teach students how to
adapt to college culture.”
In the activity system for the faculty, the rules, norms and traditions they were adhering to was to
attend a mandatory training, bring a syllabus, listen to the presenters all in an effort to get tenure.
This disruption is one regarding motivation – the early adopter team wanted the new faculty to
feel empowered while at the same time the new faculty felt powerless in directing their own
learning at this mandatory training session.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
140
A second disruption existed between the objects of each subjects. For the early adopters,
their goal or object was to have a beta group use CUE’s tool and inquire about culturally relevant
choices they had made in their syllabus. This goal was an achievable one in their minds since
they had participated in a similar workshop (Activity System A) and achieved an outcome in
which they sought to share their new knowledge with others. But for the new faculty, it was
apparent from the pre-workshop cognitive interviews they were not well informed as to the topic
of the workshop and that they were informed their goal was to adopt the college’s equity agenda
by becoming the beta group. Prior to the workshop I conducted a pre-workshop interview with 6
of the new faculty (Appendix B). In this interview, each new faculty was asked if they were
familiar with DCC’s partnership with CUE on the Syllabus Project. Only one respondent
answered that he was whereas two others had heard of the project from other faculty. The
remaining three faculty did not know anything about the project.
Familiar with Syllabus Project
Carlos: “I have been a participant in this collaboration almost since the beginning since
USC came and talked about the idea of the syllabus and what is a syllabus.”
Somewhat familiar with Syllabus Project
Mike: “I know the syllabus project is a project that has been designed to help faculty
create syllabi that not only communicate the goals of their classes, but also
communicate them in such as way as to eliminate like the fact … [faculty’s]
affective concerns.”
Emma: “Not much.… We had a syllabus training session. They mentioned some of,
like, the program. Other than that, I don’t know much.”
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
141
Not familiar with Syllabus Project
Dave: “I really don’t know much at all actually.”
Linda: “I know very little. I have not looked at the NFI [New Faculty Institute] binder.”
Julie: “I don’t know much about it. Actually, I don’t know anything about it (laughs).”
Since only 6 of the 17 new faculty were interviewed prior to the workshop, it is difficult to draw
conclusions from these responses; however, when added to the data from the activity system,
these responses suggest a disruption exists between what the early adopters wanted to have
happen and what the new faculty were expecting to happen. The early adopters wanted a beta
group to take on the college’s equity initiative. The new faculty wanted to attend a mandatory
training so they would not jeopardize their training. This disruption between the two subjects
was alluded to by Engeström (2008):
Objects are not formed at will. They are shaped in and through the largely tacit
‘punctuation of experience’ (Bateson, 1972) that is stabilized by means of the hidden
boundaries of time, space, division of labor, and categorization of knowledge. To make
possible a reconceptualization of the object, the hidden boundaries must be made visible
and questioned. (p. 87)
The structure of the workshop had some hidden boundaries addressed during the planning
process, but there was an additional hidden agenda in the objects of each group. It was not
addressed in the planning meeting (Activity System C), but was addressed in an e-mail sent to
the early adopters and CUE facilitators a few days prior to the training. The Administrator who
raised this boundary stated: “Another point to be sensitive to is that we have faculty present that
do not primarily teach (librarians and several counselors). To that end, the language that we use
about the foundational ideas that drive this are important.” It is unclear which language in the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
142
workshop was deemed important to align the two subjects’ objects to have similar outcomes.
Therefore, it is unclear if the language used by the Early Adopters and CUE facilitators had an
impact on the outcome at this activity system.
Analysis of Themes
This section describes three themes found exclusively occurring with the newly hired
full-time faculty: empowerment, group cohesiveness does not mean they share the same goals,
and the importance of matching the tools (time and space) to the right group.
Theme unique to this study: Empowerment
Throughout the workshop, a series of statements were made by the CUE co-director and
Early Adopters that reflected their beliefs and attitudes toward CUE’s tools. Schien (1992)
claimed that outside consultants can stimulate a company’s culture and this action allows the in
situ practitioners to educate and reshape their thinking and attitudes over time. The result from
this action is that the outsiders (CUE co-director and early adopters) lead subgroups (new
faculty) and reshape the existing cultures of those subgroups to become more successful.
Statements from the CUE co-director reflected this:
CUE: “On day one of classes, we can invite students into a community of learning. I
tell my students this is not a contract.”
CUE: “These faculty [Early Adopters] were keen on making changes.”
CUE: “Your senior colleagues are wishing for more involvement.”
CUE: “Bringing in your own experience is helpful.”
There was also evidence of this when the Early Adopters reflected on their prior experiences at
CUE facilitated workshops:
Administrator: “The syllabus review workshop changes you.”
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
143
Administrator: “We appreciate what CUE is doing to help us pry open the syllabus
discussion. I love the microaggression piece.”
Brian: “When the Academic Senate did the workshop, personally I found it valuable.’
Brian: “So I decided I’m going to shift. Instead of meeting my dean’s needs, I’m going
to meet my students’ needs.”
These statements laid the groundwork for the CUE facilitator and leadership at DCC to
encourage the newly faculty to value the reflective nature of CUE’s tools.
CUE: “You’re new faculty and new faculty have ideas. You have permission to share
your great ideas with other faculty. The invitation to converse for this dialogue is
present here.”
Brian: “You can provide suggestions.”
Cynthia: “We’re thrilled to have our new faculty and to hear your experience from other
colleges.”
Administrator: “I appreciate everyone’s thoughtfulness and authenticity.”
Throughout the workshop, the early adopters were informally mentoring the new faculty and
providing them with the authority to change their syllabi. They did this through sharing their own
personal stories of what they learned from the CUE workshops and how they have changed since
that time. Some early adopters shared with the faculty a template of the changes they had made.
This foundation in which faculty leaders at DCC were sharing how and what they had
learned was intended to establish a meaningful dialogue with the new faculty. McArthur (2002)
states that a key way to improve the productivity of a team is to engage coworkers in a
meaningful dialogue. The dialogue response from the new faculty was mixed. Some focused on
how their syllabi could be more equity minded, but some faculty did not bring syllabus to the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
144
workshop. Some focused on the delivery of the syllabus rather than the content while others
focused on the issue of meeting each student’s disability accommodations. Not all of these foci
aligned with what the Syllabus Reflection Protocol was designed to do. However, the new
faculty may have felt empowered to address any issue associated with a syllabus rather than
those based on culturally responsive pedagogy.
A new faculty member asked how to make culturally responsive changes to her syllabi
and many new faculty nodded their heads in agreement. It is clear that the new faculty attributed
some type of power to the CUE co-director as well as the early adopters who were facilitating
their learning. This query shows that in the mind of the subject (new faculty), the presenters were
more expert and could exert their power over what the subject would ultimately do. In Fishbein
and Ajzen (2010), five types of power developed by French and Raven (1959) are highlighted
regarding the ways “other people can exert influence on [other’s] behavior because they possess
one or more types of power” (p. 130). These are (1) reward power, in which the social agent is
seen as someone who rewards desired behavior; (2) coercive power, in which the social agent is
seen as someone who punishes undesired behavior; (3) legitimate power, in which the social
agent has the right to exert power because of his/her role in a group; (4) expert power, in which a
social agent is given power because of his/her knowledge, expertise, or skills; and (5) referent
power, in which the social agent is given power because the other individual wants to be like the
social agent (p. 130).
The types of power that apply to the primary setting are reward power, legitimate power
and expert power. The new faculty were aware that they are untenured and they are seeking that
reward from their more expert social agents who have the power to deny tenure. At this
workshop, the Administrator was the vice president of student affairs who directly oversees the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
145
tenure of 7 new faculty members and may have some influence on the tenure status of the other 9
instructional faculty. This training may not have targeted a topic that they valued, but they did
not want to jeopardize getting tenure by not attending this workshop with her playing such a
central role in training them on a topic she valued. Also, the new faculty attributed that the social
agents presenting to them were the leaders of the group as well as experts in sharing their
knowledge. The workshop and the tools used within it are designed for the learner to construct
his/her learning. The learner has some knowledge of the target activity, e.g., writing a syllabus,
but the tools work as a guide to help the learner understand the task in a new manner. In order for
this to occur, meaningful dialogue, guided discovery and supervised participation in purposeful
tasks must take place. There is evidence that dialogue did occur but it was not focused on equity
outcomes. The guided discovery activity in which the newly hired full-time faculty critically
analyzed their own syllabi against CUE’s tool was not as effective as planned since a few faculty
did not bring their syllabus to the workshop. Lastly, the breakout groups were supervised by
CUE facilitators but when the group reconvened, it is unclear as to whether the task itself had
been meaningful for the new faculty.
Theme unique to this study: Cohesive Group ≠ Shared Goals
Another issue that arose within my primary setting was the importance that the subject
(new faculty) share the same outcome (becoming the beta group) after using the tool (Syllabus
Review Protocol). This issue was addressed in a communication between the DCC early adopters
and CUE facilitators as the workshop was in its final planning stages. The Administrator stated
in an e-mail:
“I believe that a substantial sub-set of the group will want to become new adopters, but
think that the framing of it is critical. Another point to be sensitive to is that we have
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
146
faculty present that do not primarily teach (librarians and counselors). To that end, the
language that we use about the foundational ideas that drive this are important.”
If specific steps with which to address this issue were taken, it was not shared with the entire
planning group. It is difficult for me to determine if any effort was made by this workshop’s
planning group to ensure that this group (subject) would not be divided by the topic (the tool)
and be able to share the same purpose (outcome). The evidence indicates an insufficient level of
attention was given to ensure that this disturbance did not occur.
The first evidence collected to support this was during the pre-workshop cognitive
interviews conducted the week before the workshop. Of the six faculty queried, half of them
were unfamiliar with CUE’s work and the tools, namely culturally responsive terms, to which
they would be exposed. While the number of conducted interviews is not significant to draw
strong conclusions from, it alludes to a concept shared by Engeström (2008) that if a team does
not place value on a specific task, then desired goals will not result in an outcome. In this
instance, the team of new faculty had little knowledge about the training and what they would be
learning. The early adopters had a desired outcome that had been expressed in a prior activity
system weeks before. But the lack of pre-workshop knowledge the new faculty received resulted
in the early adopter’s desired goal not developing.
The subject not having a shared object was a monumental disturbance at the workshop
that effected the outcome of the activity: no beta group. One reason for this is out of the 16 new
faculty who completed the exercise, seven are from student affairs whose primary task at the
college is not to teach, but advise; therefore they do not use a syllabus on a regular basis. In the
six breakout groups, these seven faculty constituted one group of three and others were peppered
into three additional groups; two groups (of two attendees each) did not have any student affairs
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
147
faculty in their breakout group. It was later reported in the workshop evaluations and in post-
workshop cognitive interviews that some faculty did not bring a syllabus to the workshop as
instructed. This had a direct impact on the exercise and the tool being used in a meaningful
manner.
Engeström (2008) states that a team is “committed to a common purpose, performance
goals, and approach for which they hold themselves accountable” (p. 5). When DCC early
adopters selected the new faculty as the team to become the early adopters, they took these
qualities of a team into account. They mentioned that the new faculty had “bonded” and were
considered “cohesive”. These qualities lead the early adopters to believe that the new faculty had
a common purpose and a majority of them would “want to become new adopters.” However, the
hidden issues of these faculty valuing completing the tenure review process, and the training
being mandatory were not concerns of the early adopters. There was a strong disturbance
between the vision the early adopters had for the beta group and what the new faculty valued.
This resulted in both teams (early adopters and new faculty) having different objects and desired
outcomes; therefore, “their entire activity systems are qualitatively different” (Engeström, 2008,
p. 10) and incongruous. An additional layer to this disruption existed on an inter-individual level
rather than institutional. During the break-out session in which the new faculty formed teams,
when a student affairs faculty partnered with an instructional faculty, this lack of a shared
purpose (object) influenced the discussion that occurred during the activity. For example, one
team comprised Dave who teaches biology and Brett whose assignment is assisting disabled
students. Their reflections did not support the information shared within the tool and it was clear
that neither valued what it was trying to teach them.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
148
The impact of the tool was negligible because the use of a tool is not a shortcut to
building a community that has shared rules, norms, and traditions. When the entire group
reconvened, the CUE facilitator asked if the new faculty had any insights or thoughts that they
would like to share. There was a wide range of responses from the faculty. Some highlighted the
current existence of what they classify as culturally inclusive pedagogy, but this is reflected in
how the faculty member teaches rather than what is written in the syllabus:
Peter: “My discipline is about respect since we all have different life experiences. When
I teach, I share what’s appropriate through discussion rather than lecture.”
