University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities

(USC Thesis Other)

Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

MATH FACULTY AS INSTITUTIONAL AGENTS:
ROLE REFLECTION THROUGH INQUIRY-BASED ACTIVITIES

by

Mary Grace Javier

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

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Mary Grace Javier

ii
DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to all the individuals in my life who have made a conscious
commitment to guide my academic advancement and support my relentless pursuit for
bigger dreams and better opportunities. Grandma Mel, you have taught me that
motivation coupled with ambition is a priceless combination. Lance, mi amor, patience
and humility are invaluable lessons I’ve learned from you in my quest to achieve this
goal.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my number one fans – Lance, Dad, Auntie Julie, Mom, Sophie,
Mario, Jasmine, Kaio, Maile, Joe, Krystal, Lana, Evan, Christina, Danny, Eddie, Britny,
Andrew, Grandma, and Grandpa – for their encouragement over the past three years. It
has a been challenging journey, one that was hopefully modeled what a myopic focus
coupled with persistence and dedication yields. Your patience, support, and unwavering
belief in me gave me a forum for this major achievement. I would also like to
acknowledge my chair, Dr. Alicia Dowd, for her support throughout the dissertation
writing process and challenging me to think critically about the ways in which promoting
equity can improve the quality of education for underserved students.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Abstract viii

Chapter 1: Introduction
Accountability in Education 1
A State Context for Accountability 6
A Local Context for Accountability 10
Introduction of the Problem 12
Purpose of the Study 18
Research Focus 20
Significance of the Study 21
Organization of the Dissertation 23

Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework
Overview 24
Institutional Agents 26
Next Steps 37
Reflective Cycle: Describing the Problem 38
Next Steps 54

Chapter 3: Methodology
Problematic Situation 61
Research Questions and Issues 62
Methodological Approach 64
Setting 67
Participants 69
Data Collection Plan 71
Data Gathering Tools 76
Data Analysis 80
Study Limitations 84
Ethical Considerations 85

Chapter 4: Results 88
Opportunities for Reflection: A Case Study 91
Inquiry at Markham College 91
Capacity Building 92
v
Resistance to Change 100
Acceptance of What is New 102
Individual Learning 106
Learning about Professional Practices 111
Problem Assessment 114
Available Resources 116
Agency: Knowledge and Social Competencies 119
Discussion of the Findings 122
Think from Multiple Perspectives 123
Enact Change 126
Foster Collaborative Relationships 128
Limitations of the Inquiry Project 129

Chapter 5: Conclusion 132
Implications for Practice 134
Readiness for Participation 135
Readiness for the Inquiry Process 136
Readiness for Change 137
Limitations of the Study 142
Suggestions for Future Research 143
Summary 145

Works Cited 146

Appendixes
A. Data Matrix 152
B. Faculty Interview Protocol I 153
C. Faculty Interview Protocol II 156
D. Learning Center Observation Guide 158
E. “I Learn Best…” Assessment 161
F. Math Faculty Syllabi Workshop 162

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Inquiry Project Inquiry Steps 17
Table 2.1: Rodgers’ Reflective Cycle 40

Table 2.2: Reflection Cycle Comparison 52

Table 3.1: Chronological Order of Data Collection 73

Table 3.2: Additional Data Access 74

Table 3.3: Reflection of Knowledge Matrix 82

Table 4.1: Percentage of Responses for Each Reflection Step 108

Table A-1: Data Matrix 152

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Diagram of Study’s Overarching Conceptual Framework,
Organization of the Results, and Central Themes 90

Figure 4.2: Number of Problem-Solving Knowledge Responses per Category:
Participants – Dr. Talbot & Dr. Pascal 114

Figure D-1: Learning Center Observation Guide 158

viii
ABSTRACT

This qualitative study examined the self-assessment process of faculty and
administrative team members from an urban community college who participated in a
one and a half year long inquiry project aimed at addressing success outcomes for
“minoritized” students. Through inquiry-based activities, participants examined
institutional student data from students enrolled in basic skills courses and formed teams
to address issues surrounding institutional performance in mathematics and
developmental communications. A math department faculty participating in the project
was the focus of the study because student success in math has been inequitably low on
national, state, and local levels. Over the course of the project, participants were
observed in various college settings and interviewed as a way to gauge what they were
learning about their role to impact student success. Specifically through structured
inquiry, participants acquired new knowledge to facilitate action steps in both the
classroom and within the department to better support outcomes for students beginning in
basic skills courses. The findings of this study suggest that there are different levels of
readiness for a practitioner driven inquiry project in higher education – readiness for
participation in a project, readiness to engage in the process of inquiry, and readiness to
change both individual and institutional practices. Through the process of reflection,
participants developed varying levels of problem solving knowledge, based on their
readiness. While many were able to accurately assess the problem, some developed
knowledge about resources to address the problem, and a select few learned how to take
action on a student’s behalf.

1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Accountability in Education
Who is accountable, to whom, and for what? The search for the answer to this
question has increasingly emerged with high demand in the educational field.
Accountability is the responsibility to take ownership for one’s actions. This notion of
obligation has left educators at all levels struggling to answer this important question.
Accountability paired with assessment is a way to think about problems such as access
and equity in higher education. Equity is defined as the point when there is an equal
representation of an ethnic group in the student body and across all majors, programs, and
outcomes at an institution (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman & Vallejo, 2004).
Access, on the other hand, is the point where one gains entry into these higher
institutions of learning, especially for those students who have been historically
marginalized. If all major stakeholders are holding themselves accountable to students,
then why have the issues of access and equity manifested so broadly and affected so
many students of color from low socioeconomic backgrounds in the form of inequitable
success outcomes? For some students in pursuit of a degree in higher education, their
goal is achieved and success is attained when their degree is received. For others,
success is defined as the moment when one gains access into these colleges and
universities. In many institutions, accountability and assessment lay the context for their
initiatives and progress in addressing issues of equity and access. Through inquiry-based
processes, institutions are given the opportunity to reflect on their practices, their
expertise development, and more importantly, their role as change agents to impact
2
students’ success outcomes. When institutions look inward to identify the problem and
solution to their issues, they are holding themselves accountable for the important work
that they do. One way to examine equity in student outcomes is through self-assessments
where a “culture of inquiry” is cultivated in incremental steps amongst stakeholders to
improve the capacity of the institution (Dowd & Tong, 2007). It is through the
participation of key stakeholders and the dissemination of the findings that colleges can
anticipate changes in both policies and practices. Inquiry is also a platform for where
institutional agents, those who extend resources and opportunities to less privileged
students, can begin to reflect on how their role impacts students directly.
The discussion on accountability at the national level will begin with the federal
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 in primary and secondary education, continue
with Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) in higher education, and end with a discussion
on the relationship between the under-representation of minorities at the university level
and the issue of access. With the inception of NCLB the widespread phenomenon of
accountability has unfolded in the United States K-12 system. The accountability
framework of NCLB functions as a series of “contractual” relationships between the
provider of goods or services and the chief decision maker who has the power to reward,
punish, or replace the provider (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). Congress, the U.S.
Department of Education, states, school districts, and principals all function as directors
and providers who are accountable for student learning. Goldberg & Morrison (2003)
explore school accountability as it relates to successful schools in three different facets.
The first is bureaucratic accountability that is hierarchal in nature where the locus of
control is placed outside of the school. Second, professional accountability encompasses
3
the knowledge, rules, and behaviors that are specific to the profession. Finally,
community accountability, which is voluntary, is the informal, interpersonal
responsibility one holds in the job. It is this value for the community and society that
Goldberg & Morrison (2003) argue is generated in the form of “Human capital (the
growing skills and knowledge of the members of the community, teachers as well as
students), and social capital (the strengthening of collaborative relationships and trust
among the school and outside individuals and organizations),” (pg. 62). The cultivation
of human and social capital is one of many paths to produce results of high accountability
systems.
However, this series of accountability relationships isn’t only a characteristic of
K-12 education; it also extends into higher education and beyond. In examining higher
education accountability, Burke (2004) has tracked a series of accountability features and
models that have evolved beginning in the 1970s. His work helps us to better understand
the tensions between accountability and assessment and its role in education. For
example, Burke’s accountability triangle consists of state priorities (political), academic
concerns (professional), and market forces (market) that work interdependently to
“Ensure service without subservience” (Burke, 2004, pg. 23) to any specific force. The
market force, which includes the needs and demands of students, parents, and businesses,
is central to the argument of what knowledge and capabilities graduates are supposed to
encompass as a result of culminating from college.
Higher education has responded to this quest for defining what body of
knowledge students are expected to have after graduating through the implementation of
SLOs. These outcomes are designed as both an assessment and accountability tool for
4
the institution and its students. Through these predetermined outcomes, students have an
understanding of what they are expected to know and learn upon completing a course.
Likewise, instructors have a framework for the knowledge and skills they are expected to
teach students in their courses. It is a reciprocal relationship that holds each accountable
for learning and teaching. Specifically at the community college level, SLOs are both
qualitative and quantitative measures of achievement as prescribed in course outlines.
For example, as delineated in the “Ten Plus One” Title V California Code of Regulations,
item seven calls for faculty roles and involvement in the accreditation process,
(Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, 2007); this would include
accountability in carrying out the academic and social outcome the institution has defined
in their SLOs.
Students maintain a reciprocal relationship with their instructor because each is
held accountable for the academic and social outcomes as defined by the institution.
The implications of holding institutions and students accountable through SLOs are
greater for those groups whose educational outcomes are inequitable. Minority students
at the community college level are disproportionately underachieving in higher education
– the equity and student achievement gap between African-Americans and Latinos and
their Caucasian and Asian counterparts is increasingly widening. Despite the talents that
low socio-economic and minority students bring with them to the community college,
they are still faced with multiple challenges when transferring to a four-year college
(Dowd, Bensimon & Gabbard, et al, 2006). To successfully transition to a university,
community college students are expected not only to exhibit academic promise, but also
demonstrate their persistence. Minority students are at a disadvantage in both
5
transferring and success at the 4-year college because of their limited access to strong
academic curriculum in the K-12 system (Brown & Niemi, 2007) and barriers ascribed at
the university level.
Barriers at the university include structural, cultural, and pedagogical mismatches
between the student and the institution. Transfer requirements, lack of financial aid, and
a complex application process are a few of the structural demands that inhibit minority
students from ever entering a university classroom. One of the major barriers of transfer
includes passing a college-level math course. In Unexpected Pathways: Transfer
Patterns of California Community College Students, Ivory & Lew (2007) refer to this
barrier as the “Math Milestone.” Simply put, when a student completes a college-level
math course, they have met a math milestone because this requirement functions as a
major hurdle for those who desire to transfer. And unfortunately, of all those who
attempt to pass a transferable math course, only 15% end up completing the requirement
(Ivory & Lew, 2007).
The second type of barrier at the university is the cultural mismatch, which refers
to the institutional culture and a student’s own culture. Minority students are
underrepresented (less than 25% of the enrolled population) at a large proportion of
universities, with the exception of Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic Serving
Institutions. As a result they may not fit into or easily assimilate into the institution’s
mainstream culture. The final barrier is the pedagogical mismatch. This refers to the
ways in which instruction is delivered versus the learning needs of students. Eliminating
these barriers is one way of addressing inequitable outcomes. Many have also argued that
a key aspect of promoting equity in education is by providing minority students with
6
access to elite institutions in order to avoid the replication of class structures that continue
to exist, (Dowd, Cheslock, & Melguizo, 2008). The concept of access for minority
students begins at the community colleges that have the contesting roles of “gateways”
and “gatekeepers” where on the one hand, they provide unlimited opportunities for
access, minimal enrollment standards, and low tuition fees, and on the other, impose
structures that inhibit students from advancing to their baccalaureate (Dowd, 2007).
Students enrolled at the community college level continue to be marginalized by the
institution itself because some colleges fail to meet its educational mission and also to
academically prepare students (Bensimon & Dowd, 2007).
A State Context for Accountability
Institutional accountability on a national level has emerged on the state level as
well. It has forged another layer of accountability in the form of assessment. As a
measurement of quality and outcomes, institutional self-assessment has taken precedence
in many forms, the Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) and part of the Accountability Reporting
for the Community Colleges (ARCC). California ranks 46
th
nationally; they are one of
the lowest bachelor’s degree granting states (Shulock & Moore, 2007). Despite this low
ranking, two thirds of graduating high school seniors continue to rely on their enrollment
at one of the 110 California Community Colleges in order to gain access into higher
education. Moore & Shulock (2007) specifically identify the disparate outcomes of
minority students which place them at the bottom of both the transfer and degree-
obtaining pole.
The challenge to create successful assessment programs can be attributed to
several factors. Ewell’s (1988) studies on implementing organizational assessment
7
suggest that these issues include unclear motives for creating assessment, unknown
consequences for the assessment results, lack of visibility or identity in the assessment
process, and finally, knowing where to begin the assessment process. In order to address
the issue of where to begin assessing at institutions, Ewell (1988) proposes the problem-
solving mechanism of examining current institutional practices. “Discovering,
documenting, and integrating such activities is an important initial step,” (pg. 18). It also
serves as a starting point for collaborative inquiry amongst those initiating assessment.
The drive for assessment has resulted in raising awareness that minority students from
low-socioeconomic backgrounds, or underrepresented students, don’t always have an
equitable opportunity to attain a college degree. Holding colleges accountable for
creating a “microcosm” of our democratic society can be viewed as a key purpose of
colleges. Providing opportunities for diverse groups of students have emerged as an
important initiative for improving the college experience (Gurin et al, 2002) and colleges
are being held responsible for outcomes, both academically and socially. However, these
diverse opportunities do not necessarily result in equitable outcomes for all students
because it’s a difficult responsibility and limited attention has been given to looking at
disaggregated data highlighting these outcomes.
The challenge of ensuring accountability from key constituents is widespread
across several areas within institutions. Faculty instruction is one of these main areas.
The California Community College Commission enactment of Assembly Bill 1725 in
1998 required the board of trustees to work with faculty to establish standards and
processes and also restricted the use of appropriated funds by establishing a 75/25 ratio of
full-time to part-time faculty (Shulock & Moore, 2007). One intention of the bill was to
8
provide educational quality, yet disparities amongst colleges continue to exist because
union negotiated contracts enable individual colleges to establish specific provisions
within the contract (Shulock & Moore, 2007). Having 75% of the faculty participating in
trainings, workshops, and professional developments, as full-time faculty do, is one way
to show a concerted commitment on the state’s behalf that students receive quality
instruction from full-time instructors. Through this faculty presence and unity,
opportunities for collaboration are a forum to begin meaningful work.
Relying solely on effective instruction as its own effort to improve the outcomes
at California’s community colleges is not sufficient. The idea of “outcome equity” stems
from the K-12 sector and impacts both community colleges and universities because of
the notion that students who are in need of educational resources will also need extended
resources in the form of financial or human support – through financial aid, counselors,
tutors, assistance programs, etc. (Dowd, 2007). The “outcomes” function as the product
of the accountability triangle wherein Burke (2004) describes how the political,
professional, and market are held responsible for ensuring student success. A
bureaucratic response to this responsibility was the launching of the 2006 Basic Skills
Initiative (BSI). It charged community colleges with the responsibility of identifying
assessment tools and effective practices and policies that could improve outcomes for
students in Basic Skills courses/programs (Center for Student Success, 2007). These
Basic skills students represent one third of all those enrolled at one of the 110 institutions
(Brown & Niemi, 2007); their outcomes matter, too.
The Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (also known as AB
1417) is another effort that preceded the BSI and was passed by the California State
9
Assembly in 2004 to standardize the evaluation process in community colleges across the
state. ARCC requires the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to
collaborate with the Legislature and Governor to recommend an annual structure or
framework for the evaluation of community colleges’ performance to support their goal
of attaining statewide educational outcomes (ARCC/AB 1417 Fact Sheet, 2007). In
conjunction with the Chancellor’s office, institutional researchers identified system-level
performance indicators for each college to meet, including:
Indicator 1 – Student Progress and Achievement Rate
Indicator 2 – Percent of Students Who Earned at Least 30 Units
Indicator 3 – Persistence Rate
Indicator 4 – Annual Successful Course Completion Rate (Vocational Skills)
Indicator 5 – Annual Successful Course Completion Rate (Basic Skills)
Indicator 6 – Credit ESL Improvement Rate
Indicator 7 – Credit Basic Skills Improvement Rate