Dave: “I demonstrate respect for the students through the delivery of my syllabus….
Sensitivity is very important but the syllabus is not as important. For me, I place
such an emphasis on how I deliver the syllabus in class rather than what is written
in the syllabus.”
Through these comments, it is clear that some of the new faculty are not questioning the way
they have used their syllabi. They place little value on their syllabi as an instructional tool for
themselves and their students. This is a reflection upon the CUE tool of the Syllabus Review
Protocol in which the tool did not have the impact that was intended.
In contrast, during this same workshop, one of the Early Adopters, Cynthia, stated the
following: “At the prior Syllabus Review Workshop, we got this checklist and I revised my
syllabus from this checklist. Now, I use it as a teaching tool.” Lorenz (2012) claimed that one of
the essential conditions of how organizations learn is “the cultivation of doubt in existing
knowledge and practices” (p. 46). This Early Adopter faculty doubted the way in which she had
implemented her syllabus in the past and changed the manner in which she used it because of a
checklist that was adapted from CUE’s Syllabus Review Protocol. This resulted in a new
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
149
practice for her and her students. However, the new members who are the target of this study did
not express their interest in continuing to use CUE’s Syllabus Reflection tool.
Theme unique to this study: Matching the tool and resources (space and time) to the right
group
The use and impact of CUE’s syllabus analysis tool is an area this study differed from
Subramaniam’s (2012) study. In my primary setting, it became clear that CUE’s syllabus
analysis tool influences the beliefs, attitudes, knowledge and behaviors when a training is
structured so a group has time and space to communicate in a reflective manner with one
another, and when that group has a shared sense of purpose (object).
The tool does not work when those elements are missing. The space in which the
workshop was held was an auditorium possibly seating 70 individuals whereas the number of
attendees was only 20. The space was too large for the attendees to feel secure and develop a
reflective tone regarding their culturally minded personal beliefs. During the activity and
discussion, the majority of faculty sat around two long rectangular tables in the stage area of the
auditorium. However, two groups opted to stay seated in the auditorium section of the room and
were removed from possibly overhearing the groups in at the tables. Also, there was a limited
amount of time for the DCC faculty to use the tool. They were only given 45 minutes to use the
tool and then there was a 30-minute discussion on their reflections. The attendees went through a
portion of the inquiry cycle (Figure 4.1) when they shared their Knowledge, Beliefs, Reflection,
and Problem Identification; however, very few of their reflections and problem identification
comments were culturally minded and referenced the CUE syllabus reflection tool.
Within the primary setting, CUE initiated social interaction using the Syllabus Reflection
Protocol in which the 16 new faculty would share their knowledge and beliefs within a social
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
150
setting. Then the CUE facilitator asked for the participants to reflect. Within the cycle of inquiry,
the next step is problem identification through data analysis. However, during the reflection
activity of the workshop, there were very few problems identified based on themes provided by
the protocol (tool). Also, there were very few solutions reached for the “off topic” problems that
were identified because there was not sufficient time in the workshop and not every new faculty
member was a teacher who uses a syllabus.
A topic discussed during the planning meeting was the timing of the workshop. This
planning meeting was taking place a few weeks prior to the end of the fall term, so it was
suggested that a syllabus review workshop be scheduled before the winter break. However, one
faculty member stated that would not be a good idea:
Keith: “Faculty ignore everyone during finals week. They come back for the potluck.”
According to Wells (2011), “Various forms of direct instruction are valuable for certain
purposes.… This sort of talk often occurs, in the moment, as ‘just-in-time’ instruction.” (p. 178)
During the planning meeting (Activity System C) for the new faculty workshop, the
Administrator raised this issue so there was some awareness of matching the right tool with the
right resources, specifically timing.
Administrator: “I want to ask a question. We want to do this topic, but the timing is key.
The syllabus should be ready in August. Is the training ‘just-in-time’? Does it
depend on the model? Should we have something for spring? That’s the right
time. This could correct that.”
The CUE facilitated training for new faculty was scheduled at the beginning of the second week
of instruction of the spring term. So rather than being a “just-in-time” workshop for the faculty, it
was not positioned to be valuable. It was “too-late” instruction.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
151
Another issue is that while all 6 groups had a syllabus to review, not every attendee
brought a syllabus. It is not known how many faculty did not bring one. What is known is that
there was at least one syllabus for each group to use. For some attendees, the lack of a complete
tool—a syllabus they were very familiar with—meant that CUE’s syllabus analytical tool was
less effective. Within this activity, this is a disturbance that exists between the subjects and the
tool. This activity, as prior inter-individual activities that CUE facilitated at DCC, was designed
for the participants to reflect on their knowledge and beliefs and then to communicate those to
others. Engeström (2008) claims that “knowledge- and innovation-driven organizations …
typically operate through interorganizational learning networks” (p. 16). By not having a
complete set of tools, namely the lack of a one’s syllabus, the subjects in this knowledge-driven
organization experienced a disturbance with the tool and as a result the inter-individual plane of
analysis was not able to take place and a full cycle of inquiry to be completed.
In contrast to my results, other studies within the CUE consortium had sufficient space
and time for the groups to meet. These groups met in a large conference room around a single
table (Subramaniam, 2012) or in a room with round tables placed in a U-shape (Levonisova,
2012). These groups also structured their time and exposure to CUE’s range of tools differently.
With one, the document analysis workshop (activity included) was two hours and this was after a
full morning in which another CUE tool, BESST, was presented (Levonisova, 2012; Smith,
2012). For the participants in Subramaniam’s study, they were not given a full hour, but half of
the attendees at the Syllabus Review Protocol workshop had attended a 4-hour workshop the
month before facilitated by CUE. The outcome of that initial workshop was that the participants
wanted CUE to facilitate a Syllabus Reflection workshop, so their motivation was high. When
the DCC participants held their own Syllabus Reflection workshop in August that was not
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
152
facilitated by CUE, there were nine attendees. Three of them had attended at least two prior CUE
workshops and another three had attended one. Therefore, there were only three attending that
were unfamiliar with the topic and tools. In this study, only two of the sixteen new faculty
members had been exposed to any prior workshops facilitated by CUE. They had attended the
BESST workshop held at DCC 11 months prior. So the length of time one is exposed to CUE’s
tools and the combination in which those tools are presented in a timely manner may relate to the
effectiveness of Syllabus Review Protocol; however, this issue was not studied at my site and is
an area for further study.
This concludes the main unique findings in this study. The next three themes discussed
are subsidiary to the main findings given that they are weaker in evidence or are shared with
Subramiam’s (2012) study.
Theme unique to this study: Scope of equity conversation within a community
In Chapter 3, the context of each activity system was given and the type or plane of
community was identified and described. These shifted between inter-individual and institutional
and were necessary to add to the analysis since, at times, the scope of the equity conversation
went beyond DCC.
The first shift in community occurred at the CUE statewide symposium. This activity
system was one in which DCC were facilitators and practitioners. They moved from a first
person point-of-view within developmental evaluation into a second person point-of-view as
action researchers. This event was an institutional one between stakeholders at institutions
throughout the state. At the end of the symposium, CUE’s facilitators gathered evaluations from
26 attendees representing over 10 higher education institutions. From these evaluations, strong
evidence centered around selecting the right tool to go with the right object, and providing teams
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
153
with sufficient space and time—two main themes that emerged within this study. From the
insights provided by the practitioners’ in the morning session, the attendees were strengthening
their relationship with other equity minded practitioners. Their discourse was moved from a local
institutional sphere to a broader desired outcome—for the attendees to discuss symposium topics
with non-attending colleagues. The symposium attendees’ comments specifically focused on
selecting the right tool and object for the inquiry activities. Some evaluation comments related to
this theme were: “Idea about choosing an intervention point based on data and taking action
(even if there are other options for intervention points)”, “Choosing something and choosing
well” [emphasis in original], and “The ‘transformative planning’ work of the task force needs to
be tracked.” These comments are instructive to the CUE facilitators to be especially mindful of
the CUE tool being matched to the right group during the planning process so that the object
aligns with what the tool can facilitate. A second supporting theme from the symposium
evaluations that pertains to this study is the need for the right stakeholders to be brought together
and to have time to discuss the tools and complete the inquiry cycle. Comments for this theme
were: [My take-away from the workshop is] “How to get campus buy-in and engage relevant
stakeholders,” “Link like-minded individuals,” and [the most important step to take at your
campus is to] “Discuss, discuss, discuss, with all folks on campus.” Lastly, one evaluator stated
that he or she wished that “The morning conversation lasted all day. Very informative.” In this
one statement, it is clear that the information that DCC participants and the other morning
presenters shared were seen as valuable to assisting others who were working on similar efforts
at their institution.
After this event, DCC held a Syllabus Review Protocol workshop that was not facilitated
by CUE. This workshop was both inter-individual and institutional since the early adopters no
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
154
longer held the role of novice in implementing CUE’s tools but now saw themselves in the role
of apprentice since their participation in the activity was not being guided by CUE facilitators
(Rogoff, 1990).
At the next activity system, the planning meeting to determine the beta group, the scope
of community vacillated between DCC as an institution and other stakeholders in California as
an institution. So while the community remained institutional throughout the meeting, there were
multiple layers to how broad that scope reached. Within this activity system specifically, the
practitioners have come to the researcher for advice on which group to select at the beta group.
The CUE facilitator did query them on their selection and the early adopters confirmed their
choice; however, this did not occur until after the researcher had queried them. This might be due
to the researcher working on “interventions on behalf of the practitioners” (Chaiklin, 2011, p.
137). Then the CUE co-director shared with the DCC early adopters an equity-minded syllabus
from another college. She did this to exemplify how another institution has used the same tool,
the Syllabus Review Protocol, had helped the practitioners at this college to a unique result. Then
DCC’s Senate President mentioned that the state Academic Senate President had mentioned
being more equity minded in our practices. Next the Administrator mentioned how she talked
with the chancellor of California community colleges regarding the link between equity,
academic utility, and the curriculum of organic chemistry. Three non-present subjects were
referred to as it pertained to the conversation at this planning meeting.
The levels of communication that occurred at this activity system are especially reflective
of the purpose of action research. In this instance, the coordinating efforts between the researcher
(CUE co-director and CUE doctoral students), practitioners (DCC early adopters), and
stakeholders (a CUE-associated college and statewide leaders not present) was “uncoupled (and
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
155
transformed), so that today [joint collaboration] often seems to serve as a sufficient, and not
merely a necessary condition of action research” (Chaiklin, 2011, p. 137).
Lastly, the primary setting of this study was an instructional setting in which shifts in
community were taking place. Within any instructional setting, “Some time is necessarily spent
in organizing the social and material arrangements for different types of activity and in
describing the purpose and necessary procedures for those that are not already familiar to
[practitioners].” (Wells, 2011, p. 178) Some of this time is a personal communication with
oneself, but there is also interactive instructional settings in which individuals communicate with
others in an inter-individual manner. The tool within this setting is designed for all three planes
of communication: individual, inter-individual, and institutional. Within the primary setting, all
three types of communication existed. The activity was organized so that the subjects spent a few
minutes reflecting on the syllabus reflection tool and their own syllabus. Then they were
instructed to partner with others and discuss their views. This was intended to be an inter-
individual conversation, not an individual one. However, if the tool was not complete, then the
conversation may be more personal in nature since the other subjects might be seeking for
comprehension rather than reflection and analysis. The final portion of the activity system
provided an opportunity for the institution to discuss the tool.
Findings shared with Subramaniam’s (2012) study
This chapter describes two themes that extend on collaborative study completed by
Subramaniam (2012). One of her major results centered on a core group of faculty leaders at
DCC expressing concern regarding the level of academic freedom they have in creating their
syllabus; this result also occurred in this study. The CUE trainings centered on these faculty
reimaging their syllabus as a teaching tool rather than a contractual one. Standler (2000)
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
156
categorizes academic freedom into two strata: “(1) individual academic freedom protects an
individual professor and (2) institutional academic freedom protects universities from
interference by government, a right that applies to the community of scholars, not to individual
faculty” [emphasis in original] (p. 3). These two freedoms can come in conflict, especially when
the institution’s actions to achieve its stated goals result in prescriptive actions for the faculty to
take. Standler concludes that professors do not have a constitutional right to academic freedom;
it is more of a contract right negotiated between the institution and the body of the faculty. This
implies that academic freedom at a college can be restructured depending on the needs of the
institution versus the faculty.