The aim of the ARCC performance evaluation report is to support accountability
measures that lead to a college’s self-assessment of practices as a way to promote a fair
educational opportunity for students (ARCC Report, 2007). The ARCC report is
produced annually by each California Community College. Colleges are required to
review the proposed data, submit data corrections, and perform self-assessments as a part
of the process. Although ARCC provides colleges with a tool for improving their
institutional structures, it does not disaggregate data for the purpose of exposing
inequities in outcomes. Improvements in assessment and instruction alone are not
enough to positively impact student outcomes, but they potentially lay the groundwork
for improving equity in educational attainment among minority and low-socioeconomic
students.
10
One of the ways educators can begin thinking about their role in addressing
students’ needs is the “practitioner-as-researcher (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman &
Vallejo, 2004) model whereby key stakeholders are able to bring about change on an
individual, organizational, and societal level. The practitioner-as-researcher model
allows for a self-assessment of practices that ARCC calls for in supporting an
institution’s accountability measures by giving practitioners a role in assessing their own
performance as measured through performance indicators. Educators can begin to reflect
upon and take action on accountability initiatives through inquiry based activities that
raise their level of awareness – activities that could and should take place in the absence
of accountability. Both the BSI and ARCC are forms of self-assessments that are
intended to promote professional accountability; they also represent the starting point for
practitioners-as-researchers to begin their examination of equitable outcomes at the
community college level.
A Local Context for Accountability
The Inquiry Project provides the setting for my study. It was one of several
inquiry projects, such as the Diversity Scorecard, Equity for All Project, Missing 87,
California Benchmarking Project, and Wisconsin Transfer Equity Project, that originated
from University of Southern California’s Center for Urban Education. Each aimed, with
a somewhat different focus, to address issues surrounding equity at the higher education
level. All of these projects helped to inform the focus of the Inquiry Project at the center
of my study. The name of the current project has been changed to provide anonymity to
both the college and its participants. The three goals of the Inquiry Project are first, to
increase the number of students who successfully complete their first transfer-level
11
course after beginning college in “basic skills”-level courses, specifically African
Americans and Latinos. The second goal is to improve college effectiveness through the
development of an evidence-based model of assessment. The final goal is to produce
equitable transfer outcomes by fostering practitioner expertise. Three participating
colleges from a large metropolitan city established a minimum ten-person evidence team
that conducted research at their own site over the course of a year. In the one and a half-
year timeline of the study, Inquiry Project participants engaged in monitoring,
diagnosing, and developing strategies in an effort to enhance each college’s institutional
effectiveness and equity (Inquiry Project Information).
In essence, they partook in a benchmarking process where they learned about
their college and about themselves in relation to how their role impacts students learning
and student outcomes. The process of benchmarking was a forum for participants to
learn about organizational change and develop equity-minded practices. The process
called for inquiry based activities in which participants can first reflect on students’ needs
as identified in the disaggregated institutional data, and second, develop an action plan
that will address those needs. Self-assessment is essential in the process because as the
American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) Assessment Forum asserts in their
9 Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Outcomes, assessment requires
attention to outcomes and experiences leading to those outcomes. Attention to
experiences entails knowing what students experience in their educational route. AAHE
further suggests that, “Assessment can help us understand which students learn best
under what conditions; with such knowledge comes the capacity to improve the whole of
their learning,” (AAHE Assessment Forum, 2001). It is through the participation of key
12
stakeholders and the dissemination of findings that colleges can anticipate changes in
both policies and practices. Participation in such self-assessment processes is also the
platform for where institutional agents can begin to think critically about how their role
impacts students directly.
Introduction of the Problem
For many students, the thought of having to take a math course triggers anxiety.
The response to this anxiety is math avoidance that has translated into the low .6% of
students who declare mathematics as their major (Ivory & Neville, 2006) and high
numbers enrolled in remedial courses. In fact, in the 2003-04 U.S. Postsecondary Profile
of Undergraduates (2006), 13.2% of community college students were enrolled in
remedial math. Compared to students enrolled in remedial English (4.9%) and Reading
(4.9%), the disparity between enrollment in remedial Math and English/Reading is
alarming.
Within the current context of community college math instruction, the project for
my study is an institutional self-assessment process in the form of inquiry that has been
untested in meeting the outcomes of underrepresented students. To begin with, upon
completing an institutional evaluation such as benchmarking, a process whereby an
organization compares its own performance against another organization, the most
important step is implementing the feedback provided at the end of the process.
Although data collection and research are critical parts of this change sequence,
following through on the implications for practice and taking action are integral to the
reshaping of an institution. As a proposition for assessing student learning responsibly,
Shavelson and Huang (2003) assert that “We must figure out how to provide useful
13
feedback based on their results to all of the stakeholders in higher education, from
policymakers through academic leaders, to teaching faculty,” (pg. 19). As a tool for
organizational change, learning assessments are powerful because it helps institutions
shift the focus of blame from external factors to internal ones. As higher education
institutions assess student learning, they develop a body of knowledge about the students
based on the assessment results. Advocates argue that with knowledge, comes the
embracement of responsibility for improving upon those results (Shavelson & Huang,
2003). Involving everyone in the process of change allows each person to maintain a
sense of accountability and an opportunity to empower stakeholders to contribute to the
college’s overall development. When vital information is not communicated to key
stakeholders, including the faculty and students, there is a risk of failed implementation.
The second part of the problem I am studying is a teacher’s role in developing as
a reflective practitioner and their impact in supporting students’ learning needs and in
promoting equity in student outcomes. Teachers are a catalyst for learning. Therefore, to
improve student outcomes, teacher quality and the role of teachers is a vital area to
explore. Students from underrepresented backgrounds are often enrolled in remedial
courses. How an instructor develops their expertise about effective pedagogy and
curriculum is important because each one directly affects student outcomes. Connected
pedagogy and curriculum employed by professors during remedial students’ academic
career would support the development and advancement of their academic abilities. This
means that a professor’s instructional delivery of the content is equally important to the
content being introduced. Often times, underrepresented students bear the consequences
of poor instructors and disconnected teaching strategies that are misaligned with a
14
student’s learning style. Teachers at all levels of instruction are expected to have the
capacity and knowledge to contextualize learning in a way that will be meaningful for all
students. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds and those who are historically
underrepresented in college have traditionally been marginalized through the curriculum
and traditional pedagogy. However, embedding a culturally responsive pedagogy that
incorporates students’ prior knowledge, experiences, frames of reference, and learning
styles into account (Gay, 2000) can create a shift in the paradigm. Pedagogy delivered
within a context is a pathway to connect learning to a student’s life. A college can have
liberal acceptance policies and open recruitment to promote diversity, but if they do not
change their pedagogical practices to match their students’ needs, then the cycle of
inequity is likely to be perpetuated.
In an effort to promote equity through assessment and accountability, the final
part of the problem I am studying is the approach institutions and their leaders take in
employing purposeful inquiry based activities and processes in the form of professional
development. Accountability movements throughout higher education have called for
assessment measures that monitor practices and outcomes because institutions stand as a
barriers and pathways to degree obtainment. Colleges are charged with providing
ongoing expertise development that will support the specific type of instruction students
need to move from remedial to transfer-level courses. Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi &
Gallagher (2007) studied the effectiveness of various characteristics of professional
development in an inquiry science program. Their research suggests that “Teachers need
professional development that is interactive with their teaching practices, allowing for
multiple cycles of presentation and assimilation of, and reflection on, knowledge”
15
(Blumenfeld, Soloway, Marx, Guzdial, & Palincsar, 1991; Kubitskey, 2006 as cited in
Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi & Gallagher, 2007). Incorporating reflection in the
professional development process can build instructor expertise on what to teach and how
to teach. The goal of improving professional development is also included in the
California Community Colleges System Strategic Plan (2006). Specific goals call for
institutional capacity for diversity and sustained leadership and professional development
in order to address changing workplace demands and diverse student populations. With
respect to my study, the most relevant goal in the strategic plan is teaching and learning
effectiveness because a key problem in community colleges in a lack of quality
instruction. As a means of improving student success and readiness, the plan asserts that
“In order to provide students with the highest quality instruction available, Community
College faculty members and counselors should be able to meaningfully interact with
students both inside and outside of the class,” (CCC System Strategic Plan, 2006).
Instructors teaching college-level courses at 2-year colleges share an equal
responsibility in cultivating a support system that will ensure success at an even higher
level of academia. “Those who engage in professional development should be willing to
say explicitly what new knowledge and skill educators will learn as a consequence of
their participation, how this new knowledge and skill will be manifested in their
professional practices, and what specific activities will lead to this learning,” (Elmore,
2002, pg. 8). Students could benefit from having teachers at these institutions whose
teaching styles are compatible their learning needs. This alignment can inspire one’s
desire to learn and can lead to more a successful student. For example, a socio-
constructive approach that embeds group work and discussion opposed to independent
16
practice or lecture can give students a chance to process and make meaning and of the
content. More importantly, instructors who commit to delivering instruction through
culturally responsive pedagogy may also want to closely reflect upon their own practices
to ensure that their teaching is directly aligned with the style of their learners.
One way to examine equity in student outcomes is through self-assessments
where a “culture of inquiry” is cultivated in incremental steps amongst stakeholders to
improve the capacity of the institution (Dowd & Tong, 2007). To increase educational
effectiveness Dowd & Tong (2007) propose evidence-based inquiry councils (EBICs) as
a forum for practitioners to question their current practices through a productive
collaborative learning process. EBICs include key steps such as problem framing and
different types of evaluation, such as formative and summative. These are similar
features in the inquiry cycle for the Center for Urban Education (CUE) Inquiry Project,
the setting for my study, wherein team members are asked to be active participants in the
cultivation of their own learning. Since 1999, CUE has conducted socially conscious
research focused on the development and implementation of equity-based accountability
metrics, tools, and processes. CUE’s work with both 2- and 4-year institutions shifts the
focus of accountability from students to practitioners through an inquiry-driven approach.
Projects at CUE are all conducted with the cycle of inquiry and guiding principles of
representational equity, resource equity, and equity-mindedness. The Inquiry Project
uses a cycle of inquiry practitioners engage in to build upon their existing knowledge.
The inquiry steps of the CUE Inquiry Project, modified from Data Wise (Boudett, K.P.,
City E.A., & Murnane, R.J., 2005), are as follows:

17
Table 1.1 Inquiry Project Steps

Step 1 Build teams Prepare
Step 2 Take stock – Hunches about data tables
Step 3 Audit data and instruction
Step 4 Benchmark performance
Inquire
Step 5 Contextualize
Step 6 Act and “enact”
Step 7 Evaluate and assess
Implement
Step 8 Disseminate and reiterate
Practitioner
Knowledge

The inquiry steps involve participation in inquiry-based activities that target learning and
reflection of both a problem and solution. Scholars argue that when key actors involve
themselves in meaningful and systematic ways of reflecting upon their needs and of those
they serve, more concrete and strategic plans to address those needs can emerge.
Scholars (Bustillos, 2007; Perin, 2002; Waycaster; 2001) argue that there are a
variety of ways to bring about change and improvement in the student outcomes of
underrepresented students at the community college level. These changes all center on
the instructor and instruction. While some contend that faculty beliefs about their role or
contributions to student success is a primary factor (Bustillos, 2007), others are argue that
it is the type of instruction employed in the classroom that makes a difference.
Additionally, effective pedagogical strategies as well as cognizance of the gender
dynamic and the need to include the minority gender when teaching because of the
imbalance between female and male students as well as instructors is relevant
(Waycaster, 2001). Professional development is one approach to improving the teaching
ability and motivation of remedial math instructors. Specifically, professional
18
development would focus on effective pedagogical methods and collaboration between
remedial and college-level math instructors that would, “Give them an opportunity to
examine discipline curricula in order to identify content and skills that could improve the
effectiveness of developmental courses in preparing students for college-level work,”
(Perin, 2002, pg. 39).
Involvement in inquiry-based activities that involve problem identification,
analysis, and action planning can be an effective vehicle toward identifying instructional
and institutional practices that lead to equitable student outcomes. However, specifically
in the area of institutional self-assessment, little evidence has been produced to
demonstrate how the process of change can begin with a self-appraisal of one’s own
work. Institutional self-assessment is the process whereby key stakeholders within the
organization perform an internal evaluation of their challenges and needs as revealed by
the data.
Purpose of the Study
This study investigates a reframed form of assessment and its potential to bring
about changes in the equity of student outcomes among minority students via the process
of reflection through inquiry-based activities. Built upon the notion that effective
assessment practices can lead to change rather than incorporating specific “best
practices,” the ways in which practitioners evaluate their contributions is the greater
focus (Dowd & Tong, 2007). With a commitment to closing the achievement gap
amongst underrepresented students at the university level, the Diversity Scorecard is the
conceptual grounding of the benchmarking project that supports ongoing change at an
institutional level (Bensimon, 2004). There are four perspectives of the diversity
19
framework – access, retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence. By considering
perspectives holistically, the scorecard, and other self-assessment instruments function as
a mirror that enables schools to reflect on their own practices. It allows colleges to define
how those practices are supporting the school mission and vision as it relates to diversity
and equity. Moreover, “The Diversity Scorecard is a tool and a process to help campuses
assess their effectiveness in providing historically underrepresented students with the
credentials they will need to gain economic, social, and political power,” (Bensimon,
2004, pg. 46). From the Diversity Scorecard emerged the “Equity Scorecard,” another
assessment tool that engages “Practitioners in an activity that leads to the discovery of
racial patterns of inequalities in educational outcomes and persuades them to consider
specific practices that they can enact within their domains of expertise to reduce racial
inequalities,” (Bensimon, 2007, pg. 6). The scorecard itself allows practitioners to self-
reflect on their educational practices and commit to improving them to better serve
disadvantaged students.
In a constant battle to level the playing field in higher education, educators have
struggled to give qualified underrepresented students the opportunity to compete both
academically and professionally with those who are more privileged. One of the ways to
ensure that colleges purposefully reflect on their practices is through the process of
benchmarking because they can magnify their own strengths and challenges when facing
important issues such as diversity and equity – issues that are important and impact many
stakeholders. Educators taking on this responsibility of producing scholarship to improve
student success are holding the practitioners accountable for both the positive and
negative influences they impart (Bensimon, 2007).
20
Benchmarking involves using peer groups as a point of comparison, as a way to
reflect on oneself using another institution as a mirror to improve upon existing practices.
It is another mode of accountability whereby the selected peers for benchmarking are not
viewed as competitors, but rather, as learning models. In higher education, metric and
diagnostic benchmarking are most often used as the need for assessment of accountability
has begun to play a larger role in the educational system (Dowd & Tong, 2007). Schools
are no longer being asked to examine their practices, but rather, to analyze, compare, and
improve them in order to support the movement for a more diverse and equitable system
of higher education. Moving away from a competitive framework, benchmarking can
serve as a collaborative, informative motivation tool. Benchmarking also serves as a
form of action inquiry in that reflection, knowledge, and beliefs are encompassed in the
problem identification and experimentation stages.
Research Focus
This dissertation aims to answer questions surrounding institutional self-
assessment and the opportunities it provides for practitioners to reflect on their
professional practices. Specifically, my study intends to identify what practitioners learn
about their role and capacity to become institutional agents through inquiry based
activities as a means to address issues of equity.
In order for changes to occur in educational practices, there first comes change in
how the practitioners view their own knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards important
issues (Dowd & Tong, 2007). Because learning processes and institutional change occurs
differently from site to site, understanding the specific processes about learning and
teaching are critical to contextualizing the problem. Institutional leaders –
21
administrators, counselors, and faculty members – have an influential effect on the
success of students and their cognitive processes can either support or hinder the
advancement of underrepresented students (Bensimon, 2005). The answers to the
research questions are important because the instructional conditions of a college directly
affect student outcomes (Grubb & Badway, 2005). In the inquiry and benchmarking
model, a technique utilized for assessment purposes, these instructional conditions are
fostered, facilitated, and improved through participation in professional development
amongst the peer stakeholders in the self-study process (Dowd & Tong, 2007).
My research focus is on Markham College, an urban community college located
in a large metropolitan city on the west coast of the United States. The school’s
enrollment size is relatively small with a population under 10,000 students and has a
predominantly African-American and Latino/a student body. There are a total of 16
participants from the college all working in collaboration with University of Southern
California’s Center for Urban Education (CUE). Specifically, this study focuses on the
mathematics department faculty who teach remedial basic skills math courses.
Significance of the Study
The success of minority students in pursuit of a baccalaureate is stunted by the
shortcomings of higher education. With inequitable numbers of underrepresented
students transferring to a four-year college to obtain a baccalaureate, practitioners at all
levels of education have a growing responsibility to reflect upon and assess their own
practices to determine how they can become key players in promoting change.
Specifically in the area of mathematics, minority students are less likely to have an equal
opportunity to learn because they are more likely than their White and Asian counterparts
22
to attend high schools that do not offer higher levels of math and generally end up
enrolling in community college “remediation” courses at an alarmingly high rate
(Adelman, 2006). Assessing one’s capacity to address these students can benefit those
who desire to obtain a degree. More importantly, there is a danger in failing to self-
assess because as Dowd & Tong (2007) have argued, “If colleges bypass problem-
framing, they may fail to identify the root causes of the problem on their campus and lose
out on opportunities to prioritize potential solutions,” (pg. 82). The notion of “authentic
faculty and administrative participation” is important to the study because active
participation provides a sense of ownership, develops an awareness of agency among
participants, and bridges the knowledge gap between what some are asked to do, but
don’t know how (Elmore, 2002). This authentic and active faculty participation and the
development of agency are central claims that are investigated in my study.
The product at the end of the project is the direct “meaningful feedback”
(Shavelson & Huang, 2003) that key actors within the institution can address in their
quest for change. How universities treat access for the most underrepresented students
attending college and examining how the school can accommodate and support the needs
of those who are academically disadvantaged because of their race or socioeconomic
status can determine the direction of equity. Until colleges begin to legitimately reflect
upon and address the issues of race, social class, power, and its underlying role in
preparing students, then the system of inequity will only continue throughout higher
education.

23
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. As already presented, Chapter
One is a discussion of the accountability and assessment context for my study and the
problem to be addressed. The next chapter is a conceptual framework where I will
discuss the role of reflection and institutional agents. In Chapter Three, I provide the
setting for my study and the qualitative methodology I employed. The fourth chapter is a
detailed analysis of the data collected. Finally, Chapter Five concludes this dissertation
with a summary of findings and implications for practice.

24
CHAPTER TWO
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Overview
In the field of medicine, if a doctor cannot accurately diagnose a patient, he will
be less likely to prescribe a medication or treatment that will cure the ailment. This
notion of “accurate” reflection on the problem is maintained across all fields and
disciplines, including education. The role of the practitioner-as-researcher (Bensimon,
Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004) serves as the foundation for the discussion on
the purpose reflection plays in building the expertise of institutional agents – individuals
in education who have the capacity and willingness to support students by providing
resources and opportunities. Through participation in an inquiry process, it is critical that
institutional key players accurately diagnose a problem and develop an understanding of
their role to potentially become institutional agents.
For this conceptual framework, I have selected two concepts, institutional agents
and reflection, to further understand how individuals learn through the process of inquiry.
I will employ the concept of institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) to characterize
the individuals within institutions who will change institutional practices to promote
student outcomes. Whether it is referred to as reflection or inquiry, cycles have emerged
as a process by which learning occurs. In order to better understand the reflective cycle
and the role it has in accurately identifying a problem, I emphasize the second stage of
Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle, describing the problem, as the second concept.
Reflection involves viewing an issue with detailed attention. Enacting change, Loughran
(2006) maintains, entails having the ability to see a problem and see it as an issue that
25
requires attention because without this accuracy in defining the problem, there is a
limited need or impetus to resolve it.
The two concepts in this framework are best suited for this study because each
ultimately is intended to lead to change – a change that is needed in the approach for
improving student outcomes. The process of reflection cultivates an individual’s ability
to learn about how he/she has the capacity to become an institutional agent for students.
Moreover, deep reflection is a process that needs to happen through inquiry-based
activities and assessments in order for individuals to learn more about themselves and,
eventually, change their practices to better address student needs. This newly constructed
knowledge will allow educators who aim to improve student success outcomes insight
into their role in effecting change. Theories of reflection suggest that accurately
describing problems will give institutional agents an opportunity to both challenge and
have challenged their underlying assumptions about data on student success outcomes
amongst minority students.
As a part of the inquiry process, members of the team take on a researcher-as-
practitioner role and reflect on the reasons why these low success rates might persist at
their campus. This inquiry is facilitated by examining disaggregated data first and then
collectively brainstorming causes. Going through the process of describing the
challenges faced at the college will force the faculty to “Slow down, to look, and to see
the variety and nuance present in such moments before leaping into action,” (Rodgers,
2002, pg. 238). This action could also lead to a team member’s acknowledgement of
having a greater impact on students, and looking at data multiple times from various
perspectives. When data on student outcomes for Latino and African-American students
26
are revealed to the team, how they reflect on the roots of the problem will be equally
important to the next steps they commit to in assuming their role as institutional agents.
Institutional Agents
Working-class racial minority youth have a greater opportunity to extend and
advance their economic and political position in society when they develop relationships
with institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). These agents are the individuals who
extend resources and opportunities to less privileged students because of their capacity to
impact the students and their commitment to improving outcomes. Grounded in the
social capital frameworks of Bourdieu (1977) and Coleman (1998), the idea of an
institutional agent functions as a form of human capital whereby students are better
equipped to break through society’s structural constraints with the support of another
individual. Institutional agents are a part of a social network that provide both resources
and assets to individuals.
There are several types of informational resources and assistance from which
minority youth could benefit. Whether it is support with academic and career decision-
making or with instructional and programmatic assistance, students who do not have
institutional agents in their lives risk social immobilization. These agents, however, are
not limited to counselors, instructors, and tutors available on school grounds; the range
includes family members, religious and community leaders, and even one’s peers
(Sanchez, Reyes, & Singh, 2005).
Despite the tremendous importance of an instructor’s official role of educating
students with subject-matter knowledge, there are also embedded “unofficial” roles and
functions that carry a dynamic sense of transformative power for the social network of a
27
working-class or low-income student (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). This role of institutional
agent that instructors can choose to play is integral in a student’s educational experience.
It can signify the difference between being powerful or powerless, meaning that as a
result of maintaining a relationship with an agent, the student could have the capacity to
negotiate different institutional systems and connections to resources and opportunities
that are experienced by middle-class students. In conceptualizing the role of institutional
agents and the support they provide for an underserved student’s successful integration
into the mainstream school system, the “Funds of Knowledge,” or the discourses
attributed to the institutional agents, deserves some attention. According to Stanton-
Salazar (1997), there are seven principal forms of institutionally based funds of
knowledge and under the problem-solving fund of knowledge there are eight additional
components:
1. Institutionally sanctioned discourse
2. Academic task-specific knowledge
3. Organizational/bureaucratic funds of knowledge
4. Network development
5. Technical funds of knowledge
6. Knowledge of labor and educational markets
7. Problem-solving knowledge
a. The accurate perception and assessment of the problem
b. Knowledge of the types of resources that may ameliorate the problem
c. Knowledge of which agents control such resources
d. Knowledge of how to articulate convincingly both the problem and the
necessary and desired resources – using the right “discourse”
e. Knowledge of how to justify one’s entitlement to these resources
f. Knowledge and social competencies relevant to getting agents to act
on one’s behalf
g. Knowledge necessary to evaluate soundness of resources
h. Knowledge and competencies of how to apply effectively obtained
resources to solving the problem.

28
In the Inquiry Project, problem-solving knowledge will be critical for the college’s team
members to demonstrate in resolving the issue of student outcomes. In addition, three of
the eight components (a. the accurate perception and assessment of the problem, b.
knowledge of the types of resources that may ameliorate the problem, and f. knowledge
and social competencies relevant to getting agents to act on one’s behalf) of problem-
solving knowledge will be used to understand how participants define the problem,
determine who can address it, and ultimately, take action to resolve the problem.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) suggests that it is primarily racial minority children and youth
who are less likely to effectively develop and advance within the school system.
However, with the support of institutional agents who are able to demonstrate effective
problem-solving knowledge, issues surrounding student equity and access can be
addressed.
Problem-solving knowledge is the ability to integrate the first six forms of
knowledge in order to solve school-related problems. Although Stanton-Salazar suggests
that it is primarily racial minority children and youth who are less likely to effectively
progress within the school system, what is missing is the argument about how the
institutional agents are not always able to demonstrate effective problem-solving
knowledge. My study will add to the literature with respect to the roles and knowledge
of these instructors to resolve problems surrounding equitable student outcomes.
Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) eight components of problem solving knowledge have a strong
transferability between the knowledge students will be required to acquire in order to
navigate through institutional barriers and the knowledge that faculty members are
expected to already possess, but many will need to acquire. As typical of
29
conceptualizations of cycles of inquiry, the Inquiry Project starts with the problem-
solving knowledge step #1: the accurate perception and assessment of the problem.
Therefore, it is important to understand how to accurately identify and describe the
problem.
Stanton-Salazar (2001) explores the idea of students as individuals and their
connection to the school personnel as an entity of resources that would support their
advancement both academically and socially. In his study, a mixed-methods approach
was used to answer the question, to what extent are the latent and transformative powers
of teachers and counselors given full expression? The study was conducted at Auxilio
High School in San Diego, a predominantly “Mexican school” or “minority school” with
a rigorous International Baccalaureate magnet program that functioned as a school within
a school. Open-ended interviews served as the primary form of qualitative data
collection whereby four types of positive appraisals – interactions and personality
qualities of the institutional agents – emerged in the findings. These four appraisals
included, 1. confianza (confidence), 2. mutual respect, 3. informal mentorship and 4.
emotional attachment. Mutual respect related to the qualities students attributed to the
agent’s demeanor and persona within the professional realm and informal mentorship
suggested the individual’s ability to effectively support the students in a trustworthy way
during a time of conflict.
With regards to Stanton-Salazar’s seven funds of knowledge, the appraisal of
informal mentorship is of particular interest because it functions as a form of problem-
solving knowledge. Appraisal requires institutional agents to be cognizant of issues
students are dealing with and also have the immediate responsiveness and knowledge to
30
direct or support the student. For example, Rosario Zarate, a 12
th
grade student, was
apprehensive and stressed when she foresaw a dim future for herself after high school due
to her low academic performance and low self-esteem. Her unofficial institutional agent
was her biology teacher who is referred to as “Coach” Shane because of his important
role as her lifeline. Rosario claimed that he was “One of the few adults at the school she
could trust to be fully responsive to her many special needs,” (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, pg.
168). This perception of the teacher as one who does more than deliver subject-matter is
supported by the development of Rosario’s relationship with Coach Shane over her three
years at the high school. In many ways, Coach Shane held himself accountable to
Rosario’s needs by providing her with extended support beyond her classroom needs.
The trusting relationship forged with her teacher enabled Rosario to overcome academic
and personal problems – problems that without the support of an institutional agent,
might have gone unresolved.
Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez (1992) also explored funds of knowledge, but
from the perspective of the household and community institutional agents, as a means of
connecting the knowledge acquired in the home to classroom instruction. Their
qualitative study employed a combination of ethnographic methods, including
observations, open-ended interviews, life histories, and case studies in order to accurately
portray the socioeconomic status of the participants. A total of ten teachers participated
as teacher-researchers and conducted approximately 100 interviews in 25 households.
The subject of the study was Mexican and Yaqui working-class families from Tucson,
Arizona. Extending Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) notion of the institutional agents utilizing
their funds of knowledge to support a student’s attainment of transformative power, the
31
purpose of this study was to give teachers insight into students’ home lives. This insight
would provide a holistic perspective of a student, rather than a snapshot that is often
portrayed in the classroom. Moreover, an insider perspective gave teachers in the study
an opportunity to examine the cultural and cognitive funds of knowledge central in the
home – knowledge that could potentially be transferred to the school setting.
Additional aims of the exchanges between the teachers and households were to
build reciprocity, apply out of the classroom experiences, and observe children as active,
engaged learners rather than “passive bystanders” of learning. In the process of the
project, teachers’ stereotypes of the families and students were challenged by the actual
data collected which displayed household funds such as ranching and farming,
economics, and entrepreneurship. More importantly, teachers functioned as the “Bridge
between students’ world, theirs and their family’s funds of knowledge, and the classroom
experience,” (Moll, Armanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992, pg. 137).
This “bridge” functions similar to that of Auxilio High School student Rosario’s
“lifeline” relationship with her biology teacher, Coach Shane. In both studies, the
teachers acted as institutional agents and conduits of knowledge that was applied in two
distinct ways. In the teacher-researcher role, the teacher was able to inform her
instruction based on the knowledge obtained. On the other hand, the “coach” drew upon
his own knowledge of what it would take to support the student and applied it in a
meaningful way. Moll, Armanti, Neff, & Gonzalez’ (1992) study’s findings further
suggest that by employing a strong qualitative research approach, the teachers were able
to cultivate a “symmetrical” relationship with students’ parents because teachers stepped
out of their official role and into their unofficial role as a learner.
32
Examining the funds of knowledge in a student’s home is one way of
understanding how one’s personal life influences knowledge, behaviors and attitudes in
another setting, namely the classroom. The parents in these homes are viewed as
important individuals who support and provide guidance to students, especially in
Mexican-American homes, as explored in a qualitative study conducted by Sanchez,
Reyes, & Singh (2005). Operating under the social capital framework (Bourdieu, 1997;
Coleman, 1988; Stanton-Salazar, 1997), their study aimed to fill the gaps in
understanding who provides support to the academic experiences of Latino youth, how
they provide it, and by what measures support is provided. The one and a half year long
study between 1999 and 2001 was performed in a 4-year university located in an urban
Midwestern city that had a large commuter population. Latino students represented 14%
of the population, 70% of whom were Mexican-American.
There were a total of 22 participants in the study; ten were students and the
remaining twelve were the important individuals as identified by the students. Including
both the provider and receiver of support, the researchers argue that this is a strength of
the study because like the Moll et al (1992) study where the teachers familiarized
themselves with the home and school life of the students, the researchers were able to
connect with the student and their named supporter. When students were asked to rank
order their social support providers, five (42%) of the supporters named were from the
student’s home (either parents or a sibling), three (25%) were institutional agents, and the
remaining four (33%) were peers (friends or romantic partners). With institutional agents
ranking the lowest on the support provider scale, it would be helpful to understand why
33
they are not fulfilling these provider roles and also address the potential ways in which
they could be a better support.
There were two semi-structured protocols used to interview the students twice and
the individuals identified as being a supporter were interviewed once. Through these
methods, the researchers revealed that throughout the students’ academic experiences,
support was provided in numerous ways:
1. Cognitive guidance – asking questions, giving advice, teaching and tutoring
the student
2. Emotional support – encouraging and listening to the student
3. Informational and experiential support – providing relevant information and
relating to life experiences
4. Modeling – behaviors the student observed from the supporters
5. Tangible support – financial support and doing things for the student