Prior to the workshop being held, one of the new newly hired faculty member had held
some discussions with his research methodology students on how they view the syllabus; he
filmed this discussion and shared the short video at the workshop. Specific quotes that students
said in the short film stood out for two of the lead faculty and the Administrator who all restated
some of the students’ comments: “It needs to be clear”, “I just skip the first three pages”, “It’s a
worksheet”, “I track my progress for each requirement” and “too much of the wrong stuff.”
These statements led to one of the newly hired full-time faculty to ask the Administrator if she
could “take things out [of the syllabus]? We’ve been warned about some information that needs
to be in there.” The Administrator responded by making light of the question, “You don’t want to
start breaking all the rules now.” This caused the entire group to laugh. Then the Administrator
provided her newly acquired knowledge regarding the order of information within a syllabus:
“There’s positioning of the information to consider. You can put the welcoming messages at the
beginning. It’s important to not truncate things that are important like the disability statement
and the opening welcome statement.” From this discussion, it is clear that the newly hired faculty
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
157
express some anxiety over their own academic freedom in developing their syllabi. In fact, the
faculty’s question targets how formulaic their syllabi should be. What needed to be reiterated to
the faculty by the Administrator is that revising one’s syllabus to be more equity-minded and
culturally conscious was not a prescriptive template, but a philosophical one. However, it does
reflect the conflict between the two-tiers within every educational institution: the individual
faculty member and the institution itself (Standler, 2000).
Another theme within Subramaniam’s (2012) study that also exists in this study was the
faculty applying their past beliefs and experiences in using a syllabus as an instructional tool.
Practitioners’ past experiences through their interactions influence their firmly established
personal theories (Pajares, 1992). This theme existed in Activity System D and was evident by
their actions and comments. Out of the sixteen newly hired faculty members, only nine of them
teach as their primary assignment. The remaining seven faculty members might teach a course,
but since their main assignment is to facilitate student services programs they are not required to
teach every term. This difference in “teaching vs. service” faculty assignments resulted in some
faculty not bringing a syllabi with them to the Syllabus Review Workshop. No sample syllabi
were provided to the faculty as they had been asked by their administrator to bring a syllabus to
this workshop. During the 45-minute breakout session, it was determined that each of the six
groups had at least one syllabus to review; however, two of these groups had only one to review,
so a full implementation of CUE’s Syllabus Review Tool did not occur on each faculty
member’s syllabus. One faculty member noted in the workshop evaluation that, “My engagement
would have been higher if all my colleagues had brought a copy of their course syllabus.” Within
the workshop, there was a wide range of comments from the newly hired faculty regarding
adapting students to college culture, making accommodations to students with disabilities, and
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
158
using paper in the digital age. These comments are evidence of the newly hired faculty’s beliefs
and experiences:
Ruth: “I’ve struggled with being able to acknowledge the different cultures and adapt
students to the college culture.”
Brett: “One situation regarding the syllabus is when students with disabilities have to
read the syllabus.”
Linda: “In this age of living documents, a paper syllabus is a document you bring in, talk
about and it’s over and done with.”
Lorenz (2012) stated that an essential condition of how organizations learn is “the presence of
new ideas” (p. 46). Salazar-Romo (2009) studied this issue using an earlier version of the
syllabus reflection tool and found that when faculty members reconsidered how their course
syllabus could be used, they changed their behaviors in modifying problematic curricula; opened
up to their students about their own academic struggles; acknowledged that their basic skills
students lead complex lives; adopted their role as advocate; and remediated their practices in and
out of the classroom. In a collaborative study, Enciso (2009) determined that faculty who
attended a series of CUE workshops transformed their deficit-minded frame of mind to a more
equity-oriented frame; however, it was an uncomfortable process for this change to occur.
Summary
As a result of the inquiry process that CUE facilitated, few new faculty at DCC became
aware of their roles and how their roles might be instrumental to a change process. The three
main themes and one subsidiary theme unique to this study confirm this finding. These themes
center on the empowerment of untenured faculty, a cohesive group not sharing the same goals,
and providing a group with the right tools and resources (space and time) for the assigned task. A
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH
159
unique minor theme in this study is the way the community had an equity minded conversation
that shifted between two or three participants at a college workshop to statewide conversations
amongst key stakeholders at many colleges. Lastly, this study shares two findings to a prior
study at DCC but also comes to unique conclusions given that the subjects between these studies
were different. Subramaniam (2012) found that faculty using CUE’s mediating artifacts
expressed concern regarding academic freedom, but they were able to apply past beliefs to
present intervention. Her study concluded that the faculty developed an expertise in using
culturally responsive pedagogy to promote student success. In contrast, the results of my study
provide evidence to support that the impact of CUE’s action research processes and tools on the
beliefs of practitioners are not always effective.
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.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 160
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Introduction
This study was part of CUE’s larger action research agenda to evaluate action research as
a strategy to promote equity. This was accomplished through purposeful sampling of an action
research organization, e.g., CUE, and of the field sites engaged in action research in the form of
design experiments. Since its inception in 1999, CUE has worked with more than 80 colleges
and universities to develop institutional Equity Scorecards which center around “data analysis,
institutional inquiry, and problem-solving into a comprehensive assessment process in which
data and institutional practices are addressed by a representational team of campus practitioners”
(Center for Urban Education, 2010, p. 2). This action research study was part of a collective
developmental evaluation study conducted by CUE in 2011-2012 that took place at a broad range
of California public higher educational institutions. They comprised eleven community colleges
within the Alliance Network, three community colleges outside of the network, and one state
university. The primary group who will benefit from this study’s results are higher education
researchers, like those at CUE, who participate in social science research projects that are action
oriented and address racial and ethnic inequities to increase organizational learning and
innovations within colleges and universities. A second group who will benefit from the results of
this study are community college practitioners who are trying to address the minority student
achievement gaps. California has the largest community college system in the world with 112
institutions and this serves a state with a population of estimated 28,000,000 adults. Of the
almost 30,000,000 adults, 44.8% identify themselves as African American or Hispanic/Latino
(US Census, 2013). Therefore, this type of study addresses an issue that all stakeholders within
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 161
California’s higher education system should attend to since the demographics of the state reflect
a multiracial/multicultural community.
State-wide higher education offices are aware of this and are holding local institutions
accountable for their efforts in a very public manner. The Chancellor of California Community
Colleges recently released the Student Success Scorecard, a report card for each community
college in which the persistence and completion rates of all students were made public via a
website. The scorecard compares each college to its prior performance data with data culled from
the Accountability Reporting for Community College (ARCC) data sent annually by each
institution to the Chancellor’s office and then published. Within the scorecard, specific measures
of student success—persistence, completion, remediation, and finishing 30 units—are separated
by gender, age, race and ethnicity. Chancellor Brice W. Harris stated that this tool was created so
“for the first time, the system’s colleges will have clear data on student success that will help
them focus on closing performance gaps” (Bidwell, 2013, p. 1).
This study was conducted to address low college completion rates for some racial/ethnic
groups within the U.S. educational system. The educational achievement disparities between
racial/ethnic groups has caused great economic discord within our society since many of these
individuals lack sufficient social capital to sustain themselves. Social justice was another reason
why this study was conducted to hold the U.S. responsible for educating all of its citizens, not
only those with sufficient social capital. In order to reform the educational achievements of some
racial/ethnic groups, it is vital to discuss race at a college campus. Orfield (1999) stated that
“basic conservative policy about American schools argues that schools can make a very large
difference” (p. 586). The reason why a discussion targeting racial and ethnic educational
inequities is vital at colleges and universities is because these institutions are known gatekeepers
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 162
to improving one’s social capital. When practitioners become “color-conscious” and openly
discuss race and the scripts that sustain a person’s, group’s and institution’s views toward it, they
begin to see the barriers that exist for “undervalued” populations and seek for ways to build their
social capital through educational achievement. The inquiry activities assist the practitioners’ in
realizing their beliefs, knowledge, expectations and practices might have racially
disadvantageous outcomes for underrepresented minority college students. By focusing on equity
outcomes, the practitioner becomes aware that racism is not always overt and patterns exist
within his/her own personal and institutional practices that maintain racial hierarchies even
though each practitioner’s classroom or college may be diverse.
Practitioners can become more “color conscious” through the use of equity minded tools
in a directed learning activity setting. One equity minded tool CUE developed to facilitate this is
the Syllabus Reflection Protocol. This tool assists practitioners in reviewing the first document
most students receive on their first day of class. Through this tool, practitioners explore the
extent to which course syllabi communicate the expectations of the instructor and how the course
will meet students’ needs (CUE, 2011). This tool also facilities the practitioners’ developmental
evaluation of their own attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding equity minded artifacts they
are required to use by the college. By attending CUE’s facilitated Syllabus Reflection Protocol
workshop, the practitioners become action researchers themselves when they look from the
outside at the problem that exists at their institution as they propose to change the system from
within, and enact changes to practices within their immediate control. From there, they take on
an equity perspective in which they change their own cognitive frame and seek to change their
institution through developing institutional measures that seek equitable educational outcomes
(Bensimon, 2005).
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 163
Summary of Theme Related Findings
In the primary setting of this study, three themes—empowerment, group cohesiveness ≠
shared goals, and matching the tool and resources (space and time) to the right group—emerged
that were unique to this equity focused collaborative inquiry study.
Empowerment
Based on the success and momentum of DCC’s equity efforts with CUE, the DCC early
adopters were aware of the need for another group of faculty to be introduced to CUE’s tools.
Their efforts centered around sharing their knowledge base and teaching a beta group of faculty
who were not familiar with CUE’s tools. The syllabus reflection workshop for new faculty was
structured to be a time and place in which the new faculty were empowered to join the
institution’s efforts. However, the structure of the workshop did not permit for a meaningful
dialogue to occur between those who had the knowledge (early adopters) and those seeking the
knowledge (new faculty). McArthur (2002) claims that a key way to improve the productivity of
a team is to engage coworkers in a meaningful dialogue. That did not occur at this workshop
since the empowerment statements were made during the lecture and group discussion portions
of the workshop and not during the activity itself. The activity portion of the workshop had the
greatest amount of social interaction in which the learning was interindividual in nature rather
than institutional. Because there was a division of tasks—the new faculty completed the activity
while the early adopters chatted with one another—a meaningful dialogue did not take place.
Throughout this study, the new faculty were seen as the recipients of this knowledge
rather than action researchers engaged in inquiry into their own practices. Within any action
research project, the participants gather data, and then based on the data, identify the problem;
analyze what is happening and theorize why the problem exists; then develop a plan, implement
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 164
the plan and then evaluate if the plan has successfully addressed the problem (Stringer, 2007).
The early adopters had gone through these steps in the 11 months prior to Activity Setting D
taking place. They were action researchers as they inquired into their own knowledge, beliefs,
and practices; however, the new faculty were not active in that process. Their agency was limited
by the fact that their attendance was compulsory. While the early adopters may have seen this
workshop as one that empowered the new faculty, that attitude was not reciprocated by the new
faculty.
Also the CUE facilitators and early adopters did not attend to the conflict between the
two group’s level of power and desired outcomes. Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) discuss types of
power in which one person or a group can have influence on the behavior of others. In this study,
reward power, legitimate power and expert power all existed within the primary setting. The new
faculty were seeking a reward from an administrator and faculty leaders which is an example of
reward power. Legitimate power was a hidden issue because the new faculty are at-will
employees until they have tenure. They are new to the college and are not familiar with the
history behind the cultural practices and traditions so their legitimate power is limited even when
being given power from those in leadership positions. As to expert power, the new faculty are
considered experts in their fields; however, they are not experts in using CUE’s tools since for
most of them this was their first experience using them. Also, they are not experts about the
college’s policies and practices since they are new to the institution.