Those who were identified as providing support for the students offered their assistance
in various aspects of school life. While some provided support in actual classes and
completing the college application and scholarship/financial aid process, others gave their
assistance in motivation, persistence, determining a major/career, and in dealing with
teachers.
The study’s findings suggest that parents have the strongest impact on students’
academic success and that parents helped build their social capital by providing their
children with support in numerous ways and in different types of areas. These parents
provide meaningful funds of knowledge that enable students to persist and succeed in
their academic careers because of their ability to connect with their children and the
utility of their personal experiences. For example, one of the participants in the study
was influenced to attend college after hearing the hardships his father endured while
immigrating to the United States all in hopes of building a more promising life for his
34
family. This attempt to gain an understanding of home life is a similar approach that
Moll, Armanti, Neff, & Gonzalez (1992) employ. Their findings are parallel because
ultimately, parents are found to be an integral source of knowledge and support.
However, Moll et al’s (1992) study is added to because Sanchez, Reyes, & Singh
(2005) emphasize a limitation of parental impact. “Parents might have realized the limits
of their support and perceived the necessity for other adults to become involved in their
children’s lives,” (pg. 62). These “other adults” include institutional agents and their
willingness to support the students in navigating through collegiate-based activities such
as filling out college applications, completing financial aid forms, and applying for
scholarships. Moreover, these institutional agents were able to provide their academic
expertise because of their experience with college – a resource that was absent in both the
parent and peer support. Stanton-Salazar (1997) suggests that it is through these types of
“diversified social relationships” with parents, peers, and institutional agents that students
will build upon their social capital and increase their chances of academic success.
These same “diversified social relationships” that a student cultivates throughout
his/her academic career is a strong determinant in how much success is experienced as
one climbs up the academic ladder. Whereas Sanchez, Reyes, & Singh’s (2005) study
focuses on the types of support for students, how support is provided, and the academic
areas in which support is provided, Gonzalez, Stoner, & Jovel (2003) extend their focus
to include the amounts of social capital available to students by employing a College
Opportunity Framework. Based on Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) theoretical construct of
social capital, the College Opportunity Framework is an elaboration of institutional
agents’ relationships with students as a means of providing opportunities and resources.
35
Specifically, the framework includes the types of agents and the amount of social capital
available to students. An addition to the social capital framework is the theoretical
concept the researchers have labeled as institutional neglect and abuse, which is defined
as an inability or unwillingness to adequately prepare students for post secondary
education as well as discouraging or barrier-producing actions. Withholding or giving
wrong information, providing limited access to important knowledge, and emotional
discouragement are different ways in which an institution can create barriers for students
to attend college.
This investigation utilizes a life history research methods approach to examine
Latina students from working-class home environments who attended public schools that
were classified as low-to-middle socioeconomic status. The study examined two
different groups of Latina students, one group of ten students who attended a community
college, and the other group of students who enrolled in a highly selective college. The
students’ primary and secondary school experiences were captured to gain a better
understanding of how opportunities for college were either increased or diminished as a
result of how much social capital was available, ranging from low volume to high
volume. Low volume is characterized as an absence of or minimal support, while high
volume is measured as having full, inclusive support for students.
The researchers provided three rationales for essentially focusing on Latina
students from working-class families. First, Latinas in the United States represent the
least formally educated ethnic group of females. Second, they are the fastest growing
ethnic group. And finally, there have only been a limited number of studies examining
the educational experiences of these women. The participants in this study were
36
Northern and Southern California natives and were interviewed twice over the span of
four months. The Latinas identified the following agents of social capital – parents,
siblings, peers, school-based honors programs, specialized college outreach and
preparation programs, the general curriculum, ESL and special education tracking, and
institutional agents (teachers and counselors). However, some of these human and
structural agents also served as agents of institutional neglect or abuse.
Participants attending a community college were more likely to be negatively
affected by school factors such as being tracked into Special Education or remaining in
ESL for an extended period. Conversely, participants attending a university established
relationships with institutional agents who held high expectations for these women. They
served as high-volume agents of social capital because the Latinas were provided with
relevant information for college and strong emotional support. Students enrolled in the
highly selective universities characterized these teachers and counselors as people who
“cared” for them and would commit both their time and efforts to providing extended
support. On the other hand, many of the community college enrolled participants felt as
though their teachers and counselors created institutional neglect or abuse because of the
low expectations they held for the students. For some of the Latinas, counselors did not
foresee college in their future, therefore opportunities to learn more about higher
education or access into classes that would lead them that in that path were never offered.
Cultivating “symmetrical” roles to replace those relationships where the
institutional agents have a superficial, at best, understanding of the student’s home life
can be an important type of knowledge because, as Moll, Armanti, Neff, & Gonzalez’s
(1992) study suggests, “There is much teachers do not know about their students or
37
families that could be immediately helpful to the classroom,” (pg. 136). Stanton-Salazar
(2001) rationalizes that the “coparent” role institutional agents sometimes play for low-
income, immigrant students will involve a combination of nurture and neglect. This is
because a teacher may assume that the student needs this dual role as a result of having
an absent parent. However, playing the “coparent” role can potentially have negative
psychological and social effects on the students, debilitating one’s ability to function as
an institutional agent who provides resources and opportunities for social capital.
One’s ability to address inequitable student outcomes for underserved minority
students is complex and multifaceted. Whether tapping into a student’s home funds of
knowledge (Moll, Armanti, Neff, & Gonzalez’s, 1992), exploring an institutional agent’s
transformative power (Stanton-Salazar, 2001), examining the types of support and in
what areas (Sanchez, Reyes, & Singh’s, 2005), or considering the opportunities provided
to students by these agents (Gonzalez, Stoner, & Jovel, 2003), there is ultimately no
algorithm for how researchers can illuminate how one should take ownership of the role.
As conduits for promoting social capital, parents, peers, programs, schools, teachers and
support personnel are all viable factors in student success.
Next Steps
“Institutional agent” is a concept without a concrete role embedded within one’s
job description. To further advance the role of institutional agents across campuses
seeking to improve student outcomes, colleges may benefit from creating a platform
where these agents define and practice applying their roles. Developing a strong sense of
problem solving knowledge is conditioned learning; it requires one to synthesize
knowledge and apply it in the decision-making process in order to achieve a common
38
goal (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). But how does the institution foster knowledge of
appropriate resources and cultivate an environment that meets the needs of students? If
agents are going to execute their roles in the same purposeful manner, a unified
discourse, “A socially accepted way of using language and engaging in communicative
behavior,” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, pg. 7) is important for coherence and consistency
because it establishes a common ground for discussion. The problem solving component,
“getting agents to act on one’s [students’] behalf” would be a significant next step for
institutions to take. Practitioners are agents themselves; without the commitment from
the entire organization, agents will function as individual, disconnected parts to the whole
rather than connected entities to the bigger picture. But through what types of processes
does one truly reflect upon and learn that one can become an institutional agent for
students in need of support that goes beyond the scope of the classroom? Many have
theorized, and this study investigates, that it is through a deliberate process of reflection,
a concept that will be explored next. Institutions can not only identify the problems their
students face in achieving equitable outcomes, but also, and more importantly, begin to
consider their ability to impact student success. I will continue this conceptual
framework with the process of reflection.
Reflective Cycle: Describing the Problem
In many ways, the reflective process serves as the bridge to institutional agency
for practitioners because while the reflection entails what needs to happen during the
learning process, institutional agents represent the next steps. It is through reflection that
key players can learn about who they need to become in order to bridge the equity gap for
underserved students. When practitioners step into the role of researcher and engage in
39
inquiry activities, they are not only participating in a change process, but also reflecting
about the problem and being proactive in addressing their role in resolving it.
Reflection is the process of stepping back to analyze an experience. When
reflection happens in the middle of an experience, one can consider it to be reflection-in-
action, and when it happens after or outside of the experience, one can view it as
reflection-on-action (Schön, 1983). This action, as Dewey (1933) points out, can either
be intelligent or routine, intelligent being thoughtful, and routine meaning automatic and
unconsidered. Dewey further claims that reflective action is proactive and carefully
considers traditionally held beliefs about the practice. The careful consideration of an
experience enables one to challenge an action through participation in a “reflective
cycle.” Rodgers (2002) takes Dewey’s six phases of reflection from How We Think
(1933) and Democracy and Education (1944) and synthesizes them into four phases that
are intended to move both forward and backward in a certain iterative fashion:
1. Presence in Experience: Learning to see
2. Description of the Experience: Learning to describe and differentiate
3. Analysis of Experience: Learning to think from multiple perspectives and
form multiple explanations
4. Experimentation: Learning to take intelligent action

Rodgers’ description of the experience phase will be examined in more depth because
this is the stage where a description of the problem is critical for understanding how to
address and/or solve a problem.
To achieve the ultimate goal of student learning, Rodgers (2002) argues that the
process of going through the reflective cycle is conditioned upon a teacher’s capacity to
accurately describe, analyze, and take action “on-action” in the classroom. According to
Rodgers, there are four stages of the reflective cycle, beginning with having a presence in
40
the experience by learning to see. Table 2.1 is a representation of each stage and sub-
stage in the reflective cycle according to Rodgers.
Table 2.1 Rodgers’ Reflective Cycle
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Presence in
Experience:
Learning to see

Description in
Experience:
Learning to
describe and
differentiate
Analysis of
Experience:
Learning to think
critically and create
theory
Experimentation:
Learning to take
intelligent action
Sub-stages Sub-stages Sub-stages Sub-stages
1. Moments
2. Feedback

1. Grounding
analysis in the
text of
experience
2. Developing a
common
analytical
language
3. Unearthing
assumptions
4. Using
frameworks

Source: Rodgers, 2002

Rodgers distinguishes from one’s ability to have a presence versus being present in
examining an experience. “It is a way of encountering the world of the classroom…but it
also includes a way of acting within it whereby the action that one takes comes of one’s
sensitivity to the flow of events,” (Rodgers, 2002, pg. 235). Having a presence is the
assumption that students who are engaged are learning. This notion is challenged by a
teacher’s ability to know what and how the students are learning by engaging oneself in
the inquiry process. Being present in the experience will lead to the most important step,
taking action based on a reflection of the situation. This first stage has a relevance to my
study because avoiding assumptions about student learning, about what the disaggregated
41
data show about student outcomes, and about the ownership of the data, will allow the
project participants to acknowledge their presence and capacity in taking action.
The second stage is the description of the experience where one learns to describe
and differentiate. This stage taps into one’s ability to depict an experience from multiple
perspectives in order to deliver precise descriptions and avoid interpretations. This is the
challenging constructivist stage of reflection because, “Making meaning has begun,”
(Rodgers, 2002, pg. 853) and the individual’s ability to formulate questions about the
data is in direct relation to the depth and complexity of one’s ability to reflect. This stage
will be further explained after a description of the remaining phases of the reflection
cycle.
Analyzing the experience and learning to think from multiple perspectives to form
multiple explanations is the third stage of the reflective cycle. It requires a higher level
of cognition because it involves generating explanations for the observations made – the
stage where “meaning-making” continues from the second stage. Rodgers (2002) further
breaks down this stage into four types of analysis. The first is grounding one’s analysis
in the text of experience whereby individuals base their analysis in evidence, whether it is
a text, student work, or for the purposes of this study, disaggregated data highlighting the
differences in student performance outcomes. The ability to develop a common
analytical language is the second type of analysis whereby the entire group negotiates a
common discourse in respect to teaching and learning. For example, in this study, the
terms equity, access, and learning, are important to define because one’s knowledge of
these “common” terms may in fact be uncommon to others. The third form of analysis is
unearthing assumptions, an uncovering of assumptions that drives a practitioner’s actions.
42
This is the point where Argyris and Schön’s espoused theories and theories-in-use meet
in a state of dissonance (Rodgers, 2002) because one’s interpretation of a situation always
has a level of subjectivity. Also, this is the foreground of understanding one’s belief
systems and defining how those beliefs emulate who one is as an educator and the actions
one takes. Using frameworks is the last type of analysis whereby external theories from
the inquirers are brought into fruition as a way to balance the internal theories and
assumptions held by the individual. Rodgers employs Hawkins’ paradigm of “I, Thou,
and It” where “I” represents the teacher, “Thou” describes the students, and “It” is the
subject matter, as a way to investigate the three tensions a teacher must negotiate. It is
through a thorough description and analysis of an experience that Dewey claims will
bring an individual one step closer to taking “intelligent action” (Rodgers, 2002).
Furthermore, as a relevant key step in my study, a strong analysis of the project data will
not only challenge deep-seated assumptions held about students’ ability to succeed, but
will also serve as a conduit for exploring the next steps to take as facilitators of change.
The final stage is experimentation and learning to take intelligent action. This
stage serves as either the beginning or ending point of the reflective cycle because taking
action will eventually lead to reflecting on the action again. This is the stage where
various strategies are offered for dealing with the challenges faced in the classroom.
Action is taken in a deliberate fashion rather than “routine” because the process of
presence, description, and analysis has already ensued. In the reflective cycle, the teacher
functions as the reflector while another individual or group functions as the facilitator of
reflection. The cycle gives individuals a forum to take risks as they think aloud.
Participants in my study who take risks and adjust their instructional practices can be
43
considered as “thinking outside of the box” because rather than teaching what is required
for the course in the same manner they always have, they are able to first think critically
about their students’ needs and then take necessary action.
Rodgers’ (2002) concept of “describing the problem” will be the center of my
discussion on the reflection cycle for this study. Building upon Dewey’s work on
reflection (1933) and Sullivan’s (2000) work on the nature of attention, Rodgers aims to
synthesize the process of reconstructing prior knowledge with new knowledge. This
“new knowledge” is also what the Inquiry Project aims to construct with its participants
through inquiry activities. Specifically in this case study, members of the math
department are working collaboratively to conceptualize new or different approaches to
address the needs of their minority students – a disproportionate number of whom are not
attaining equitable outcomes. This means that from an educational standpoint, the
success rates for these underserved students are inconsistent with those reflected in
students with higher socioeconomic statuses and who are not of color. Like McCrary,
Rodgers (2002) would initially ask her students to describe an object, specifying acute
details about the object without making any assumptions or interpretations. Teachers
were advised to not give an analysis, only discuss objective actions. Any given
description of the situation was accepted as the teachers were told that their answers were
neither right nor wrong.
Going back to the second stage of reflection, there are two sub-phases that
Rodgers expounds upon. She asserts that exploring “moments” and seeking various
types of “feedback” are two ways to cultivate a foundation of knowledge on how to
reflect in a meaningful way.
44
Rodgers studied teachers going through the reflective cycle in stage two by first having
her teachers describe “moments” from their classroom and encouraging them to seek both
ongoing and structured feedback from their students. After having a clear understanding
of the difference between describing and analyzing, Rodgers asked the teachers to
describe “moments” – small accounts and incidents from their personal experiences in the
classroom. The purpose of the moments process is for teachers to “notice when they are
jumping to conclusions, and to understand what prior knowledge, experience, values,
assumptions, needs, desires, fears, and so forth might be driving their interpretations and
the actions teachers take in their own classrooms based on these interpretations,” (pg.
240). Specifically in the description of the moments, Rodgers stresses the importance of
individualizing students rather than generalizing because terms such as “they” and
“everyone” depersonalize the strength of the description.
A supplement to the “moments” description is the questioning sub-stage where
the teacher describing the moment answers questions from the group to further clarify the
description given. Teachers asking the questions are also allowed to make connections to
the story, so long as they further provide insight into the description. These teachers are
asked to present their comments in the forms of a question – this allows for a more open-
ended, elaborative response. Specifically for my study, the reflective process will give
instructors an opportunity to focus on “moments” inside and outside of the classroom and
carefully consider how those moments can serve as both teaching and learning
opportunities. By asking my participants probing questions during the interview process,
they will have a chance to reflect on themselves as a catalyst for learning, rather than the
traditional role of being the provider of learning. This role constitutes being an
45
institutional agent whereby conventional instructor roles at the community college are
confronted with the notion of agency and one’s ability to impact students beyond the
scope of subject-matter knowledge. In addition to paying attention to “moments,”
Rodgers probes teachers to seek feedback as a type of informal assessment.
The next sub-stage in the description of the experience is the teacher’s solicitation
of two types of feedback from students, ongoing and structured. Ongoing feedback refers
to maintaining a presence while being in the “moment” of teaching. Details about the
classroom, about the students, and the about the lesson are internalized during the
“reflection-in-action” (Schön, 1983) sequence. Structured feedback, on the other hand,
gives the teacher an opportunity to reflect on learning by stepping back and allowing
students to provide answers to specific questions or for students to pose questions about
their learning. There is a grave difficulty in seeking feedback from students not only
because of the teacher’s vulnerability, but also because of the risk-factor in what students
might say. A critical factor in seeking feedback is a teacher’s refrain in responding to the
feedback. The teacher is only allowed to paraphrase or to ask probing questions for
further clarification to avoid justifying actions and to emphasize the importance of
listening to the students. Most importantly, the structured feedback functions as a form
of data collection from which the teacher could extrapolate indications of learning,
teaching trends, or areas where additional clarity is needed.
Even if the reflective cycle has not been completed in its entirety, after going
through just the second stage, Rodgers (2002) identified four key outcomes amongst her
teachers. She theorized these outcomes from her personal accounts by working in three
different practitioner roles. First, exploring the source of interpretations leads to the
46
confrontation of unexamined assumptions. The deep-seated values that a teacher holds,
whether it is about themselves and their students or about teaching and learning, are
brought into fruition when a teacher is able to genuinely identify the source of his/her
interpretations or descriptions. As a teacher and learner, the discovery process bears a
significant role for the teacher who is learning both about the students and about
him/herself.
The second outcome is when individuals go through describing activities, they are
forced to slow down and consider alternate views of the situation. When teachers
participate in multiple description activities, they are better equipped to provide multiple
viewpoints and explanations for the situation, whether it through the lens of the teacher or
from the student’s perspective. More importantly, it allows the teacher to put the action
in slow motion and review it from the standpoint of an outsider.
Third, using structured feedback promotes awareness about student learning.
Seeking feedback is a turning point for teachers where the implicit perceptions about
teaching and learning become explicit through the data collected. Teachers begin to
create a “community of inquiry” when they elicit structured feedback. The final outcome
of going through two stages of the reflective cycle is that teachers become better
observers of learning. The decisions that a teacher makes about curriculum, activities,
pedagogy, and physical environment are more deliberate once a teacher is equipped with
the describing skills that enable him/her to observe learning in a more objective manner.
A teacher is more likely to create opportunities for observation in constructive,
collaborative based lessons opposed to standard lectures or rote activities where learning
is difficult to measure or observe.
47
Individually reflecting on student learning is a meaningful process; however,
when an institution engages in a collaborative process for reflection, developing
knowledge can be socially constructed (Vygotsky, 1978). Reflection lends itself to
different discourse communities in teacher reflection, one of which uses situated learning
– a discourse that emphasizes a “shared nature” of reflection through situated activity,
reflection as a social endeavor, and as a distributed process with a distributed content
(Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, Lopez-Torres, 2003). The process of reflection is embedded
within a social structure that utilizes communication as tool for exchanging ideas.
This collaborative model for reflection is explored in a qualitative study whereby
a triad of educators engaged in a one-year reflective cycle (Woodcock, Lassonde, &
Rutten, 2004). Applying an adapted version of Rodgers’ (2002) four-steps of the
reflective cycle, the researchers modified the steps as follows:
1. description of the experience
2. analysis of experience
3. learning to take intelligent action
4. movement and growth, next experience

The study was structured around a relationship among three colleagues who each
maintained a different, non-hierarchal role in the reflection process. The first role was a
Teacher Researcher. This was held by Cindy, a fifth grade teacher who was also a
doctoral student. It was Cindy’s first year back after a yearlong sabbatical to work on her
dissertation and the first time she was teaching a different grade level despite having
taught for several years. The new grade level along with her commitment to her research
which focused on reading instruction caused her cognitive dissonance. Cindy’s primary
48
responsibility in the project was to reflect through writing. These reflections would be
provided to the other two team members at the end of each month.
Ilene held the role of Reflection Facilitator. She was a veteran primary teacher
with over twenty years of experience. Her role was to facilitate the process of reflection
for Cindy by observing her once a month, documenting her own reflections, and audio-
taping collaborative reflective dyads between Cindy and herself to create a second layer
of reflection for the group to explore. The final role, Analysis Facilitator, was held by a
former special education teacher, Christine, whose primary responsibility was to read the
journal entries written by both Cindy and Ilene, and listen to their audio-taped
conversations. Christine served as a third layer of reflection and her work was used to
triangulate the data. Ongoing data collection and analysis occurred as a way to measure
the “Notion of the Self” and “The Collaborative Dimension of Reflection.” The notion of
self, especially for Cindy, evolved as a result of her membership in a community of
practitioners (Woodcock, Lassonde, & Rutten, 2004; Wenger, 1998). The premise that
change occurs in the self as a result of participating in reflective practices was upheld
through this study because other members participated in the social construction of self
knowledge.
Furthermore, the collaborative aspect of the project served as a means to involve
others. Woodcock et al (2004) suggests that it is a way to “Enhance our ability to
determine and to shape our own educational philosophies, instruction, and responsibilities
to students’ growth,” (pg. 58). The study’s findings support Rodgers’ (2002) theorized
findings from her study as a practitioner. First, Cindy was able to explore her source of
interpretation and confront her unexamined biases. Her feelings of dissonance were
49
attributed to her first year of teaching a new grade level and her engagement in theory
from her doctorate program, both of which gave her a different outlook on teaching.
Cindy’s reflection on the work displayed at open house allowed her to explore her
newfound feeling towards the purpose of the student work. Whereas Cindy’s fifth grade
colleagues chose to display “finished products” resulting from the writing process, Cindy
chose to exhibit work that demonstrated growth in students’ writing abilities. She
focused on the process, not the product. Cindy confronted her assumptions about the
purpose of the displays in her thoughtful reflections with Ilene, the reflection facilitator.
While Cindy believed that her colleagues had a “social” audience such as the parents and
administration, her audience was more personal; the goal was that of learning for the
students.
Rodgers’ (2002) outcome of slowed down thinking to find alternative views of the
situation was demonstrated in Woodcock et al’s (2004) study when Cindy reflected on
her strained relationship with the faculty. She realized that as a doctoral student her more
progressive knowledge of theory conflicted with her experience as a practitioner.
However, she explored the source of interpretation that led to confronting her
unexamined assumptions through the reflection process. Rodgers’ (2002) third finding of
structured feedback as a way to promote awareness was apparent in the study when
Cindy began questioning her practices as a result of having Ilene probe into her decision-
making process and question her interpretations for her colleague’s reactions.
Woodcock et al’s (2004) study differed from Rodgers’ (2002) in that the three
researchers felt that there was a missing component to the reflective cycle. This
component is a collaborative, reflective meta-awareness phase whereby the Teacher
50
Researcher, Reflection Facilitator, and Analysis Facilitator are all simultaneously
engaged in a methodical reflection process of constructing knowledge. This was a
recommendation resulting from their key findings. Fostering a trusting relationship was
also identified as a critical component of the collaboration’s success. Additionally, the
study’s conclusion suggests that although each step of the reflection process is valuable,
only by going through the entire cycle does one experience change in the examination
and realization of one’s beliefs and assumptions (Woodcock, Lassonde, & Rutten, 2004;
Dewey, 1938; Rodgers, 2002). Despite the outcomes of both studies (Rodgers and
Woodcock et al) incorporating the reflective cycle, there remains still a sense of
ambiguity in the methodological approach. Neither of the studies mentioned how the
participants were chosen or a concrete data collection plan. This sense of vagueness is
representative of the reflective process itself and the difficulty in a controlled calculation
of such as complex, yet meaningful task.
Kruse’s (1997) Reflective activity in practice: Vignettes of teachers’ deliberative
work, delves into the complexity of this reflective process by building upon Dewey’s
(1933) notion that intelligent reflection is a necessary act for growth and creates a
purpose for “knowledge-in-action” (Schön, 1983). In her research on the restructuring
and organization of three middle schools, teachers were the subjects of a both a national
study of 24 K-12 schools and a middle school longitudinal study. Two ongoing studies,
Design of the Longitudinal School Study and Design of the National Schools Study,
complemented and juxtaposed one another. Despite their wide socioeconomic and
geographic range, they were each still representative of restructured middle schools that
maintained a strong commitment to meaningful structural, teaching, and learning
51
practices. The Design of the Longitudinal School Study focused on building upon three
themes that were prominent in school reform literature. These theoretical frameworks
included the politics of school governance and restructuring, schools as organizational
learning, and professional communities in drastically changed schools. The goal was to
first perform a thorough analysis of the data which included interviews, classroom and
meeting observations, and school documents. The next step was to integrate the three
theoretical frameworks.
The Design of the National Schools Study, on the other hand, took a different
approach. The study’s goal was to study the effects of restructuring initiatives on all
stakeholders, including the administration, teachers, students, and community. To gain a
better understanding of the teachers’ reflective experiences and how it affected other
collegial relationships, interviews, classroom and meeting observations, and schools
documents were collected as primary sources of data. To follow up and discuss the data
collected, groups of researchers met to extrapolate conceptual frames and themes that
were emerging. A comparative case study between the two project designs was
conducted in an effort to integrate the lessons learned and increase the research findings
transferability. Moreover, in order to increase the confidence that the phenomenon were
not were not unique to a particular site, cross site analysis and subsequent theory
generation was also conducted. Although Kruse did not specify a reflective cycle that
was employed in her study as was the case in the Woodcock et al (2004) and Rodgers
(2002) studies, the categories for reflection that Kruse outlined in the findings resembled
many of the same features that are apparent in the reflective cycle. Table 2.2 is my own
comparison among Dewey’s (1933, 1944) Six Phases of Reflection , Kruse’s (1997)
52
Vignette Teachers by Attributes of Reflection, and Rodgers’ (2002) Reflective Cycle.
The purpose of the reflection comparison is to illustrate how later empirical studies
conceptualize Dewey’s notion of reflection as a cycle.
Table 2.2 Reflection Process Comparison
Dewey’s Six Phases of
Reflection - Conceptual
(1933, 1944)
Kruse’s Attributes of
Reflection - Empirical
(1997)
Rodgers’ Reflective
Cycle (2002)
Phase 1
An experience
Phase 2
Spontaneous interpretation
of the experience
Valued Outcomes Stage 1
Presence in Experience:
Learning to see

Phase 3
Naming the problem(s) or
the question(s) that arises
out of the experience
Building Knowledge Stage 2
Description of the
Experience: Learning to
describe and
differentiate
Phase 4
Generating possible
explanations for the
problem(s) or question(s)
posed
Scrutinizing of the
Situation

Phase 5
Ramifying the explanations
into full-blown hypothesis
Base of Assumption
Stage 3
Analysis of Experience:
Learning to think from
multiple perspectives
and form multiple
explanations
Phase 6
Experimenting or testing the
selected hypothesis
Action Upon Reflection Stage 4
Experimentation:
Learning to take
intelligent action

Although the studies maintained different goals, were conducted in different settings, and
involved a plethora of participants, Dewey’s Six Phases of Reflection are still embodied
in the empirical studies as a way to highlight how the reflection process has evolved and
been adapted to become a measurable tool. For example, Rodgers’ first step of presence
in an experience and Kruse’s attribute of valued outcomes compare to Dewey’s initial
53
two steps in that the participants have the liberty of choosing when to be “present” and
what to value in that spontaneity of being in the moment. Rodgers’ analysis of
experience is a synthesis of Kruse’s scrutinizing of the situation and base of assumptions.
Rodgers’ stage 3 also includes Dewey’s generating of possible explanations for the
problem/question posed and ramifying the explanations into a full-blown hypothesis.
At this point in the reflective cycle, the reflector’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are
challenged through the analysis process because each is asked to view the issue from a
different lens in order to gain a deeper understanding of how others might perceive the
same incident.
Kruse’s (1997) vignettes in her study are labeled according to the teachers’ valued
outcomes: Teacher as Motivator, Teacher as Questioner, Teacher as Content Expert,
Teacher as Leader, and Teacher as Team Member. Overall, the study suggested three
attributes of reflection. The first is viewing oneself as a resource. When a teacher
acknowledged his skills and capacities, he had a stronger ability to filter and refine new
knowledge. The second attribute, relationships with other teachers as resources, entailed
fostering a collaborative, trusting relationship amongst colleagues where assistance and
feedback is sought. Rather than working independently, the reflection process
encouraged collegial interdependence. The ability to identify multiple sources of
knowledge, the final attribute, is a platform for knowledge seeking and building. The
identification of sources resembles the “problem-solving” knowledge (Stanton-Salazar,
1997) that institutional agents acquire in their roles. It is namely through this knowledge
development and problem solving skills that the educators in this study were able to
effectively restructure their schools for the better. This restructuring was literal because
54
programmatic structures of the school were changed, but it was also figurative in that
attitudes and beliefs about the school were transformed.
Next Steps
Rodgers’ concept of describing an experience as an integral step of the reflection
cycle is a strong foundational framework for reflecting with instructors at the community
college level about how their roles impact student outcomes. The process of reflecting on
the role of the instructor rather than the role of the student can trigger a paradigm shift in
thinking about teaching and learning because at the post-secondary level, it is believed
that when students succeed or do not succeed, the cause is attributed to the student
(Bensimon, 2007).
For the purposes of measuring reflection among the project’s participants, I will
employ Costa & Garmston’s (2002) “reflecting conversation” model from Cognitive
Coaching. Grounded in the theories of constructivist learning and brain research,
Cognitive Coaching, is a nonjudgmental, developmental model that enhances “one’s
ability to examine familiar patterns of practice and reconsider underlying assumptions
that guide and direct action, (Costa & Garmston, 2006, pg. 5). The Cognitive Coaching
model is intended is to establish rapport and build a trusting relationship between a coach
and an individual in which the coach facilitates self-directed learning through mediative
questioning. An important facet of communication involves being “skilled at
constructing and posing questions with the intention of engaging and transforming
thought,” (Costa & Garmston, 2006, pg. 6). One of the “mental maps” of Cognitive
Coaching is a reflecting conversation whereby with the facilitation of a coach, the
individual reflecting is asked to 1. summarize impressions and recall supporting
55
information, 2. analyze causal factors; compare, infer and determine cause-and-effect
relationship, 3. construct new learning and applications, 4. commit to applications, and 5.
reflect on the coaching process and explore refinements. The reflecting conversation is
typically conducted after one participates in an event, resolves a problem, or completes a
task.
The “Cognitive Coach” facilitates learning through mediative questions that are
invitational, engage in specific complex cognitive operations, and address both internal,
issues within one’s control, and external content, issues outside of one’s control (Costa &
Garmston, 2006). Some argue that a positive effect of Cognitive Coaching is increased
teacher reflection and development of problem solving skills. The first positive effect of
Cognitive Coaching is improved States of Mind, which include: consciousness, efficacy,
flexibility, interdependence, and craftsmanship. In Dildy’s (2000) study on how
Cognitive Coaching improves teacher efficacy, she worked with a teacher from a
different content area background from her own and went through four coaching cycles
of pre-conference, observation, and post-conference, over the course of four weeks.
Using the pre- and post-survey, Energy Sources Team Self-Assessment Survey, she
qualitatively measured an increase in the teacher’s efficacy as demonstrated through her
reflection logs and length and depth of her reflective conversations with the coach. In
addition to the teacher’s improved efficacy, her scores in consciousness and
craftsmanship also increased as a result of deliberate work with a Cognitive Coach.
Abrams (2001) suggests the need for Cognitive Coaching as a preferred method
for working with teachers because it allows new teachers to use the five States of Mind as
a filter for seeing beyond the surface level of issues and into the underlying problems.
56
Abrams, who teaches the States of Mind during new teacher trainings, believes that
training using the Cognitive Coaching model can help navigate teachers through difficult
teaching moments. Pasquini-Torchia (2006) further purports that with the States of
Mind, the coach who functions as a mediator of thinking, is giving the teacher resources
to enable him/her to “grow and change from within,” (pg. 3). And for teachers, it is
important to have the human support that will help them navigate through the challenges
of teaching.
The next positive effect of Cognitive Coaching is increased teacher reflection and
development of problem solving skills. Barnett (1995) argues that if teachers are going
to become reflective practitioners and effective problem solvers, they must first be
apprenticed by those who are already skilled in the two areas of reflection of problem
solving. As a result, he suggests the need for mentor teachers to complete training in
Cognitive Coaching in order to build teacher capacity. The Edwards & Green (1999)
study conducted over a three-year span examined the effects of Cognitive Coaching on
33 teachers who participated in a minimum of two coaching cycles. Their results, as
measured through the Reflective Pedagogical Thinking Instrument, proved an increase in
personal reflection after going through the process of coaching because the mentors were
knowledgeable about how to support teachers in building their capacity to think about
their teaching practices.
From a practitioner’s standpoint, instructors who are “stuck” will have the
opportunity to “slow down and see” the impact of their instruction – are they effective?
If so, how do they know? One particular challenge instructors may face in committing to
the reflective process is their strong subject-matter knowledge, but potentially limited
57
pedagogical framework for understanding that how they teach and not what they teach
can impact learning. The action a teacher displays does not always reflect his/her true
values and beliefs about teaching. As a result, “Reflection upon practice can create a
center by which teachers can begin the process of defining and refining their educational
mission and goals,” (Kruse, 1997, pg. 59). It is through these defining and refining
moments that one can begin to identify his/her valued outcomes and ultimately, commit
to meaningful action upon reflection. It is through this deliberate “action” and attention
to the process of learning that inequities in student success outcomes can begin to be
addressed. Processes that are built upon both organizational and individual learning
theories are the means through which change can occur both individually and
institutionally (Bauman et al, 2005).
My study will help to understand how engaging in “cycles of communication” can
lead to reaching a “common understanding.” This understanding can be achieved
through the “moments” activity in the reflective cycle where one teacher describes his/her
experience and with a group, develops a coherent understanding of the experience
through the questions raised and deeply examines the moment. Key agents must answer
the question: what do we do with what we now know? The final stage in Dewey’s (1933,
1944), Kruse’s (1997), and Rodgers’ (2002) reflection cycle is action that is taken after a
comprehensive description and analysis of the problem.
The new knowledge participants acquire from the Inquiry Project and the next
steps have a relationship to the amount of “problem-solving knowledge” the institutional
agents have as individuals and as a collective group. Specifically, knowledge and social
competencies relevant to getting agents to act on one’s behalf and knowledge and
58
competencies of how to apply effectively obtained resources to solving the problem
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997) become a form of knowledge that is necessary for students and
institutional agents who are committed to addressing the issues of equitable outcomes for
students.
From this conceptual framework, we have learned that teacher and student
relationships fostered within a school can lead to unintended, yet positive outcomes for
students (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). When a teacher steps into the role of agent, he/she can
build upon the teacher-student relationship by acknowledging the home funds of
knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Through Sanchez, Reyes, &
Singh’s (2005) study, we know which individuals provide students with support and what
type of support is needed. We also know how different agents can provide varying
amounts of support to students, as outlined in Gonzalez, Stoner, and Jovel’s (2003)
research. However, there is still a gap in the literature that does not address how agents,
especially within institutions, learn about how they can become an agent of change. The
process for beginning that role is still missing.
Moreover, in the process of inquiry, we learned that reflection cycles facilitate
learning through Rodgers (2002) and Woodcock, Lassonde, & Rutten’s (2004) studies on
the role of reflection for instructors as a way of improving one’s practice. Reflection is a
practice that can be empirically studied as Kruse (1997) discovered in her study of the
reflection process in different school settings. After a close examination of the studies, I
see that we still do not know what specific activities practitioners participated in to
promote their reflection, nor was the process of inquiry measured to determine the
reflector’s growth.
59
Participation in the reflective process has been a common practice at the primary
and secondary level of education, but uncommon in higher education, as the body of
research on reflection shows. Specifically in the state of California, as indicated in the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (1997), in one of the six standards,
Standard for Developing as a Professional Educator, teachers are expected to reflect on
their teaching practice and plan for their professional development. No matter what stage
of the profession, beginner or veteran, they are prompted to ask questions such as “How
do I reflect on my instructional successes and dilemmas to move my practice forward?”
and “How do I analyze my teaching to understand what contributes to student learning?”
(CSTP, 1997, pg. 20). The expectation to become a reflective practitioner has not fully
transpired in higher education and warrants attention because of its importance in teacher
development at all levels of instruction. Through participation in an inquiry process,
instructors can better learn how to reflect and partake in activities that lead to reflection
on both an institutional and individual level.
The process of reflection within a higher education context is the center of my
study. Developing the ability to describe the problem is a first crucial step for those who
aim to assume the practitioner-as-researcher role in the inquiry process. From this
acknowledgement and ownership of data emerges an awareness of one’s role within the
learning process. In an effort to promote institutional agency and ultimately improve
student success outcomes, this ownership will allow one to look inward before taking a
step forward.
In the next chapter, I will discuss how I used these concepts of institutional agents
and reflection to gain a better understanding of how institutional self-assessment might
60
provide opportunities for reflection about professional practices and expertise building
for the math faculty at Markham College participating in the Inquiry Project.