Group cohesiveness ≠ shared goals
When the DCC early adopters sought out a potential beta group, they selected what they
considered a cohesive group. One reason for this might have been due to a tenet of
developmental evaluation to provide transparency. This practice ensures that all participants seek
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 165
to agree on the processes and procedures related to the project and how they will determine the
kinds of information necessary to move the project along. By doing so, developmental evaluation
involves authentic participation. However, the new faculty were not consulted about the process
of this equity project. They had a previously scheduled workshop in which the agenda was
retooled for the CUE workshop. What became clear through the pre-cognitive interviews and the
workshop was that the new faculty did not have the same rationale for attending the workshop as
the DCC early adopter team did. This hidden tension resulted in the new faculty not becoming a
beta group at the time.
Matching the tool and resources (space and time) to the right group
The last major theme centered around hidden issues of matching the right group to the
best reflection tool and then structuring the workshop to ensure an appropriate space and
sufficient amount of time for the tool to be used by the group. This issue was mentioned
repeatedly in the Symposium (Activity Setting B) evaluations from practitioners familiar with
CUE’s tools and mission. These individuals had the time to reflect upon their prior experience
and incorporate what they had just learned from their like-minded colleagues at different
colleges into their practices. The majority of the attendees stated that they found the workshop
valuable and would be discussing topics from the symposium with colleagues not in attendance.
Prior to attending the symposium, these practitioners were given the time to develop
relationships with other like-minded practitioners at their institution. At the symposium, their
circle of associates expanded to those at other institutions. All of that lead to the outcome in
which the practitioners would share their equity minded ideas with other. At the symposium, the
right set of tools and resources had been matched with the right group.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 166
On contrast to that success, DCC moved forward with its agenda to develop a beta group
but did not match the right group to the right tool. The reason why the Syllabus Reflection tool
was selected was due to it being the most used CUE tool in the prior series of CUE facilitated
workshops (see Figure 3.2). The sizeable portion of new student affairs faculty in the proposed
beta group did not dissuade the early adopters from planning to hold another Syllabus Reflection
workshop. By not ensuring that each new faculty brought a syllabus or a document which could
be used with the tool, it made the activity portion of the workshop less effective.
An additional hidden issue was the logistics of the workshop, namely how the activity
was structured, when it was scheduled, the space where it was held, and the amount of time
devoted to the activity itself. This type of socially conscious workshop may have been a new
experience for them. The structure of the workshop was first a lecture then an activity followed
by a group discussion. The lecture may have influenced the new faculty’s perceived purpose (or
object) in the activity setting. They were asked to use an everyday artifact of practice, but for
some of them, a syllabus is not an everyday artifact; therefore, they may not have valued the
workshop at all. In regard to timing, the Syllabus workshop for the new faculty was held during
the second week of the term. The timing of this topic was not as timely as it was for the early
adopters. Their non-facilitated CUE syllabus workshop was held just prior to the fall term and
was instrumental in the early adopters making changes to their syllabi; however, the lateness of
this workshop for the new faculty may have effected their valuing the topic and the ideas
espoused in the tool. Also, the space and length of time for the activity was not conducive toward
an intimate, reflective activity. Rather the lecture hall was spacious and allowed for distance to
exist between the breakout groups and a strong network of interorganizational learning was not
developed (Engeström, 2008). The length of time for the activity was brief given that this was
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 167
the first CUE tool many of the new faculty were asked to use. Reflection takes time. The
outcome of this activity setting was impacted by the practitioners not having a complete tool,
being distant from other breakout groups, and being rushed to complete the task.
The next section of the discussion includes recommendations for the institution studied,
those who work within higher education and those who design action inquiry projects targeting
racial and ethnic equity issues. There are two sources within this section that are quoted
throughout as they pertain to best practices. One of these sources is a report developed by the
Aspen Institute’s College Excellence Program entitled “Defining excellence: Lessons from the
2013 Aspen Prize finalists,” in which the best practices from ten U.S. community colleges were
profiled as a model for others to follow. The other source focuses directly on the topic of
professional development of community college mathematics faculty. The report “Unpacking
professional development: Mathematics faculty reflections on re-thinking pre-college math” was
written by Rose Asera and stemmed from the Re-Thinking Pre-college Math (RPM) project
which was a 2009-2012 Washington state initiative lead by the State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges.
Recommendations to DCC to Improve Practitioner Involvement for Change
As evidenced in Subramaniam’s (2012) study, Dynamic Community College was on a
path in which a team was aware of equity gaps for minority students and was using inquiry to
address their needs. This study targeted DCC early adopters in garnering a beta group to join the
effort and do the same. However, this effort was not successful for a variety of reasons. While
they chose a seemingly cohesive group by selecting the new faculty as the beta group, what DCC
early adopters did not take into account was the hidden issues of the new faculty’s goal to obtain
tenure as well as to match the right inquiry tool to the group. Rather than seeking cohesive
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 168
groups, inquiry groups should be structured around the theme of collaboration. This will mean
carefully selecting individual members who should be in the group rather than looking for one
pre-existing group. By doing so, the collaborative team’s efforts are more likely to contrast with
an established institutional or departmental structure. This will also make the team more likely to
not accept the status quo in regard to the institution’s current equity efforts. When collaboration
rather than cohesion is what binds the inquiry team with the right tool, “changes in the structure
and sequence … of college procedures and changes in departmental culture rely on relationships
and communication to move towards collective action” (Asera, 2013, p. 9). Community colleges
are institutions in which collaborative groups, e.g., senate and curriculum, exist and organize
much of the business of the college. These types of groups extend the length of time it takes for a
task to be completed; however, since these individuals are working collaboratively and are the
ones responsible for executing the reforms, they are taking a central role in designing and
executing the change to improve equity gaps.
These efforts are built upon a culture in which research is shared and analyzed to
determine student outcomes and needs. Within the primary setting, research was not widely
shared with the potential beta group: the new faculty. To teach this group, the early adopters who
hold leadership roles among the faculty shared their reflections on what they had learned. These
early adopters are leaders and possibly experts in their institutional roles, but they are not experts
regarding inquiry to determine equity gaps. In conducting practitioner inquiry, they are
apprentices. The new faculty and the early adopter’s varying levels of apprenticeship can be
analyzed through Vygotsky’s premise of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) with stage one
requiring the learner to receive assistance from more expert others (Santrock, 2009). The
assistance the new faculty received was not participatory in nature since the early adopters
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 169
shared their reflections with the new faculty but did not model how they used the Syllabus
Reflection Protocol. In the theory of ZPD, the second stage is when the learner can guide his/her
own learning through conscious efforts. The Syllabus Reflection Protocol is designed for the
learner to do so; however, since some of the new faculty did not bring a syllabus or any other
document to be analyzed, the tool was incomplete and the new faculty could not fully implement
what the tool had been designed to do. Because there was a disturbance at this level, the new
faculty did not complete the final two stages of the ZPD. The third stage is when the initial
learning has become internalized, automated, and possibly fossilized, and the fourth stage of
learning is when learning becomes de-automatized and the learning process begins again at stage
one.
Recommendation to DCC for Renewed Professional Development
Building upon the recommendation in the prior section—DCC should seek to create
collaborative groups—practitioners must be given the time to develop collegial relationships
across departmental boundaries. In those professional development opportunities, the faculty
share questions, observations, and frustrations with their colleagues. However, these shared
concerns can be tangential to the inquiry tool designed to address equity gaps. This is what
occurred in the primary setting of this study. The new faculty worked together on the tool
without the assistance of the early adopters during the key time in which the early adopters’
reflections were to be applied to the tool. If the early adopters had worked with each group, then
the discussion might have had a different outcome. This would have “seeded” each potential beta
group with more experienced colleagues as they used their limited time to sit and talk about
targeted concerns that applied to tool they were using.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 170
According to Asera (2013), the outcome of any faculty professional development
experience is framed within two relationships: “the relationship between institutional learning
and individual learning [, and] the relationship between professional learning and student
learning” (p. 8). Within the primary setting, the early adopters reflections were what the
institution had learned and the new faculty represented individual learning. The topic at hand
was professional learning to target student learning. Therefore, the two types of relationships are
collaborative in nature in that they support on one another in a multitude of layers which was
evident in the primary setting. Since a disconnect between the institutional learning and the
individual learning existed in the primary setting, one suggestion might be to restructure the
inquiry activity. Rather than have the early adopters share their reflections before the activity, it
might have been better for the early adopters to join the new faculty during the activity to ensure
a stronger link between the “institution” sharing what is has learned with the “individual”
learning of the new faculty. This was the case in one of Subramaniam’s (2012) activity settings
in which the syllabus review protocol was not facilitated by CUE, but two-thirds of the attendees
had participated in a CUE facilitated inquiry activity before this workshop taking place and
effectively “seeded” more faculty to become a part of the early adopter group.
Recommendations for Community Colleges and Institutions of Higher Learning
One of the activity settings within this study was a large-scale conversation facilitated by
CUE in order for practitioners at community colleges and universities to hold a conversation
about their inquiry processes. The representatives from these networked institutions were
collaborators from within their own college or university, and through the structure of the event,
they were able to use this network to provide insight as to what worked and did not work in
moving an equity gap agenda forward. The evaluations from this meeting were positive and
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 171
recommended that CUE continue to facilitate these types of events. In facilitating the
symposium, “participating faculty, working closely with colleagues and being connected to a
broader network across the state has become the norm and a valued one. Faculty now look at
collaboration as the ‘fastest, easiest, sustainable form of professional development’” (Asera,
2013, p. 14).
Another suggestion that stems from this study’s findings is directly related to the hiring
of new faculty that shares the values of the college, especially regarding when that college is
addressing an equity gap agenda. The new faculty were queried prior to the syllabus review
protocol workshop and asked if they saw themselves as a person active in addressing issues of
equity. The majority stated that they were; however, within the workshop, these same faculty
were ones that brought up tangential examples which distracted others from the equity focus of
CUE’s tool. “Effective community colleges strive to build faculties capable of executing the
reforms they count on to make a difference for students, through deliberate hiring and training
processes” (Aspen, 2013, p. 4). By fusing the hiring process to advertising the values and goals
of the college, this ensures that any new faculty hired “will contribute to the community,
prioritize teaching, and are eager to grow for the sake of their students” (Aspen, 2013, p. 4). This
means hiring faculty who are “willing to accept tough realities and [are] committed to improving
student success, and where every administrator makes sure they have the tools to do so” (Aspen,
2013, p. 1). At DCC, the new faculty were provided with the right tool, but they were the wrong
cohesive group to connect the tool to; if the early adopters had shared more of the college’s goals
regarding this throughout the hiring process and in the first term the new faculty taught at DCC,
then they might have understood how vital this training was to the goals of the institution.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 172
Another suggestion is to ensure that a clearer message from the institution is shared with
all its employees about the goals of the institution. This myopic focus on DCC applies to all
community colleges and institutions of higher education since ensuring that departmental hiring
teams know when they begin the process to interview top candidates to teach at the college, they
are looking for faculty and staff that will collaborate with others at the institution. This goes
beyond hiring someone who will work well within a department; these hiring committees must
look at how the hiring of each new faculty and staff member will advance the equity goals of the
institution. In this regard, “every administrator, teacher, and staff member is given the message
that he or she is personally responsible for taking action to improve student success. Alone, that
commitment to students is not enough; it must be translated into deliberate actions that lead to
measureable improvements” (Aspen, 2013, p. 2). For the DCC early adopters, they took risks
and their actions ensured that at some later time, benchmarked data would be contrasted with
incoming data to determine if measureable improvements had been made; however, in a
qualitative sense, every early adopter who presented to the new faculty reported that the CUE
tool had changed the manner in which they approached their students. This was a measureable
improvement that seemed to have little or no impact on the new faculty. But the early adopters
now felt personally invested in their students’ success at DCC which is the intended outcome for
each practitioner who uses CUE’s tools.
Recommendations for CUE
In regard to my recommendations for CUE, there are three issues to address: the full
application of CUE’s tool, the role of action researcher in advising practitioners during the
course of an institution’s equity agenda, and attending to the hidden issues during the planning
stages of CUE facilitated workshops.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 173
One issue that arose in the primary setting was not every new faculty used CUE’s
syllabus reflection tool to its full potential. Since so many of the faculty work in student affairs,
they do not use syllabi. However, a syllabus is what every new faculty was instructed to bring by
the administrator. The tool that CUE provided to be used in the workshop does permit non-
instructional faculty and administrators to use it. It instructs these practitioners to use materials
like application forms, program recruitment brochures, web pages, mission statements, or
newsletters which communicate the practitioner’s or institution’s educational practices to
students. These items were not listed as documents for the DCC student affairs faculty to bring.