61
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Problematic Situation
Throughout the field of higher education in the United States, there are few
structured inquiry projects being conducted. The Inquiry Project, the subject of my
study, is one which makes it ideal to study reflection and institutional agents. My study
will inform those who aim to learn more about the ways in which inquiry-based activities
serve as a means for understanding one’s role in improving student success outcomes and
the role of reflection in examining an institution’s performance through an “equity” lens.
The ultimate purpose of my project is to address key issues within mathematics education
at an urban community college – issues of underperformance that surround equity and
access for underserved students who primarily are of African-American and Latino
descent from low-income families. Through a case study, I examine how a math
department chair, math professor, and their colleagues on an inquiry team have the
potential to become key agents of change who can facilitate higher outcomes by looking
inward at their practices and participating in inquiry-based activities that will help to
develop their expertise for effecting such change. In order to understand how to
approach the issues of equity and access to transfer, this study addressed how members of
a college department contextualized the problems of student outcomes at their site
through participation in an organizational learning process. This study was conducted in
collaboration with an inquiry project – a project intended to provide institutions with
“Processes and tools to embed equity in educational outcomes into all aspects of the
state’s accountability agenda for community colleges, (Inquiry Project). My purpose was
62
to examine what math faculty learned about their role to impact student outcomes as they
engaged in the reflection process. This study addressing the faculty, specifically in the
math department, is needed because supporting faculty in their understanding of the role
in which they play as institutional agents will further support student success.
Research Questions and Issues
This dissertation aimed to answer the following three research questions:
1. In what ways does participation in an institutional self-assessment project provide
opportunities for reflection and learning about professional practices and its effect on
equity in student outcomes?
2. How does the reflection process support participants’ change in their practices?
3. What do participants learn about their capacity to have a positive effect on student
learning?
The aim of this dissertation is to contribute to the existing body of knowledge that
examines how faculty define institutional problems through reflection as they participate
in inquiry activities. Participants in the Inquiry Project are each partaking in a cycle of
inquiry to further understand how to address the issues of equity and access and its
relation to the outcomes of students attending an urban community college. The inquiry
activities are an attempt to create an institutionalization of reflection processes through
assessment. In this particular case study, I am observing and interviewing members of a
math department, all of whom are responsible for teaching math courses ranging from
basic skills – meaning non-credit, non-transferable courses – to for-credit, transfer-ready,
higher level classes. Through observations, document analysis, and interviews, I will use
the analytical frames of reflection and institutional agents as integrated lenses to define
63
the ways in which new knowledge is constructed and used to impact change. The role of
an institutional agent is critical for the purposes of the Inquiry Project and its larger goals
because it is with college professors, administration, and counselors that the project seeks
to begin to cultivate an awareness of one’s capacity to be a change agent.
The Inquiry Project, the project under which my study was conducted, began with a
kick-off meeting in August in the first year of the project under the administration of its
two principal investigators from the University of Southern California. Three peer
colleges were selected as pilot colleges for the project and beginning in October, I joined
one of these colleges as a research assistant. The project is an inquiry-based form of
institutional assessment. Each month the team members of the project met to discuss
their progress on the project. During an earlier project team meeting, members identified
their hunches concerning low success rates in transition from basic skills to transfer
courses through a problem brainstorming activity. Team members first examined
disaggregated data about student success outcomes in Basic Skills courses and the
college’s curriculum diagrams for both math and developmental communications.
Participant comments were then categorized into seven categories – faculty, students,
transfer center, institutional culture, resources, policies and practices, and other. Under
the category of faculty, participants noted the following factors:
Teaching style not accommodating students’ learning style
Not respecting students
Passing underprepared students
No innovative pedagogy
Not buying into role as teacher
No background in basic skills education
Not preparing students
Not teaching study skills
Not maintaining high standards
64
Syllabi emphasizes discipline and rules
Course expectations not stated
No diversity of instructional modality
Source: Markham College Hunches Mapped to Services and Instruction, Team
Meeting #1, September.

The faculty held themselves in some way responsible for the student outcomes at
Markham College as a result of their instructional practices, attitudes and beliefs toward
student learning, and/or background in their subject matter pedagogy.
Methodological Approach
In this naturalistic inquiry process, qualitative data based on observations,
institutional documents, and interviews were first collected and then followed by content
and interpretive analysis. As a naturalistic inquiry researcher (Stake, 1995), I tried “to
observe the ordinary, and try to observe it long enough to comprehend what, for this case,
ordinary means,” (pg. 44). The observation data included the math learning center,
monthly meetings, math syllabi review workshop, math faculty syllabi workshop, and
Effective Practices Symposium because the study focused on the knowledge acquired
through the inquiry process, not the knowledge applied. Additionally, this study aimed to
focus its attention on the practitioners themselves and not on their students.
This was an in-depth qualitative study that explored not only the context within
which reflection took place with members of a department participating in the project, but
also the ways in which expertise was acquired as a result of participation in inquiry
activities through a deductive process. The observations in the learning center, monthly
meetings, and inquiry activities provided me with an interpretive perspective on the way
the faculty members interacted with students, specifically in the math learning center. An
analysis of documents from the Inquiry Project meetings enabled me to determine how
65
the contexts for learning and change evolved over time. Finally, interviews allowed me
to give my undivided attention to participants and provided insight to the learning,
perceptions, and attitudes of each individual. Over the span of 18 months, the three
sources of data collected were triangulated for further analysis.
The Inquiry Project is grounded in action research; Noffke (1997) distinguishes
that some types of action research focus on the process of change as something that is
ongoing. She elaborates further by pointing out that when teachers are involved in the
research process, there is a strong value placed upon the teachers’ knowledge and work.
The Inquiry Project utilized the inquiry process as a part of their action research and
while I played a role as a research assistant in this action research, my research is an
instrumental case study (Stake, 1995) that aimed to gain a better understanding of how
participants reflect through inquiry-based activities.
As an outside researcher looking inside of this organization through our
participation in the Inquiry Project, my questions functioned as “etic issues” (Stake,
1995) because of my inexperience with the case and my outside to inside approach in
learning more about the institution. In order for changes to occur in educational practices,
there first comes change in how the practitioners view their own knowledge, beliefs, and
attitudes towards important issues (Dowd & Tong, 2007). Because learning and change
occur differently from site to site, understanding the specific processes about learning and
teaching are critical to contextualizing the problem. Institutional leaders including
administrators, counselors, and faculty members, have an influential effect on the success
of students and their cognitive frames can either support or hinder the advancement of
underrepresented students (Bensimon, 2005). The answers to the research questions are
66
important because the instructional conditions of a college directly affect student
outcomes (Grubb & Badway, 2005). These instructional conditions are fostered,
facilitated, and improved through participation in professional development amongst peer
stakeholders in the self-study process (Dowd & Tong, 2007). Moreover, as an
instrumental case study (Stake, 2005), research of one case to gain a better understanding
of another, my examination of one particular institution will be used to gain more insight
on how achieving equitable outcomes as a larger issue can be addressed across other
departments and institutions. Achieving this equity will include research issues such as
correctly identifying problems, in-depth reflection, and defining one’s role as an
instructor to ensure that practices are not equal, but rather, fair and appropriate to
students’ needs.
A data matrix (Appendix A) has been included to outline the methodology and
methods for my study. It includes the theoretical framework, research questions, research
objectives, data collection, and data analysis process that will be described in the next
section. The research objectives for this study were three-fold. The first objective was to
develop an understanding of how project participants reflect on their professional
practices when participating in self-assessment activities. The second objective was to
document participants’ new learning and commitments to application through the process
of reflection. The final objective was to develop an understanding of how faculty who
were motivated by equity used the notion of equity as a building block to learn about
their capacity to become an institutional agent. The in-depth, long term investigation of
inquiry at one college supported these three objectives. Learning is a key result of the
67
reflection process and through the methods employed participants’ new learning and
insights were gauged in the study.
Setting
Markham College is a small, urban college with a student population under
10,000. It is located in a large metropolitan city on the West coast and is one of several
in a larger community college district. Their mission statement highlighted its accessible
educational opportunities and services aimed at promoting university transfer and the
individual development of its multi-cultural student population. In order to accomplish
this mission, Markham College states that its primary function is to offer educational
programs including transfer-ready courses, occupational/career paths, general education,
transitional education, continuing education, community services, and joint programs.
Enrolled at Markham College are two primary ethnic groups, African-Americans and
Latinos. African-Americans represent nearly three fourths of the total student body
population and Latino/as make up the remaining one fourth. According to data collected
from the California Postsecondary Education Commission (http://www.cpec.ca.gov/), in
2006, Markham College’s University of California (UC) and California State University
(CSU) transfer rates were relatively low. In total, 90 students per one thousand
transferred to a CSU campus while only ten students per every thousand transferred to a
UC
1
. When the numbers are disaggregated by race, African-American students, in
comparison to Latino/as, are transferring at even lower rate. One African-American
student for every thousand transferred to a UC, whereas twenty Latino/as out of one
thousand transferred to a UC campus. Similarly, one out of one thousand African-