Also, during the workshop, there was no mention of using the syllabus when the faculty were
instructed to open their CUE packet and use the syllabus reflection tool. This disconnect between
how the tool should be used—with at least one material that reflects the practitioner’s or
institution’s educational practices—meant that the activity designed to promote inquiry was not
as effective as it could have been.
The role of the CUE facilitator is key to institutions establishing and moving forward
with an equity agenda using CUE’s tools. One of the challenges in operationalizing such an
agenda is whether it is focused on the institution’s overall goals or on day-to-day operations.
CUE’s tools attempt to bridge that gap because they are based upon culturally responsive
pedagogy (Bensimon, 2007). In these intervention efforts, the institutional practitioner takes on
the role of action researcher, and the role of the researcher is that of CUE facilitator. This
relationship is a closely collaborative one in which the interventions are designed to address
ideological issues. According to Chaiklin (2011), “researchers can be useful for social agencies
in providing advice for action, for evaluating, and making general theoretical analysis” (p. 137).
Within this study, the CUE co-director had developed that type of relationship with the DCC
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 174
early adopters. This was especially clear when the DCC early adopters sought to identify a beta
group to expand the equity agenda at the college. While the suggestions for potential groups
were all generated from the DCC early adopters, it was not until the CUE co-director asked
about one specific group, the new faculty, that key members of the DCC early adopters—the
administrator and senate president—determined the team had found its beta group. As evidenced
in this study, ensuring that this relationship is a strong one was key to DCC continuing to address
its equity agenda even though the beta group effort was not a success.
The CUE facilitator assumed that the pattern of inquiry successfully used for the early
adopter group would also apply to the beta group. A study conducted by Kezar, Glenn, Lester
and Nakamoto (2008) analyzed CUE’s work with 14 colleges in which the practitioners at
different colleges reacted differently to the same CUE facilitated workshop. This study reflects
the findings in Kezar et al. (2008); however, rather than contrasting two colleges with different
institutional agendas and cultures, this study was conducted at one institution: DCC. For the
early adopters, strong leadership provided by administration and the academic senate supplied a
model for the practitioners to follow which helped the college complete the cycle of inquiry. For
the new faculty, the practitioners were unwilling to reflect and become aware of their ineffective
equity practices; therefore the full cycle of inquiry was never completed. This is not because the
new faculty lacked strong leadership, but because the wrong group had been matched to the right
tool. Kezar et al. (2008) suggest that each institution has a different context, so no one pattern of
inquiry will work for each campus. This study extends those findings to claim that each group
has a different context, so the pattern of inquiry will need to be changed to match the needs of
the group. The CUE facilitator is the expert on the variety of equity tools developed by CUE that
guide the participants to reconsider their beliefs and assumptions regarding race and ethnicity at
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 175
the college (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009b). Determining the most appropriate pattern of inquiry is
the responsibility of the CUE facilitator as he/she advises the college’s practitioners on an action
inquiry project.
As an extension of the CUE facilitator’s relationship with the institutional practitioners,
what was also discovered in this study was that hidden issues existed with the selection of the
new faculty. It is the role of the CUE facilitator to have a stronger awareness of these hidden
issues since the researcher’s efforts are interventions to assist the practitioner. Bensimon (2007)
discusses the role of CUE’s researcher as facilitator in which “the researcher, by virtue of being
an outsider, has more leeway to raise questions that challenge shared knowledge about minority
students and to problematize taken-for-granted structures and practices” (p. 463); however,
Bensimon does not address the need for the CUE facilitator to raise questions with the
practitioners regarding known or potential disruptions. Within this study, the lack of overt
attention to the hidden issues resulted in the new faculty not valuing the workshop in the manner
the early adopters intended it to be. It is vital that these questions be discussed since CUE sees its
role in the process as to facilitate inquiry into equity issues. Asking the practitioners about
hidden issues should be part of the CUE facilitators communication as plans are made since the
researcher is more aware of potential pitfalls than the practitioners.
Implications of This Study on My Own Practice
I have been associated with CUE intermittently over the last six years. My association
began at Long Beach City College, which was completing its third action research project with
CUE. Prior to my involvement, CUE had facilitated two prior studies with Long Beach City
College practitioners with resulted in the reports “Equity for All” and “The Missing 87: A study
of transfer ready students who do not transfer.” My association with CUE was through the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 176
California Benchmarking Project which resulted in two reports, “Long Beach City College Mid-
term Report on the California Benchmarking Project” and “Long Beach City College Final
Report on the California Benchmarking Project.” After this project concluded, the topic of equity
was not sustained by the Long Beach City College participants and it dissipated. When the
Senate at Long Beach City College was offered a chance to participate in this study and join the
CUE Alliance Network College group, the Senate declined CUE’s offer. The reason given at the
time was that Long Beach City College had worked with CUE before, but little long-term lasting
success was made during these prior efforts.
In the same term the academic senate declined CUE’s offer, the college’s Board of
Trustees adopted a new mission statement with stated values that provide an overview of how
the college will achieve its mission. “Equity” is mentioned twice in this document:
Mission: Long Beach City College promotes equitable student learning and achievement,
academic excellence, and workforce development by delivering high quality
educational programs and support services to our diverse communities.
Values: Equity and Diversity – We cultivate equity and diversity by embracing all
cultures, ideas, and perspectives and by striving for equitable opportunities and
outcomes for all.
To address this, faculty worked with administrators to develop Long Beach City
College’s educational master plan which would direct all activities at the college until 2016. One
of the tasks identified was that of establishing short-term equity teams through the College
Planning Committee to address Measurable Objective 2.2 of the Equity goal in the Educational
Master Plan 2011-2016 which states "Increase the rate at which under-represented students
transfer and reach transfer-preparedness within 6 years of entry to Long Beach City College"
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 177
[emphasis in original]. This effort is currently in progress and the division-based teams will
work throughout the 2013-2014 year and submit reports the College Planning Committee
periodically. The equity teams have been charged to inquire about achievement gaps for racial
and ethnic student groups within each division and to develop strategies to close those gaps.
They are reporting to a shared governance committee, the College Planning Committee, which is
co-chaired by the Academic Senate President and Vice President of Academic Affairs. The
committee’s membership is comprised of key stakeholders throughout the organization: vice
presidents; Senate Executive team; union leaders for faculty and classified staff; and some mid-
level school division deans. The teams have been separated into divisions which is a macro view
of the issue rather than looking at the issue department by department or even class by class;
therefore, gaps may be difficult to determine for the division equity teams. These teams are seen
as short-term workgroups rather than a standing committee, so their efforts may not be sustained
over time. This has occurred in the past when CUE facilitated action research regarding inquiry
and awareness of equity issues; however, the fact that Long Beach City College is self-
generating this effort rather than being facilitated by an outside organization may change the type
of motivation the Long Beach City College participants have toward the effort.
Of concern is that this effort is a top-down effort within the organization coming from the
Board of Trustee’s mission statement and values which was also included in the college’s
educational master plan. It is unclear whether those in the middle of the organization, namely
deans, as well as those who work most closely with students at the bottom of the organization
will value this mandate to “promote equitable student learning and achievement.” This is of a
concern since the college’s prior efforts with CUE were seen by the academic senate as top-
down initiatives rather than a grass-roots effort that stems from faculty inquiry into the issue.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 178
Another effort that exists at Long Beach City College is the Staff Equity Committee. This
shared governance committee was created in fall 2007. Its charge is to develop a staff equity plan
in regard to the organization’s hiring practices and professional development as they pertain to
diversity, equity and inclusion. Their stated charge is:
The committee will assist in promoting an understanding and support of equal
opportunity and nondiscrimination policies and procedures. The committee may sponsor
events or other activities that promote and support equal employment opportunity,
nondiscrimination, retention and diversity in collaboration with other appropriate groups.
One recent effort from this committee was for Long Beach City College to hold an all-day
training session entitled, “Walking the Talk: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion within Higher
Education.” I had taken on a new role at the college to direct all faculty professional
development. I worked with the co-chairs of the Staff Equity committee to organize this all-day
training. Eighteen separate workshops were offered to every Long Beach City College employee
that were organized into the topics of diversity, equity and inclusion. They comprised workshops
that expressed the unique needs of the following student groups: African American,
Latino/Hispanic, Southeast Asian, Veterans, LGBTQ, and technological deficit. There were also
panel discussions on the college’s achievement gaps, and privilege in regard to color,
socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. These workshops were instructional in nature rather
than interactive and none of them included inquiry-based activities for the participants.
There were over 400 attendees; however, few of them were faculty. There are over 1,100
faculty at Long Beach City College, and 320 of them teach full-time. The full-time faculty have a
contractual professional development obligation to complete 18 hours of training during the
academic year. The remaining 800 adjunct faculty only have a training obligation if they teach
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 179
on the day of the week in which the training day is scheduled. So, only 30% of adjunct faculty
are required to complete any training by Long Beach City College. There are many options
provided for faculty to complete their professional development; one of them is to hold a
department meeting in which they review their program and plan for the future. Their efforts are
reported to the college and this report was due the week after this all-day workshop on diversity.
Therefore, irrespective of faculty’s interest in the “Walking the Talk” workshops, most of them
chose to complete their required report instead since it is mandated by the college to record their
achievements and seek opportunities for growth. At a follow-up all-day training day in the
spring, a small number of workshops centered around this same topic were offered. In the 2012-
2013, over 25 separate workshops were offered at Long Beach City College targeting the issue of
diversity, equity and inclusion.
In completing this study, it is clear to me is that many at Long Beach City College have a
diversity cognitive frame rather than an equity cognitive frame (Bensimon, 2005). The college is
active in celebrating diversity and supporting efforts for stronger cross-cultural relationships. The
college has worked to expose whites to the “other” populations that work and study at the
college; however, the college remains colorblind since these efforts are diversity focused—not
equity focused. These conversations do not focus on our “institutional practices and the
production of unequal educational outcomes for minority group students” (Bensimon, 2005, p.
103). If the college were to do so, workshops highlighting these equity gaps would be offered to
stimulate conversations for administrators, faculty and staff to discuss the institution’s
responsibility for student outcomes depending on their race and ethnicity. Efforts would be made
so all who work at the college become more color-conscious and aware of racialized practices
that exist within classrooms, departments and the institution.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 180
This study also has had implications on my own equity practices. I have taught ESL for
eleven years and worked with immigrants from all over the world. Long Beach has one of the
largest Cambodian communities residing outside of Cambodia and a neighboring community,
Westminster, is the largest community of Vietnamese outside of Vietnam (Jones, 2012). These
Southeast Asian students come to my ESL classroom unprepared for academic work. These
students do not behave like other Asian students I have taught in the past. They lack academic
skills and sufficient financial support to be a dedicated student. Through my diversity mind
frame, I have learned more about their cultures as well as the cultures of other underperforming
ESL students. With my equity mind frame, I have begun to ask if some of my teaching practices
are biased against my students as well as if the department has procedures that dissuade these
students from enrolling and persisting in our program. The college has begun the practice of
disaggregating data based on students’ race and ethnicity; however, Cambodian and Vietnamese
students are placed in a category of Asian students which belies their true achievement level
since in that category they join high-achieving Chinese, Japanese, and Korean students. With my
equity minded frame, I will seek to have these data further disaggregated since these groups
achieve educational outcomes at very different levels.
At Long Beach City College, I also have an additional role as the coordinator for faculty
professional development. From this study, I have learned to be more cognizant of the types of
training untenured faculty attend. Three years ago, the college adopted a compulsory format for
new faculty in which they attend a weekly training during their first year of full-time
employment. The purpose of this structure is for them to deepen their learning about the
college’s programs and support services as well as to provide the new faculty with many
opportunities to bond with one another. The new faculty are vigilant in attending these trainings.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 181
In some ways, they are more knowledgeable about the college’s programs than faculty who are
tenured; however, these faculty are hesitant to be critical of our practices given that they are
seeking tenure and want to be seen as valuable assets to their department and the college. If they
are to develop equity mind frames, then they would need to inquire into the college’s racialized
practices as well as their own. Until they become tenured, they may be hesitant to do so;
therefore, asking a cohort of untenured faculty under a contractual training obligation to attend
an action inquiry project is not advised. Rather, select those who are tenured and can be equity
minded to join other tenured faculty members in becoming practitioners in the inquiry project.