1
The actual UC/CSU transfer numbers have been adjusted by +/- 3% to avoid reporting exact school
statistics. Numbers for subsequent school data will also be adjusted.
68
American students transferred to a Cal State, whereas 150 per thousand Latino/as
transferred. The low numbers of student transfers for minority students and the
institution itself positions the college as a prime focus for exploring how transfer access
can be improved. Markham College’s enrollment is unique in that only 10% of the total
student population attending the college comes directly from high school. The average
student age is between 27-28 years old with an overwhelmingly large female population
enrolled.
At the outset of the project, the president of Markham College received an
invitation to participate in the Inquiry Project. Upon acceptance, the president received a
document titled “Criteria and Worksheet for Creating an Inquiry Team” to select
members to participate in the project. The project aimed to foster a social construction of
knowledge through inquiry by employing a selection process that highlighted the
importance of the team members and their work together. The process in which
participants were involved centralized “…the ways in which stakeholders are involved,
which particular stakeholders participate, how less-powerful voices can be fairly heard,
who speaks for and with whom…” (Greene, 2000, pg. 994). From this emerged an
inquiry team where stakeholders at all levels and fields of the institution were selected.
Two co-leaders were appointed, one to oversee the work related to transfer, and the other
whose work was related to basic skills. Other participants included department chairs,
tenured and adjunct faculty, counselors, deans, and directors. There was a varying range
in participant experience in their professional roles and length of employment with the
college. This range created multiple opportunities for collaboration between different
campus roles and opened a forum for a variety of perspectives to be voiced. Specifically
69
at Markham College, the original inquiry team comprised of fifteen participants with one
additional member added to the team upon her arrival to the college, bringing the group
total to sixteen.
Participants
Mathematics and English basic skills instructors at the community college were
the foci of this study due to the high number of students who were required to take
remedial courses at this particular institution, especially in math. Of the 49 math courses
offered at Markham College for the Spring semester, 80% were basic skills, meaning
students who were enrolled in these courses could not apply these courses to meet the
requirements for transfer to a four-year college or to earn their Associate of Arts degree.
Moreover, according to Markham College’s Fall 2006 Math Baseline Data of students
enrolled at all levels of mathematics, students were classified into four groups: Group 1 –
three plus levels below transfer, Group 2 – two levels below transfer, Group 3 – one level
below transfer, and Group 4, the benchmark, transfer level. In order to earn a passing
grade, students needed to receive a grade of A, B, C, or Pass. Of all the students who
were categorized in Groups 1, 2, and 3, passing rates did not exceed 40%. However, for
the Group 4, students passed their transfer level math course at a rate of 62%. With an
institutional basic skills math success rate that did not exceed 40%, the Inquiry Project
aimed to address the root causes for why these low achievement rates existed, and more
importantly, how these outcomes could be improved.
Two of the participants for this study were members of Markham College’s math
department. As project participants, they represented the agents who could potentially
impact student success outcomes because of their role as instructors – they had resources
70
and the ability to extend opportunities to students, especially those who were
underserved. They could address issues of equity and acknowledge their ability to
address student achievement through their own instructional practices. However, because
the institution is relatively small, there were only a limited number of inquiry team
participants from the math department. At this particular college there were five full-
time, tenured faculty and the remaining 25 faculty were adjuncts.
The primary unit of analysis was the two participants of the math department at
Markham College studied within the social context of the inquiry group. Although there
was a developmental communications sub-committee on the benchmarking team, my
focus was on what the two math faculty learned about their roles as institutional agents as
they engaged in inquiry-based activities. As a person in a position of leadership, how did
the math department chair change his practices to address the students’ needs and
facilitate changes in departmental practices? How did the individual members respond to
the reflective process and build upon their expertise that could contribute to the rest of the
department? Drawing from Rodgers’ (2002) Reflective Cycle, I wanted to better
understand how the members were learning to describe and differentiate, think from
multiple perspectives, and form multiple explanations of their experiences.
My first introduction to the two math professors was during one of the inquiry
activities in October whereby members of the project examined Math Syllabi. Three
counselors, including the project’s co-leader, also were contributing members on the
math committee. Specifically, the math group participated in a protocol for syllabi
reflection using several samples from the department’s faculty, including full-time and
adjunct. Both of the math members participating in the project are full-time, tenured
71
faculty. Dr. Talbot holds the position of department chair and has held this duty for the
past two years. The second full-time faculty member, Dr. Pascal, once held the position
of acting department chair. He initiated Markham College’s first online math program
and led the college in developing the mathematics laboratory center. This professor was
the only one out of the entire Inquiry Project to participate in the California Tomorrow
Committee, a chancellor’s office sponsored program to raise awareness about education
for minority students that the college partook in nearly five years ago. He also
participated in a prior inquiry project facilitated by the Center for Urban Education,
aimed at examining issues of equity for minority students through disaggregated data
generated at the community college level. Additionally, he attended Markham College as
his pathway to earning a baccalaureate. These two faculty represented the math
department as participants on the Inquiry Project team. A case history for each
participant was written to characterize their actions and participation in each of the
project’s settings. The narrative was a representation of the faculty members and is based
on the data collected throughout the past year and a half.
Data Collection Plan
My entry into the Inquiry Project in the Markham College setting began in
October when I was introduced as a research assistant during the Math Syllabi Review,
an inquiry process whereby team members utilized a syllabus reflection protocol to
examine math syllabi from various instructors. The syllabi review included a two-part
exercise that first focused on the document itself and second, indicators that demonstrated
equity conscious practices. From that point in the project, I established a professional
rapport with the members of the team. In my introduction, I gave a short background on
72
both my professional and educational interests to give the participants a better
understanding of why I was studying the project. This early rapport with the team
enabled me to schedule observations, obtain documents, and secure interviews as
necessary for my data collection plan. My role as a research assistant for the Inquiry
Project was to collect data during the monthly team meetings by taking notes, observe
assessment and inquiry activities, and maintain a professional rapport with each of the
team members. I was in a “participant observer” role throughout the project. Patton
(2002) describes this role as one who “Employs multiple and overlapping data collection
strategies: being fully engaged in experiencing the setting (participation) while at the
same time observing and talking with other participants about whatever is happening,”
(pg. 266). The manager for the Inquiry Project was the primary person responsible for
arranging the logistics of meetings and events and supported one of the three site teams.
In direct collaboration with the project manager and principal investigators, a
post-doctoral researcher, who later became the Center for Urban Education Director of
Research, was responsible for creating interview protocols, structuring inquiry and
assessment activities, and also supported one of the college’s benchmarking teams. She
obtained IRB approval for the research assistants by submitting protocols and observation
tools that were utilized during the monthly meetings. The protocols and tools were
accepted before I began to collect any of my data. Beyond the school’s data and
information that was available through the college, district, and state websites, other
pertinent documents such as simultaneous research projects conducted at the college,
were provided by the project leaders. These documents, along with observations and
interviews conducted by others were used as secondary data for my data analysis. An
73
analysis of the preliminary research findings report, supplemental information, and
reflections after each meeting were compiled and then distributed to each of the doctoral
students. Table 3.1 is a chronological order of the data that I have collected from my
participation in the project. The date, activity, and Markham College participants are
noted accordingly.
Table 3.1. Chronological Order of Data Collection
Date Activity Markham College Participants
October Inquiry Project Math Syllabi
Review Assessment
Inquiry Project Team: 2 Math
instructors, 3 Counselors
November Inquiry Project November
Team Meeting
Inquiry Project Team: 2 Math
instructors, 3 Counselors,
English instructor, Learning skills
instructor
December Inquiry Project December
Team Meeting
Inquiry Project Team: 2 Math
instructors, 3 Counselors,
English instructor, Learning skills
instructor, 2 Deans,
Department chair
March Math lab observation #1: Mid
semester, afternoon
4 Math instructors
March Inquiry Project Effective
Practices Symposium
Inquiry Project Team: President,
2 Math instructors, 2 Counselors, 2
Deans
April Markham College Math
Faculty Syllabi Workshop
Math instructors: 4 FT, 10 PT
President, Dean, Counselor
May Math faculty interview #1
Math faculty interview #2
Full-time math instructor & chair
Full-time math instructor
May Inquiry Project Pasadena
College Site Visit
2 Deans, Director, Math instructor
May Math lab observation #2: End
of semester, noontime
4 Math instructors
May Inquiry Project May Team
Meeting
Inquiry Project Team: Math chair/
instructor, 2 counselors, 2 Deans, 2
Learning skill instructors, Director
August Markham College Flex Day Faculty & Administration
December Math lab observation #3:
Finals week, mid morning
4 Math instructors
December Math faculty interview #3
Math faculty interview #4
Full-time math instructor & chair
Full-time math instructor
74
Moreover, Table 3.2 is a representation of additional data that I had access to as a
research assistant to the project, but did not directly collect myself.
Table 3.2. Additional Data Access
Date Data Markham College Participants
(if available)
August Inquiry Project Kick-Off
Meeting
N/A
September Inquiry Project September Team
Meeting
Inquiry Project Team:
2 Math instructors
2 Counselors
2 Deans
2 Department chairs
English instructor
Learning skills instructor
October Inquiry Project October Team
Meeting
Inquiry Project Team:
2 Math instructors
2 Counselors
2 Deans
2 Department chairs
2 Learning skills instructors
English instructor
January Inquiry Project January Team
Meeting
Inquiry Project Team:
2 Math instructors
2 Counselors
Dean
English instructor
February Inquiry Project February Team
Meeting
N/A
February Markham College Interim Report
to the President
N/A
March Consultants’ Responses to the
inquiry team based on the
Interim Report
Danny B. Martin
Tom De Wit
Ellie Kutz
Ana M. Villegas
April Inquiry Project April Team
Meeting
N/A
July Markham College Final Report
to the College
N/A
February Independent researcher’s
interview notes
Students
Dean

75
The inquiry was a one and a half year project. I participated as a research
assistant for the first year of the project – one year that was aimed at facilitated inquiry
with the team members. The next year was a continuation of the inquiry cycle, but
focused on the dissemination and implementation of the action plan across the institution.
There was no “contract” to end communications between the community college and
university at the end of the two years. However, the time and human resources were less
readily available at the conclusion of the school year, May, due to changes in
instructional assignments and the beginning of the summer session.
Some of the resources for the Inquiry Project have been refined from previous
CUE projects such as the Diversity Scorecard and Equity Scorecard. New, additional
tools and protocols have also been created to support the project in the full inquiry cycle.
Human resources are especially important to the project because at each of the three sites,
there were at least one university professor, one research assistant, and two doctoral
students. As a team, we were simultaneously facilitating, observing, and recording the
meeting.
The Inquiry Project was funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and
the Ford Foundation. This project’s co-principal investigators were Dr. Estela Bensimon,
professor of higher education and Dr. Alicia Dowd, assistant professor of higher
education. Both share the role of co-directors for the Center for Urban Education from
the University of Southern California. The co-principal investigators and CUE
researchers maintained the role of a facilitator that would create protocols to be used in
the inquiry activities, facilitate meetings, and collaborate with team members to write the
sections of the project’s interim and final report to the president.
76
Data Gathering Tools
I utilized observation notes, institutional documents, and interviews as a part of
my data collection process. Purposeful sampling was used for the depth that the
participants could provide to my study. Patton asserts that “The purpose of purposeful
sampling is to select information-rich cases whose study will illuminate the questions
under study,” (pg. 46). Observations were the first type of data that I collected. This
included: 1) math learning center, 2) monthly project meetings, 3) math faculty syllabi
review and workshop, and 4) CUE sponsored Effective Practices Symposium. Through
these observations, I was interested in learning how math faculty responded to self-
assessment activities, and developed and articulated the expertise they acquired. Multiple
observations of the monthly meetings and math learning center were essential to ensure
that valid, plausible, and reliable accounts had been made (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
The multiple observations also allowed me to record a scope of different attitudes,
moods, and changes in participant comments and behavior.
The purpose of the learning center observation was to examine how the
instructors interacted with the students and to see what type of learning environment
currently existed for the students who attended the center. A minimum of three
observations of the math learning center were made throughout the course of the project.
Observations were held during different times and days of the week to ensure maximum
coverage of the center. The first two observations were conducted during the Spring
semester. In March, I observed the learning center on a Wednesday afternoon for
approximately one hour beginning at 3:30 p.m. According to Markham College’s Spring
2008 Schedule of Classes, there were no math classes in session at this time; there was
77
only one section that was scheduled to begin at 4:00 p.m. The second observation was
performed at noontime on a Monday during finals week. This observation lasted half an
hour and was conducted on the second floor of the library, a different location from the
first observation which was done in the technology building due to construction. The
final observation was conducted late in the Fall semester on Tuesday at 10:00 am during
the last week of instruction before finals. A general learning center observation guide
(see Appendix D) was used to gauge the human and social environment (Patton, 2002) of
the learning lab, meaning the human interactions between the math faculty and students
and the conduciveness of the lab to student learning.
The next type of observation was the monthly project meetings. The purpose of
the monthly meeting observations was to record the learning and reflective process of
two of the math faculty as they participated in inquiry activities with the Inquiry Project
team. During these observations, I took notes using the following subheadings –
summary, analysis/findings, next steps, and personal reflections. The meetings began in
August and concluded in May; the team attended the Effective Practices Symposium in
lieu of the March meeting. I was present for the October, November, December, and
May meetings. During these meetings I sat at a large oval table with the rest of the team
and typed notes on the activities and members’ comments. Within the Markham College
Inquiry Project team, there were two sub-committees, the math department and
developmental communications department; each planned separate inquiry activities to
move the faculty forward in thinking about their impact on basic skills instruction.
The participants’ participation in reflection activities was observed in the
discussions during the monthly team meetings, interviews, and inquiry activities such as
78
the syllabi review and syllabi workshop. The team’s initial “hunches” about problems
affecting course completion rates of students starting in non-degree courses as they
attempt to progress to the first transfer-level course served as a “moment” that Rodgers’
(2002) describes in her second step of the reflective cycle, describing the problem.
Furthermore, specific questions in the interview protocol were also created to gauge how
members were able to define, analyze, and take action based on their instructional
practices as it relates to student learning. The information from the “I Learn Best…” (see
Appendix E) inquiry protocol was intended to serve as another reflection tool. Once the
professors collected the student feedback, it would have been one measure of their
reflectiveness “in-action” (Schön, 1983) as they began to plan additional lessons. Milner
(2003) purports that “This type of effective lesson altering could be accomplished
through teacher reflection while teaching,” (pg. 175). Although discussed on multiple
occasions, neither of the project participants administered the “I Learn Best…” reflection
tool to their students.
The math faculty syllabi workshop, the third occasion for observations, was
another opportunity for me to collect data. For many faculty it was not their first time
learning about the project because one of the principal investigators attended a math
faculty meeting at the beginning of the year to speak about the project. In this workshop,
I was interested to learn about the math faculty through their discussions and insights on
the notion of “equity” as it applied to students, and second, how they internalized the
inquiry-based activities, such as with the Math Faculty Syllabi Workshop (see Appendix
F). The final observation type was the Effective Practices Symposium held in March at a
conference. Although I participated in additional activities throughout the day, my
79
observations were focused on the Markham College panel presentations, the mathematics
session on assessment and action, and the individual lead college meeting with invited
discussants.
The second type of data collected and applied to my study were institutional
documents, including Markham College’s interim report to the president written by the
team members, the final report to the president, baseline English and Math data,
curriculum maps, course outlines, faculty syllabi, an ongoing researcher’s interview notes
from the college, and consultants’ reports to the colleges based on the interim report to
the president. The interim report was generated by the team members; each section of the
report was written by one individual or a small group to give the president a midway
report on their progress with the Inquiry Project. The consultants’ reports were written
by select faculty members from universities who were invited to attend the March
symposium on effective practices. Their reports included a reflection on the college’s
progress in the project and provided concrete feedback on next steps to take. Utilizing all
of these data supported the triangulation of my interviews and observation results and
helped to concretely represent what the team members at Markham College were learning
as a result of participating in the Inquiry Project, specifically through the interim and
final report to the president. Working with multiple team members during the data
gathering process enabled me to develop a stronger understanding of the participants’
perspectives. Additionally, working with principal investigators who had a strong
background in inquiry-based learning supported my own learning and refined the lens
through which I reflected on my findings.
80
After months of observations in team settings and activities and reviewing
institutional documents, I collected additional data through two interviews each from the
math faculty participating in the project. These members were selected because of their
participation as team members in the project and their assignment at the community
college. Only instructors participating in the Inquiry Project who teach or have taught
basic skills math courses and directly work with students in the learning center were
interviewed. These interviews were semi-structured and lasted approximately half an
hour to one and a half hours. In the first interview, I used the Inquiry Project Faculty
Interview Protocol I (see Appendix B) to ask questions about instructional practices and
assessment; probing questions that aimed to answer key concepts in my study were also
addressed. For the second interview, the questions in the Inquiry Project Faculty
Interview Protocol II (see Appendix C) were structured around the Cognitive Coaching
reflecting conversation and were utilized for the second round of interviews that intended
to address the problem-solving knowledge the participants developed as a result of
participating in the project. The purpose of the interviews was to collect data about the
expertise the instructors acquired as a result of participation in the project and also to
discover under which contexts they learned within in an inquiry-based project.
Data Analysis
Thematic analysis of the data was conducted after the data were collected. This
analysis began with a search for consistent patterns within certain conditions, also known
as correspondence (Stake, 1995). A correspondence of the data allowed me to identify
patterns or themes in order to better understand the behaviors, issues and contexts that
were emerging from the data. Each theme was first qualitatively coded and then
81
triangulated with different sources of data. The themes were supported with quotations
from interviews, thick descriptions from observation notes, and information obtained
from institutional documents. One set of the findings highlighted the factors that had an
effect on the team members as a result of participating in the process of inquiry. Another
set emphasized individual’s key learning about their role to impact student outcomes
within their college.
The concepts described in Chapter Two served as the lens for which my data were
analyzed. Specifically in the analysis, I identified the ways in which team members
began to view, acknowledge, and assign their roles as institutional agents (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997) within their campus. Similarly, I looked for ways in which the team
members assumed their “practitioner-as-researcher” (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman,
& Vallejo, 2004) roles as participants in the project. How the members demonstrated this
role was measured in their ability to reflect on the problems that their institution faced
and their role in addressing those problems. A reflection matrix assisted in my
measurement of participants’ ability to reflect on “moments” in the inquiry process. As
shown in the appendix, for each of the self-assessment activities, the participants were
asked to reflect on the process through the steps of the reflecting conversation.
Moreover, three components of Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) “Problem-Solving Knowledge”
served as the range of problem-solving knowledge I attended to in examining how
participants developed as a result of participating in inquiry activities. “Accurate
perception and assessment of problem” helped me to understand to what degree the
participants defined and attributed the problem of inequitable student outcomes. The
second component, “Types of resources that may ameliorate the problem,” helped gauge
82
who or what the participants believed had the capacity to resolve the problem. The final
competency, “Knowledge and social competencies relevant to getting agents to act on
one’s behalf” provided a better understanding of the agency participants developed to
take action.
Table 3.4 is an adaptation of Costa & Garmston’s (2002) steps three and four in a
reflecting conversation and Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) components of “Problem-Solving
Knowledge.” Responses from two data sources collected, observations (team meetings
and inquiry-activities) and interviews, were placed in one of the four rows titled,
“Summarize Impressions,” “Analyze Causal Factors,” “Construct New Learning” or
“Commit to Application.” I was particularly interested in responses that fell under the
last two rows because the “Construct New Learning” row represented the personal
learning of the participants from the self-assessment activities and second, the “Commit
to application” row signified the commitment the participants made to support the needs
of students. Although the questions in the Faculty Interview Protocols were not intended
to measure problem-solving solving knowledge, I was interested in gauging how the
participants learned about specific types of knowledge, namely problem-solving.
Table 3.3 Reflection of Knowledge Matrix
Problem-Solving Knowledge
Reflection
Process
Accurate
perception
and
assessment
of problem
Types of resources
that may ameliorate
the problem