Recommendations for Further Research
One area that was not studied was post-workshop interviews of both the early adopters
and new faculty. This study would have benefitted from cognitive interviews from both of these
groups to determine the level of success in what the early adopters wanted—a beta group to join
the institution’s equity initiative. There were many unanswered questions such as:
(1) Did the early adopters feel that their reflections during the initial lecture were
sufficient to encourage the beta group to adopt the tool?
(2) Did the early adopters feel they had nothing to contribute to the beta group
during the activity?
(3) Did the early adopters feel so removed from the beta group that they had
nothing in common?
(4) Did the early adopters feel their own practice did not need further retooling or
reflection?
Within the activity itself, there was a division of labor when the new faculty were using the tool
and the early adopters chose to not join the groups during the activity. Holding another CUE
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 182
workshop in which one more experienced group shares their knowledge with a novice group is
suggested to determine if that act would result in a different outcome.
Conclusion
CUE’s tools work to help practitioners through an inquiry process through action
research project that designs social interactions as a “critical point of intervention.” This
intervention point begins a cyclical process that involves purposeful social interactions that
permit the practitioners’ to exchange their knowledge and beliefs in specific cultural contexts.
These practitioners have strong social networks and procedural knowledge which imbues them
with the opportunity to implement their acquired human, cultural and social capital to empower
systemic changes.
The CUE facilitators are experts with a variety of equity tools developed by CUE that
guide the participants to reconsider their beliefs and assumptions regarding race and ethnicity at
the college. The inventory tools used by the facilitators and practitioners are used by the inquiry
team to complete an assessment of the institution’s culture. The various tools help the
practitioners learn about the institution, become more equity minded and add to their
professional development so cultural changes relating to increasing student learning outcomes
for minority students occur (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009).
By shifting their perspectives and using equity-directed artifacts, the practitioners’
learning transforms into a culture of inquiry. This type of goal-directed professional development
permits the practitioners to improve their campus because they formally and informally “develop
a mutual meaning structure, [and] an evolving, developing, and converging common
understanding” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 79) regarding equity issues at their institution. In
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 183
essence, they become conscious of racial/ethnic biases that are hidden in the systemic beliefs and
practices within themselves, their organization and similar institutions.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 184
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned
and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1-33.
Aronson, E. (2007) The social animal. New York: Worth.
Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college
campuses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Aserna, R. (2013). Unpacking professional development: Mathematics faculty reflections
on re-thinking pre-college math. Seattle, WA: State Board of Community and
Technical Colleges.
Aspen Institute. (2013). Defining excellence: Lessons from the 2013 Aspen prize
finalists. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Association of American Colleges & Universities (ACC&U). (2011). Making Excellence
Inclusive. Retrieved 10 May 2011, from
http://www.aacu.org/compass/inclusive_excellence.cfm
Barrio-Sotillo, R. (2007). Increasing minority enrollment at the University of California
post Proposition 209: UCLA's Center for Community College partnerships. Ed.D.
Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Bennett, S. (2011). The Equity Scorecard: An interview with Dr. Estela Bensimon. Office
of Community College Research and Leadership, 22(2). Retrieved 15 June 2011
from http://occrl.illinois.edu/articles/the-equity-scorecardtm-an-interview-with-
dr-estela-bensimon/
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 185
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131,
99-111.
Bensimon, E. M. (2012). Chapter 1: The Equity Scorecard. In Confronting equity issues
in campus: Implementing the Equity Scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling,
VA: Stylus Press.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., Daniels, J. E., & Walden, D. (2010). Long-term partners
for serving Los Angeles' African American and Latino students: USC's Center for
Urban Education and Los Angeles Southwest College. College bound: Strategies
for access and success for low-income students (pp. 34-43). Los Angeles, CA:
University of Southern California.
Bensimon, E.M. & Malcom, L. (2012). Introduction. In E.M. Bensimon & L. Malcom
(Ed.) Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in
theory and practice. (pp. 1-14). Sterling, VA: Stylus Press.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Organizational culture. Understanding college and
university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice (Vol. 1, pp.
358-399). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bidwell, A. (2013). California community colleges release statewide ‘student success
scorecard’. Retrieved August 6, 2013 from http://chronicle.com/article/California-
community-college/
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 186
Blundell, R., Dearden, L., Meghir, C., & Sianesi, B. (1999). Human capital investment:
The returns from educational and training to the individual, the firm and the
economy. Fiscal Studies, 20(1), 1-23.
Bowen, W. G., Chignos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line:
Completing college at America's public universities. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77-108.
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2008). Frequently asked questions
about AB 1417/accountability reporting for the community colleges (ARCC).
Retrieved from
http://www.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/Researchan
dPlanning/ARCC/tabid/292/Default.aspx.
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2011). Basic Skills Initiative.
California Community College Chancellor's Office. Retrieved 12 May, 2011,
from http://www.cccbsi.org/
California Department of Education. (2010). California High School Exit Examination
(CAHSEE) summary report by economic status and ethnicity. Retrieved 28 April
2011, from State of California http://cahsee.cde.ca.gov/
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2009). 50 state comparison: Number
of title IV postsecondary institutions. Retrieved 26 April 2011, from State of
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 187
California
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/50StateGraph.asp?Type=NumColleges
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2009). Total enrollment of students in
UCs, CSU and CCC by ethnicity, 1995-2009. Retrieved 26 April 2011, from State
of California http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/EthSnapshotMenu.asp
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2011a). California: State-wide
population by ethnicity, 1997-2011. Retrieved 26 April 2011, from State of
California http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/EthSnapshotMenu.asp
California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2011b). Student snapshots: Number of
degree-granting higher education institutions in California (2011). Retrieved 26
April 2011, from State of California
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/StudentSnapshot.ASP?DataReport=1
California State University. (2001). The CSU accountability process. Retrieved 12 May,
2011, from http://www.calstate.edu/cornerstones/reports/ProAcctProcess.html
California State University. (2008). Access to success baseline metrics: Bachelor's degree
programs California State University National Association of System Heads
(NASH)/The Education Trust.
California State University. (2010). California State University 'Early Start' program aims
to help students be better prepared for college before coming to campus.
Retrieved 27 April 2011, 2011, from
http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2010/release/early-start.shtml
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 188
California State University. (2011a). Chancellor's Office Graduate Initiative Plan.
Chancellor's Office. California State University.
California State University. (2011b). About Cornerstones . Retrieved 12 May, 2011, from
http://www.calstate.edu/cornerstones/about/index.shtml#fourcornerstones
Cataldi, E. F., Green, C., Henke, R., Lew, T., Woo, J., Shepherd, B., & Siegel, P. (2011).
2008-9 Baccalaureate and beyond longitudinal study (B&B:08/09): First look
(NCES 2011-236). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved 25 July 2011 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubshearch
Center for Urban Education. (2007). Missing 87: A study of the “Transfer Gap” and
“Transfer Choice”. In USC (Ed.). Los Angeles: Center for Urban Education.
Center for Urban Education. (2010). Center for urban education fosters collaboration to
promote equity for Latinos in STEM. In USC (Ed.) Los Angeles: Center for
Urban Education.
Center for Urban Education. (2011). An overview of the Equity Scorecard process. In
USC (Ed.). Los Angeles: Center for Urban Education.
Chaiklin, S. (2011). Social scientific research and societal practice: Action research and
cultural-historical research in methodological light from Kurt Lewin and Lev S.
Vygotsky. Mind, Culture and Activity, 18(2), 129-147.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design
Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 189
Community College League of California. (2000). Achieving the diversity commitment:
A policy and resource paper of the California community college trustees.
Sacramento, CA: Community College League of California.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America's commitment
to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
DeBard, R., & Rice, T. (2009). Modeling social justice through the community college.
In R. L. Raby & E. J. Valeau (Eds.), Community College Models (pp. 117-134).
Netherlands: Springer.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The Sage handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Domhoff, W. W. (2005). Studying power. Retrieved September 6, 2009, from
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/methods/studying_power.html
Dougherty, K. J., & Reid, M. (2007). Fifty states achieving the dream: State policies to
enhance access to and success in community colleges across the United States
Community College Research Center. New York: Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Dowd, A. C. (2002). Uniting old adversaries: Teaming efficiency and equity for social
justice. New England Resource Center for Higher Education: The Academic
Workplace, 13(2), 1, 3, 6-7, 14-15.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 190
Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission
of the community college. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 568(Mar.), 92-119.
Dowd, A. C. (2004). Community college revenue disparities: What accounts for an urban
college deficit? Urban Review, 36(4), 251-270.
Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond
the access "saga" toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4),
407-419.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2009a). CUE frameworks for action, research, and
evaluation. Los Angeles: Center for Urban Education, University of Southern
California.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2009b). The social learning theory and tools
underlying CUE's facilitation of action inquiry for equity. Los Angeles: Center for
Urban Education, University of Southern California.
Dowd, A. C., Bishop, R., Bensimon, E. M., & Witham, K. (2011). Accountability for
equity in postsecondary education. In K. S. Gallagher, R. K. Goodyear & D.
Brewer (Eds.), Introduction to Urban Education. London: Routledge.
Dowd, A. C., Pak, J. H., & Bensimon, E. M. (2013). The role of institutional agents in
promoting transfer access. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(15). Retrieved
8 September 2013, from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1187.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 191
Dowd, A. C., Sawatzky, M., & Korn, R. (2011). Theoretical foundations and a research
agenda to validate measures of intercultural effort. Review of Higher Education.
Dynamic Community College. (2013). Student success scorecard. Sacramento, CA:
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.
Enciso, M. (2009). The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participant
in promoting equity at a community college. Ed.D. Dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration
and learning at work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ewell, P., Paulson, K., & Kinzie, J. (2011). Down and in: Assessment practices at the
program level. In G. D. Kuh (Ed.), Program Level Survey Report: National
Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. New York: Psychology Press.
French, J.R., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartright (Ed.).
Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
Fulks, J., Cordova, J., Mecom, A., Parsons, M., Pittaway, D.S., & Smith, D. (2010,
Spring). Practices that promote equity in basic skills in California community
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 192
colleges. Academic Senate of California Community Colleges, 1-43. Retrieved
from http://asccc.org/sites/default/files/promote_equity_basicskills-spr2010.pdf
Gallagher. K. S., & Holley, K. A. (2003). The influence of US News & World Report
rankings on the decision making behavior of professional school deans.
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Education, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.
Gardner, S. (2008). Why so few minorities in the sciences? The Hispanic Outlook in
Higher Education, 18(12), 20-22.
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.), The Sage
handbook of qualitative research (pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gurr, T. (2009). Creating a community of purpose with educators and stakeholder groups.
Building a Learning University, 12(9). Retrieved May 10, 2011 from
http://www.league.org/blog/post.asp/building-a-learning-university
Gutierrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy:
Cultural, difference, and learning for students from nondominant communities.
Review of Research in Education, 33(1), 212-245.
Gutierrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew:
Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal
of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 100-117.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 193
Harbour, C. P., & Jaquette, O. (2007). Advancing an equity agenda at the community
college in an age of privatization, performance accountability, and marketization.
Equity and Excellence in Education, 40(3), 197-207.
Henze, R.C. (2005). Metaphors of diversity, intergroup relations, and equity in the
discourse of educational leaders. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education,
4(4), 243-267.
Horn, C. (2005). Standardized assessments and the flow of students into the college
admissions pool. Educational Policy, 19(2), 331-348.
Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener's tale.
American Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212-1215.
Jones, N. A. (2012, May). The Asian population in the United States: Results from the
2010 Census. Paper presented at the meeting of the 2010 Asian Profile America
Event, Washington, D.C.
Kanter, M. J. (2011). American higher education: "First in the world". Change, from
http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2011/May-
June%202011/first-in-the-world-full.html
Kezar, A., Glenn, W. J., Lester, J., & Nakamoto, J. (2008). Examining organizational
contextual features that affect implementation of equity initiatives. Journal of
Higher Education, 79(2), 125-159.
Leonhardt, D. (2011). Top colleges, largely for the elite, New York Times.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 194
Levonisova, S.V. (2012). Evaluating the impact of CUE’s action research processes and
tools on practitioners’ beliefs and practices. Ed.D. Dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Lew, J.W., Chang, J.C., & Wang, W.W. (2005). UCLA community college review: The
overlooked minority: Asian Pacific American students at community colleges.
Community College Review, 33(64), 64-84.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lochner, L. (2004). Education, work and crime: A human capital approach. International
Economic Review, 45(3), 811-843.
Lorenz, G.L. (2012). Scorecard teams as high learning groups: Group learning and the
value of group learning. In E.M. Bensimon & L. Malcom (Eds.) Confronting
equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in theory and
practice. (pp. 45-63). Sterling, VA: Stylus Press.
Malcom, L. E., Bensimon, E. M., & Dávila, B. (2010). (Re)constructing Hispanic-serving
institutions: Moving beyond numbers toward student success. EP3: Education
Policy and Practice Perspectives, 6: Iowa State University.
Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J. J., & Nao, K. (2008). Stuck in the shallow
end: Education, race and computing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
McArthur, R.C. (2002). Democratic leadership and faculty empowerment at the
community college: A theoretical model for the department chair. Community
College Review, 39(1), 1-10.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 195
Murphy, P. J. (2004). Financing California's community colleges. San Francisco, CA:
Public Policy Institute of California .
Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race, culture,
and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449-475.
Ng, J. C., Lee, S. S., & Pak, Y. K. (2007). Contesting the model minority and perpetual
foreigner stereotypes: A critical review of literature on Asian Americans in
education. Review of Educational Research, 31, 95-130.
Ogawa, R. T., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward
conceptualizing learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational
Researcher, 37(2), 83-95.
Orfield, G. (1999). Policy and equity: A third of a century of educational reforms in the
United States. Prospects, 29(4), 579-594.
Ouimet, J. A., Bunnage, J. C., Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Kennedy, J. (2004). Using
focus groups, expert advice, and cognitive interviews to establish the validity of a
college student survey. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 233-250.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and education research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(Jan), 307-332.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to
enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford Press.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 196
Perez, P.A. & Ceja, M. (2010). Building a Latina/o student transfer culture: Best
practices and outcomes in transfer to universities. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 9(1), 6-21.
Perez, P.A., & McDonough, P.M. (2008). Understanding Latina and Latino college
choice: A social capital and chain migration analysis. Journal of Hispanic
Education, 7(3), 249-265.
Pope, J. (2007). In California, community college graduation rates disappoint.
Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071401361_pf.html
Robinson-Kurpius, S.E. & Stafford, M.E. (2006). Testing and measurement: A user-
friendly guide. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publication.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.
NY: Oxford University Press.
Sack, J. L. (2004). UC Board raises minimum GPA, student ire. Education Week, 24(6),
19-20.
Salazar-Romo, C. (2009). Remediating artifacts: Facilitating a culture of inquiry among
community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access. Ed.D.
Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Santos,J. L., & Acevedo-Gil, N. (2013). A report card on Latino/a leadership in
California public universities: A trend analysis of faculty, students, and executives
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 197
in the CSU and UC systems. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 12(2), 174-
200.
Santrock, J. W. (2009). Life-span development. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organizational studies.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 229-240.
Schön, D. (1988). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51(1),
1-17.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and
institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review,
27(4), 222-247.
Smith, P. J. (2012). Encouraging student success: Turning attention to practitioners in
institutions. Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 198
Somerville, H. (2011). CSU outlines drastic cuts in worst-case budget. The Fresno Bee.
Retrieved from http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/05/10/2383731/csu-outlines-
drastic-cutbacks.html
Standler, R. B. (2010). Academic freedom in the USA. Retrieved from
http://www.rbs2.com/afree.htm
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional
agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth
& Society.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Subramaniam, T. (2012). A developmental evaluation action research as a process for
organizational change. Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Sothern California, Los
Angeles, CA.
Taylor, M. C. (2009). End of university as we know it. New York Times.
Tharp, R. D., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
US Census Bureau. (2009). California: State and county quick facts. Retrieved 26 April
2011 http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
US Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology,
Terrorism and Government Information. (1997). The nation at risk: Report on the
President’s commission on critical infrastructure protection: Hearing before the
subcommittee on technology, terrorism, and government information of the
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 199
committee on the judiciary. United States Senate One Hundred fifth Congress,
first session.
US Department of Education. (2011a, 22 March). College completion tool kit. Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/college-completion/governing-win
US Department of Education. (2011b, 22 March). Vice President Biden issues call to
action to boost college graduation rates nationwide. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/vice-president-biden-issues-call-action-
boost-college-graduation-rates-nationwid
Ward, N. L. (2006). Improving equity and access for low-income and minority youth into
institutions of higher education. Urban Education, 41(1), 50-70.
Weinstein, A. (2010) Obama on college funding. Education.com. From
http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Obama_College_Funding/
Wells, G. (2011). Integrating CHAT and action research. Mind, Culture, and Activity,
18(2), 161-180.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). (2011) WASC accreditation.
Retrieved from http://www.acswasc.org/about_overview.htm
Westover, J., & Hatton, L. (2011). Closing the gaps of college and career readiness.
InnovateED. Riverside, CA.
Willis, G. B. (2005) Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 200
Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding
complex human interactions in design-based research from a cultural-historical
activity theory (CHAT) framework. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451-
484.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity & Education, 8(1), 69-91.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 201
Appendix A
Observational Data Collection Template
TIME PERIOD/TASK (#)
Site
(room temp, equipment,
environment, “artifacts”)
Mood
(emotions, general attitudes,
personality traits)
“Task” Performance
(CUE Tools; knowledge base
for engagement with
presentation or tool;
expressed attitudes towards
or beliefs about tool; e.g. use
or value or design)
Social Context
(Who is there (social
markers), positions/
authority relations; race
relations; interactions, who
talking)
Behavioral Intentions
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 202
(expressed next steps, plans,
norms)
Environmental Constraints
(expressed concerns or
hopes, perceived limitations
of self, team or resources)
Reflection/Analysis
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 203
Appendix B
Pre-‐Workshop
Cognitive
Interview
Start
Time
of
Interview:
Interviewer
Initials:
Instructions
Please
take
a
few
minutes
to
provide
your
thoughts
on
an
upcoming
workshop
that
will
be
held
at
your
college.
1. The
Center
for
Urban
Education
at
USC
has
been
partnering
with
Santa
Ana
College
(SAC)
faculty
and
administrators
to
facilitate
the
Syllabus
Project
on
your
campus.
As
a
person
who
has
been
invited
to
participate
in
an
introductory
workshop
related
to
this
project,
can
you
tell
me
what
you
know
about
it
so
far?
2. What
is
your
role
at
SAC
(e.g.
professor,
librarian,
counselor,
other)?
How
long
have
you
been
in
that
role,
here
and
at
other
campuses
before
coming
to
SAC?
3. The
Syllabus
Project
utilizes
an
inquiry
tool
based
on
the
principles
of
culturally
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 204
inclusive
pedagogy.
I
would
like
to
ask
you
about
your
familiarity
with
these
terms,
because
it
will
help
us
plan
for
the
workshop.
a. Are
you
familiar
with
the
term
“inquiry,”
and
if
so
what
does
it
mean
to
you?
b. Are
you
familiar
with
the
term
“culturally
inclusive
pedagogy,”
and
if
so
what
does
it
mean
to
you?
4. The
mission
of
the
Center
for
Urban
Education
is
to
promote
racial-‐ethnic
equity
in
higher
education.
What
does
the
term
“equity”
mean
to
you?
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 205
5. Do
you
consider
yourself
a
person
who
is
active
in
addressing
issues
of
equity?
If
so,
in
what
ways?
End
Time
of
Interview:
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 206
Appendix C
Post-workshop Cognitive Interview Protocol (Excerpt: Equity-Mindedness Module)
The Cognitive Interview
Cognitive interviews focus on detecting problems in survey questionnaires, including the
cognitive processes respondents use to answer survey questions: comprehension, recall,
decision and judgment, and response processes (Willis, 2005).
Instructions for Interviewer (Willis, 2005):
1. Review the questionnaire to make sure you can “get through it” and determine
probes to ask.
2. To start the interview, read the instructions to subject either verbatim or
paraphrased.
3. When you start, make sure to enter the start time.
4. Make sure the subject isn’t reading the questionnaire as you administer it (i.e.,
make sure he or she is only listening to you).
5. If you do not complete your protocol in the allotted time, mark where you ended.
If something is difficult to administer or you can’t figure out exactly how to read
a question, make a comment to the effect that it is a problem, and ask it the best
you can.
6. Use the suggested probes that are written in and other probes you can think of.
Don’t feel you need to probe every question extensively.
7. Enter comments, under each question, about problems or issues that come up. Try
to make them readable because they will be used as data.
8. When you are done. Enter the end time.
9. Look back over the questionnaire and add other comments as appropriate.
10. Save each commented protocol so that later you can pool these into one version
that covers all the interviews you conduct.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 207
Cognitive Interview Protocol
Date: Interview # : Interviewer initials:
Start Time of Interview:
Instructions to be read to the Participant. Either read these instructions in their entirety or
paraphrase them. It is more important that you work with what you hear as opposed to
following the protocol.
Opening Statement:
“Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. As you know I am collecting data
from workshop participants, such as yourself, in order to improve the effectiveness of
CUE tools for future workshops. Additionally, I hope to gain insight into your experience
as a workshop and action research participant. This data may also be used for my
dissertation. However, similar to our last interview, data reported will not reveal any
identifying information. I’d like to use this opportunity to recap what we discussed the
last time we spoke and expand on changes that have occurred in the meantime. I
appreciate your sharing with me, it continues to be very helpful.”
Question: (Repeat this question as often as needed, i.e. for any topic they discussed
previously that you would like clarification on)
“The last time we spoke, you mentioned…” (A brief statement from something
meaningful that they shared previously, that you feel would make for an interesting
follow-up)
Where are you at now regarding…(statement)?
Probes:
“Have you had any additional thoughts about this?”
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 208
“Has anything changed for you?”
“For your colleagues or at the campus level?”
Question:
“Have you noticed any changes in how you view issues related to racial/ethnic equity on
your campus? For example, do you feel that you see things differently or have a stronger
sense or agency towards moving your campus forward on this level?”
Probes:
If yes:
“Can you describe what lead to these changes?”
If no:
“Why do feel this might be the case?”
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 209
Question:
“Are there any ways you have incorporated CUE’s work into your own? Any changes in
your own behaviors or perhaps intentions to do so?”
Probes:
If yes:
“Are there any documents that demonstrate these changes?
“Would you mind sharing them with me and CUE at some point?”
If no:
“Why do feel this might be the case?”
Question:
“Since the last time spoke have you noticed any changes in the focus of your colleagues
around equity or other topics discussed at the workshops? For example, has there been
any noticeable discussion around this/these topics, or changes in attitudes or behaviors?”
Probes:
If yes:
“In your opinion, what caused this change?”
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 210
“In what ways do you feel this was influenced by CUE’s work with your institution, if
any?”
“Do you feel that there is anything CUE could’ve done differently to encourage (if
positive)/discourage (if negative) these changes?”
If no:
“In your opinion, why do you feel that your colleagues are not focusing on these issues?”
“How could’ve the CUE team improved on catalyzing (if positive)/hindering (if negative)
these changes?”
Question:
“Similar to the last question, have you noticed any changes at the level of your institution
(culture or policy) surrounding equity issues or other areas touched upon at the
workshops?”
Probes:
If yes:
“In your opinion, what caused this change?”
“In what ways do you feel this was influenced by the workshops, if any?
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 211
“Do you feel that there is anything CUE could’ve done differently to encourage (if
positive)/discourage (if negative) these changes?”
If no:
“In your opinion, why do you feel that your institution is not moving forward regarding
these issues?”
“How could’ve the CUE team improved on catalyzing (if positive)/hindering (if negative)
these changes?”
Conclusion:
Is there anything else you would to share regarding your own processing or noticeable
changes at your colleague or campus level?
Thank you for taking the time to help CUE improve our work with your institution. Do
you have any further questions or concerns?
End Time of Interview:
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 212
Appendix D
Recruitment Text and Ethical Commitments for Interactions with Human Subjects
Dear Colleague,
The Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California is
currently conducting a developmental evaluation study. The study has two main goals.
First to develop our evaluation capacity by improving the validity of the inferences we
draw from our workshop evaluation forms and other evaluative processes and, second, to
improve our effectiveness in conducting action research for the purposes of improving
equity in higher education. Therefore, we are interested in gaining a more nuanced
understanding of the experiences of workshop participants and Equity Scorecard
evidence team members who engage with us in action research projects.
As a participant in a CUE workshop or evidence team, you may be asked to take part in
an interview or a focus group conducted by a doctoral student who is part of the CUE
Evaluation Study research team. The doctoral students will also collect observational data
at workshops and team meetings. You can decline to participate in an interview or a focus
group, or request to be omitted from the data collected during workshop and team
observations.
That said, I am hopeful you are willing to support and contribute to CUE’s
developmental evaluation study and our goal of better understanding you and your
colleague’s reactions, experiences, reflections, and action steps and the extent to which
these were facilitated through our action research processes and tools.
In conducting this study, we make the following commitments:
• To respect your professionalism and privacy by conducting the study in a confidential
and ethical manner.
• To use your time wisely and well, and to minimize the “response burden” on any one
individual.
• To report findings anonymously to external audiences, for example in dissertations or
evaluation reports.
• To share findings with you and your colleagues in ways informative to your learning
process. We will not report findings in ways that would reveal the experience of any
one individual (for example based on his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or position).
Instead, we will draw on findings from multiple participants on your campus or
aggregated across different field sites to communicate themes or issues that are
pertinent in your setting.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 213
Should you have any questions or concerns, or should any arise as we conduct this study,
please contact me by phone or email: 213.740.5202, alicia.dowd@usc.edu.
Thank you for your consideration!
Yours sincerely,
Alicia C. Dowd
Associate Professor
Co-Director
Center for Urban Education
University
of
Southern
California
•
Rossier
School
of
Education
•
Waite
Phillips
Hall,
Suite
702
Los
Angeles,
CA
90089-‐4037
•
T
213.740.5202
•
F
213.740.3889
•
http://cue.usc.edu
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 214
CUE’s Developmental-Evaluation Study—At a Glance
Q. If I participate in this study, what would I be asked to do?
A. You would be asked to do one or more of the following:
• Complete an evaluation form at the conclusion of a workshop or evidence team
meeting in which you were a participant (approximately 15 minutes)
• Participate in one or more individual telephone or in-person interviews
following a workshop or team meeting (approximately 40 minutes each)
• Participate in a focus group (approximately 1.0 to 1.5 hours long)
• Provide non-confidential materials from your work to illustrate professional
practices on your campus (e.g. a syllabus, an application form, an assessment
form, a campus report) and changes that take place over the course of the
study.
Q. What if I participate in one of the activities indicated above, but don’t want to
participate in the others.
A. That is fine. You may decline to participate at any time.
Q. What methodology are you using?
A. Our study is best characterized as developmental evaluation
1
, a methodology that is
appropriate when the organization conducting the study operates in a complex, dynamic
environment and is interested in developing innovative and responsive processes that will
function well in those environments.
Developmental evaluators use a variety of methods, data, and analysis techniques. We
will triangulate data from evaluation forms, observations, interviews, focus groups and
documents. The interviews will take a particular form called “cognitive interviewing.”
These are “think aloud” interviews where you explain how you interpreted and answered
the questions on the evaluation form. This will enable us to improve the quality of the
data we collect from this simple and quick evaluation tool.
Q. Who else is involved in this study?
Currently, faculty, administrators, and counselors at twelve community colleges, two
state universities, and two liberal arts colleges (all in California) are being invited to
participate. We anticipate having 10 to 30 participants per site at 10 of these sites, with
the number depending on the total number of participants in CUE workshops or evidence
teams. It is not necessary for everyone who has participated in a workshop or team
meeting at a particular campus to participate in the evaluation study.
1
See Patton, M. Q. (2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use.
New York: Guilford Press.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 215
Appendix E
Handout for Reflection on CUE Symposium Morning Panel
College Panel Discussion Guide
Dynamic Community College
Insights Questions Dilemmas
Buy-In
Culture of
Inquiry/Standards
of Evidence
Sustained Focus
Resource
Leveraging
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 216
College Panel Discussion Guide
Las Flores College
Insights Questions Dilemmas
Buy-In
Culture of
Inquiry/Standards
of Evidence
Sustained Focus
Resource
Leveraging
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 217
College Panel Discussion Guide
Amarillo College
Insights Questions Dilemmas
Buy-In
Culture of
Inquiry/Standards
of Evidence
Sustained Focus
Resource
Leveraging
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 218
Appendix F
Subramaniam’s timeline of events for DCC Early Adopters
Revised Timeline for Syllabus Reflection Protocol Project – August 4, 2011
Attendees at August 2, 2011 planning meeting: Cynthia, Brian, Abigail, and Practitioner
STEP 1
August 15 – 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (tentative- will confirm) – Early Adopters (EAs)
meet to complete Syllabus Reflection Protocol Exercise during Flex week. EAs will use
their own syllabus during this meeting using the new revised protocol. (CUE doctoral
student may be needed to facilitate
STEP 2
August 16 – Brian, Academic Senate President will briefly introduce the project to
department chairs.
STEP 3
August 17 – Brian or Cynthia or Keith will briefly introduce the project to the Academic
Senate.
STEP 4
After August 15
th
, EAs will complete online survey: preferably prior to August 22, the
beginning of the fall semester.
STEP 5
August 22
nd
to October 21
st
EAs will review a syllabus.
Subramaniam will conduct cognitive interviews with Early Adopters between August
22
nd
to October 21
st
.
STEP 6
EAs will complete online survey before the October 21
st
Syllabus Workshop.
November 22
– Academic Senate Presentation – A condensed version of the BESST tool
showing the starting cohort number and ending number of students who successfully
completed Math/English basic skills courses.
STEP 7
TBA November meeting with Department Chairs
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 219
STEP 8
December 1
st
– EA follow-up and planning workshop
Week 10 and 12 of fall semester – before “withdrawal date” – conduct student focus
group interviews. Student volunteers will meet with CUE members outside of class time,
preferably in the afternoon so class time is not used for this purpose and interview will be
conducted in the absence of faculty.
Early adopter focus group interview will be completed during the same period.
STEP 9
TBA December – EAs will complete online survey.
STEP 10
Spring Semester – January 23
rd
– EAs will pilot revised syllabus and facilitate the
syllabus review process with the next group of adopters.
Subramaniam will conduct cognitive interviews with Early Adopters between February
and March.
CUE doctoral researcher will conduct cognitive interviews with new adopter group.
STEP 11
Early March – Conduct student and faculty focus group interview.
STEP 12
End of April – Early Adopter group will complete online survey.
STEP 13
Mid May – Student and Faculty focus group interview will be conducted.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 220
Appendix
G
Syllabus
Review
Protocol,
entitled
Document
Analysis
for
Self-‐Assessment
of
Culturally
Inclusive
Practices
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 221
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 222
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 223
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 224
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 225
Appendix
H
Student
Syllabus
Assessment
Form
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 226
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 227
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 228
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 229
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 230
Appendix
I
Handout
on
Microaggressions
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 231
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 232
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 233
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 234
Appendix J
List of DCC Participants
Not every participant listed here was interviewed, so full biographical information may
be limited.
Early Adopters
Abigail is a faculty member in language arts and attended two workshops (one facilitated
by CUE and one not) using CUE’s tools.
Administrator is the vice president of Student Services. She has worked at the college for
over 25 years and has attended 4 CUE facilitated workshops and planning meetings at
DCC.
Brian is a science professor and the Academic Senate President. He attended the BESST
and first Syllabus Review Protocol workshop at DCC. He also attended the Syllabus
Review Protocol workshop that was not facilitated by CUE.
Cynthia is a professor in the social sciences as well as the college’s Basic Skills
Coordinator. She has attended many CUE facilitated workshops at DCC.
Keith is a professor of mathematics.
Practitioner is a professor in language arts.
New Faculty
Brett is faculty counselor who works with disabled students.
Carlos has is a professor in the social sciences. He has worked in a staff position for
many years at the college prior to becoming a faculty member.
DESIGNING EQUITY-FOCUSED ACTION RESEARCH 235
Dave is a science faculty member.
Donna is a faculty member in the library.
Doug is a performance arts faculty member.
Emma is a business faculty member.
Gary is a new business faculty member.
Julie is a performance arts faculty member
Linda is a faculty counselor who works with disabled students.
Megan is a mathematics faculty member.
Mike is a mathematics faculty member who coordinates the math tutoring center. He is
not currently teaching.
Pedro is an art faculty member.
Ruth is an English faculty member.
Shelly is a faculty counselor who works with students on their academic plans.
Tina is a faculty counselor who works with students on their academic plans.
Vicky is a faculty member focused on student health issues.
Wendy is a faculty counselor who works with students on their academic plans.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study was a developmental evaluation that investigated whether practitioners’ involved in an action research project experienced changes in their attitudes, assumptions, knowledge, behaviors, and beliefs by engaging in practitioner inquiry. The problem of the study revolved around the pressing issues of access, retention and degree completion in how to best achieve accountability for inequities experienced by racial minority groups in higher education in the United States. Action research and inquiry is a strategy utilized by the Center for Urban Education (CUE) to address these issues. ❧ Purposeful sampling led to the selection of a case study site where practitioners were engaging in inquiry with CUE. An urban community college that had engaged in continuous use of CUE’s action research tools to understand how their attitudes, assumptions, knowledge, and beliefs affected equity was the institution in focus in this study. The practitioners engaged in inquiry in this study included an "early adopters" group and a potential "beta group" of participants in the inquiry process. The experiences of sixteen untenured, new faculty members at the college were of particular interest, because they were identified by the early adopters group for recruitment into a broader college effort towards equity focused organizational change. This group was selected because they were a cohesive group to participate in the action research project. ❧ The unit of analysis was a series of activity systems where early adopting practitioners used CUE’s tools and a single culminating workshop that involved the new, untenured faculty. The potential of one of CUE’s action research tools, the Syllabus Review Protocol, was analyzed using activity theoretical analysis for its potential to act as a remediating artifact of practice. For 11 months, data was collected through document analysis, expert interviews, cognitive interviews, observations and evaluations. The analysis employed activity theory to identify each activity system’s subjects, tools, objects, norms, communities, and divisions of labor and how those led to or failed to achieve desired outcomes. ❧ The goal of the inquiry project, at the stage examined in this study, was to provide the untenured faculty practitioners the opportunity to become aware that their attitudes, assumptions, knowledge, and beliefs related to race and ethnicity may affect the way they view their students and their students’ ability to succeed. The study revealed that when untenured faculty practitioners lacked general knowledge about community norms of behavior regarding practitioner inquiry, they were less likely to value the behaviors of their peers who promoted inquiry as an effective strategy of organizational learning and change. By identifying hidden disturbances, the study’s findings demonstrate that matching the right action research tool to available resources and the entry point of the group was necessary for new inquiry participants to effectively use the tool, and by extension other equity minded tools CUE or other action researchers might design. This study contributes to the body of knowledge about the design of action research intended to promote equity. It also establishes a basis for the design of collaborative practices at other community colleges and universities embarking on an investigation of their institution’s culture with the objective of developing plans for improving student outcomes.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A developmental evaluation of action research as a process for organizational change
PDF
Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes
PDF
Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research
PDF
Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices
PDF
Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
Faculty learning and agency for racial equity
PDF
Equity for students of color through practitioner accountability
PDF
Developing adaptive expertise among community college faculty through action inquiry as a form of assessment
PDF
Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions
PDF
Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities
PDF
Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors
PDF
Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM
PDF
Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education
PDF
Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents
PDF
Structures for change: involving faculty in equity-based decision-making in independent schools
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
PDF
Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university
PDF
How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning
Asset Metadata
Creator
Woerner, Christiane Rhys
(author)
Core Title
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
12/11/2013
Defense Date
08/23/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Center for Urban Education,equity,inquiry,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change,professional development,untenured faculty
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Dowd, Alicia C. (
committee chair
), Ahmadi, Shafiqa (
committee member
), Perez, Patricia A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
christiane@woerner.org,christianewoerner@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-358662
Unique identifier
UC11296250
Identifier
etd-WoernerChr-2220.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-358662 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WoernerChr-2220.pdf
Dmrecord
358662
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Woerner, Christiane Rhys
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Center for Urban Education
equity
inquiry
organizational change
professional development
untenured faculty