Knowledge and
social competencies
relevant to getting
agents to act on one’s
(student’s) behalf
Summarize Impressions

Analyze Causal Factors
Construct New Learning
Commit to Application
83
Data gathered from team meetings, inquiry-based activities, and interviews were
qualitatively coded by the concepts elaborated upon in Chapter Two. The data were
coded on three different levels – the reflection process, the specific type of problem
solving knowledge with which the response correlated, and lastly, whether the response
referred to participant learning or math department learning. In the first coding, the data
were characterized by one of four steps of the reflection process: summarizing
impressions, analyzing causal factors, constructing new learning, and committing to
application. Data placed in the summarizing category included details that were recalled
from events or general statements made about given topics, whereas data in the analyzing
category involved a higher level of thinking in that participants were attributing,
interpreting, or explaining their perceptions. For the constructing learning category, data
that referred to new insights or a synthesis of personal learning was included. Finally,
references to action steps taken or steps to be taken were placed in the application
category of reflection.
The next layer of data coding stemmed from three types of problem solving
knowledge: accurate perception of the problem, types of resources that may ameliorate
the problem, and knowledge and social competencies relevant to getting agents to act on
one’s behalf. Data collected from activities such as the “initial hunches” that targeted
perceptions of the problem were included in the first type of problem solving knowledge
coding. Participant data that included issues of ownership, taking action, and
characteristics or qualities of agency were placed in the remaining two categories. The
final layer of coding distinguished whom the data referred to in the discussions and
reflections about learning – the project participant or the department. Responses for
84
individual learning included mentions of personal teaching characteristics,
methodological, pedagogical, and instructional practices, whereas department practices
included policies, procedures, programs, and professional development. References
made to the institution were also captured in the department category.
Study Limitations
The inquiry team at Markham College formally met from August to May. The
goal of this study was to identify the ways in which organizations learn and reflect.
However, not all organizations learn at the same time; they do so at different moments
and with varying capacities. As a result, time was a limitation of my study. Additionally,
because I began my role as a research assistant to the project in October, I was unable to
do a preliminary gauge of the team member’s process for reflecting and understanding of
equity as it related to student outcomes from the beginning of the project. Having been
involved from the onset would have given my study a larger scope of how the inquiry
activities and assessments fostered new learning or insights, rather than attempting to
make meaning of it two months into the project.
Another limitation was the sample group of participants; they were both male.
The perspective and receptivity of female instructors of math may have been different,
but my study participants were limited to men. A final limitation of the study is that data
were not collected from students. These student accounts could have provided a deeper
understanding of effective and non-effective practices of instructors and how those
practices could better address students’ learning needs, especially for those who are in
basic skills courses. The accounts could have also served as a source of triangulation
about the changes in the instructor’s mathematical pedagogy.
85
Ethical Considerations
The information collected from the observations, interviews, and documents were
used to draw conclusions about the nature of reflection in inquiry, assessment and
learning at the community college. Pseudonyms were used in describing both the college
and its participants. As members of the project, the participants were partaking in the
interview and inquiry activities completely on a voluntary basis. Before interviews were
conducted, consent forms were signed and participants were reminded that their
participation was voluntary and that any information provided would be kept
confidential. The Inquiry Project and IRB received a copy of the learning center
observation guide, questionnaire, and list of questions used for the interview prior to the
use of the tools.
Because the issue of “equity,” “access,” “race,” and “culturally responsive” are
sensitive terms to the institution’s officials due to their broad mission of servicing all
students, I anticipated a lot of reactivity or avoidance of addressing the issue of equity
during the interview process. I intended to ask questions that allowed the participants to
self-define the term equity to counter avoiding the issue and constantly validated their
existing knowledge to negate apprehension. For example, during the interview I asked
my participants, What does equity mean to you? The response to this question allowed
me to know how the team member constructed the idea of equity for himself and what
meaning he attached to it. Furthermore, I asked the question, In your experience, what
instructional practices do you implement in your classroom that effectively promote
student success in your courses? I believed that this was a validating question in that
embedded in the question was the notion that the respondent cares about student success
86
and is conscientious of practices that support their learning. With an intention to survey
only adults, it was important to establish upfront the purpose and confidentiality of the
meeting as well as how the data would be used for the project. I understood that their
time was limited, and more importantly, having their trust and honest opinions were
essential for the integrity of the project.
As an assistant researcher to the Inquiry Project, I clearly articulated to my
subjects that my purpose was to understand the issues surrounding student achievement
and the instructors themselves, particularly their reflection process. I wanted to learn
about what participation in reflective learning looked like and the processes and
characteristics that were involved in the development of it. Also, I made clear that the
interview was a structured process meant for gathering data and not making judgments. I
strove, as Noffke (1997) claims is essential in action research, “To enhance the goals of
the participants and to understand the process by which change could be engineered,”
(pg. 313). The goal of the project and its participants was not to immediately identify
solutions, but rather, to gain a better understanding of how one received the process of
change.
Having a background in Cognitive Coaching – a nonjudgmental, reflective
communication tool for “Enhancing one’s ability to examine familiar patterns of practice
and reconsider underlying assumptions that guide and direct action,” (Costa & Garmston,
2002, pg. 5), I employed mediative questioning devices such as plural forms and open-
ended questions. An example of a plural forms question I asked was, In what ways has
the math faculty syllabi workshop made a difference in how you think about your work?
87
Plural forms entailed probing for multiple answers by asking, “In what ways…”
signifying that there was not only one way that the workshop has made a difference and
that multiple examples were invited in the response. Finally, that same question served
as an open-ended question – I did not ask whether the workshop made a difference or not.
The open-ended nature of the question allowed the respondent to consider numerous
ways of approaching the question opposed to simply a yes or no.
In Chapter Four, I will present in detail the findings of my research questions
based on the data collected. These findings will be conveyed in the form of fictionalized
vignettes with “thick descriptions” of the experiences in order to “[Convey] to the reader
what experience itself would convey” (Patton, 1995, pg. 39). Specifically, I will employ
Patton’s five steps for data analysis. This includes first reviewing the raw data for
various possible interpretations. Second, I will search for patterns within the data – ones
that I have pre-identified and not yet identified. Next, I will seek linkages between the
Inquiry Project objectives and activities, and actual outcomes. The fourth step will be to
draw tentative conclusions and organize the data according to the issues raised in my
research questions and stated objectives. Finally, I will review the data again, gather new
data, and purposefully seek disconfirmation in the findings that I initially gathered
(Patton, 1995).

88
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

The results of the data analysis are presented to provide answers to my two
research questions through a correspondence, or pattern and theme identification, of the
data (Stake, 1995). The chapter begins with an overview of the study’s overarching
conceptual framework, results, and themes. The second part of the chapter is presented
in the form of a case study, intended to capture participants’ multiple opportunities for
reflection. Following the case study is a presentation of what the participants learned
about their professional practices and changes in their individual practice as a result of
participating in the Inquiry Project. A discussion of the results will highlight findings
from the data and the final section discusses the limitations of the Inquiry Project.
This case study aimed to answer the following three questions: a) In what ways
does participation in an institutional self-assessment project provide opportunities for
reflection and learning about professional practices and its effect on equity in student
outcomes? b) How does the reflection process support participants’ change in their
practices and c) What do participants learn about their capacity to have a positive effect
on student learning? The results entail showing the institutional context of participation
in a self-assessment project and also specific professional practices that were impacted as
a result of project participation. The presentation of results has been guided by my
conceptual framework which includes reflection and problem-solving knowledge. For
the concept of reflection, the results were divided into two parts: individual learning and
learning about professional practices. For the data collected in the individual learning
section, a majority of the participants’ responses were categorized in the first two phases
89
of Costa & Garmston’s (2002) reflection process, summarizing impressions and
analyzing causal factors.
Learning about professional practices in the concept of reflection was further
divided into three subgroups – accurate perception and assessment of the problem,
knowledge of the types of resources that may ameliorate the problem, and knowledge and
social competencies relevant to getting agents to act on a student’s behalf – in order to
encompass the second conceptual tool of problem-solving knowledge. Participants’
responses about the three types of problem-solving knowledge were nearly equally
divided, with knowledge of resources yielding the most data points.
Through a case study of the multiple opportunities for reflection each of the
participants experienced as team members on the project, three themes have been
highlighted from the results of this study: capacity building, resistance to change, and
acceptance of what is new. The theme of building capacity is in reference to the role and
commitment of CUE to carry out the intended goal of the project in supporting the
institution to better learn about how it can improve student success by developing
institutional capacity. Resistance to change and accepting what is new are themes that
have emerged from aspects of the conceptualization of reflection. Resistance to change
refers to the attitudes of resistance held by participants when ideas were proposed or
introduced to the team. Accepting what is new is a connection to the gradual process of
enacting change, whether institutionally or instructionally, at Markham College.
The diagram below highlights the relationship between the overarching
conceptual framework of reflection and problem-solving knowledge that was used in the
first step of data analysis. Results capturing learning through reflection were organized
into two categories: individual learning and learning about professional practices.
Results that captured learning about problem-solving knowledge were organized into
three categories: problem assessment, available resources, and agency (knowledge and
social competencies).
Figure 4.1 Diagram of the Study’s Overarching Conceptual Framework,
Organization of the Results, and Central Themes

90

Reflection

• Individual Learning
• Learning about
Professional Practices

Problem-Solving
Knowledge

• Problem Assessment
• Available Resources
• Agency: Knowledge &
Social Competencies
Themes
• Capacity Building
• Resistance to Change
• Acceptance of What
is New

The diagram above aims to show the relationship between the way in which the study’s
data from the conceptualization of reflection and problem-solving knowledge have been
organized in the presentation of results, and the central themes that have emerged from it.
From the results, three themes are further discussed: think from multiple perspectives,
enact change, and foster collaborative relationships. The themes of capacity building,
resistance to change, and acceptance of what is new is are interrelated with the later
themes of thinking from multiple perspectives, enacting change, and fostering
collaborative relationships in that in order to build practitioner and institutional capacity
and ultimately embrace new approaches, participants must first overcome their resistance
to changing practices. Long employed methodologies that are not necessarily effective
are ideally transitioned out as participants discover new ways to support student learning.

91
Opportunities for Reflection: A Case Study
This next section is an interpretation of the case study that highlights the multiple
opportunities that Dr. Talbot, the math department chair, and Dr. Pascal, a tenured math
instructor, had to participate in reflection activities as participants in the project.
Capacity building, resistance to change, and acceptance of what is new are three themes
that are emphasized in the case study. Attention is drawn to these themes because they
represent the highest frequency in data points collected and have the most relevance to
my study.
Inquiry at Markham College
Student success outcomes at the community college level were on the decline
while, simultaneously, accountability and assessment efforts at multiple bureaucratic
levels were on the rise. Markham College had previously participated in the Equity for
All project and as a key participant in the Inquiry Project, it was another opportunity to
focus on student success. Looking not for a solution, but rather a process for tackling the
issues of inequitable outcomes, the project became a platform for the college’s second
collaborative partnership between the Center for Urban Education and additional
surrounding community colleges. The institution sought changes with respect to their
approaches and practices in addressing student performance. With an inevitable change
in the school’s top leadership and issues of accreditation looming over the college,
participation in the self-assessment project served as the stepping stones to define the
problems the college faced and an opportunity to work collaboratively to discern how
problems would be addressed. What would surface as the project participants sought to
unveil the institution’s problems? How would the team members learn about their role in
92
addressing the problems, and more importantly, what would be their reactions and steps
toward action?
Capacity Building
If the Inquiry Project team members at Markham College were going to become
agents of student success, they would first need to acquire problem-solving knowledge,
particularly an ability to accurately perceive and assess problems within their campus.
Anxiously gathered together for the August project kick-off meeting, participants
engaged in a problem brainstorming activity, also known at the “hunches” activity, to
think about what was affecting course completion rates of students who start in basic
skills courses and attempt to progress to transfer-level courses. Fifty hunches were
compiled on post-it notes and placed in categories such as: students, faculty, institutional
culture, resources, policies and practices, and other. The site of the first meeting, the
USC Davidson Conference Center, for a moment became a forum for the team to
anonymously provide their insights on what was hindering student progress. A sub-
theme that would also emerge from the institutional culture category of the hunches
activity was that of a culture of blame. The team members provided the most number of
reasons in the student category for why they were not prepared to succeed in college.
Assumptions about the problem were attempted to be uncovered and beliefs that had
manifested over years were unveiled.
What participants learned about Markham College’s success rates was not iterated
by an individual, but rather, a collective set of data points captured in graphs and charts
that highlighted student enrollment data in basic skills courses. To focus the team’s
work, members were separated into two groups: mathematics and developmental
93
communications. For the September meeting Dr. Talbot and Dr. Pascal convened with
their team members, including the project co-leaders, deans, counselors, and instructors.
Together, their first task was to analyze institutional data from English and Math basic
skills courses, focusing on the “culture of success” at the institution. Baseline
percentages for Latino students attempting to complete basic skills math courses were
provided. As if the first data set was not enough to process, the rates for African-
Americans, the school’s majority population, brought a thicker cloud of questions,
doubts, and concerns. Additionally, participants reviewed a Markham College Basic
Skills Table tracking students who first enrolled in basic Math and English level courses
during the Fall 2002 semester and their current enrollment after five years. The Basic
Skills Table highlighted the enrollment numbers and successful course completion rates
for over 700 math students and nearly 1000 English students. When participants
commented on the data, one common question resonated – where did they all go? An
exploration of the data sets eventually led to a brainstorm session on possible research
activities. Dr. Talbot probed for better ways to evaluate faculty assessment techniques
because he attributed false promotion and inconsistent grading to an ongoing problem in
the Math department.
Building true capacity had to first begin with an honest self assessment of how
faculty roles impact student success, as one participant consistently made clear. In
March, the Center for Urban Education held its Effective Practices Symposium at a
downtown hotel for both project participants and peer colleges in the Inquiry Project.
The final activity of the symposium was an inquiry team consultation where Markham’s
team members gathered to receive feedback on their assessment activities and listen to
94
recommendations for next steps. There was a large range of feedback for the college
from the four discussants, and included action steps such as: creating transfer information
for basic skills students, data gathering on the knowledge and best practices of staff
members, improving the classroom climate for female students, developing and aligning
a math skills chart, providing better access to learning resources, and improving the
assessment process.
The afternoon soon encroached and the day’s agenda had come to an end. As I
waited amongst a dozen others for the valet service to bring my car, I asked a math
faculty member from Markham College how he thought the symposium went – he said
that nothing at the college was going to change if they didn’t first address the truth. He
further mentioned that the college needed to be honest if they were going to address the
real issues the campus faces. My car arrived shortly after, seizing my opportunity to
probe on his brief, but bold statements. However, his beliefs about telling the truth would
again be expressed in a later meeting.
On one spring Friday afternoon, the math department held its department meeting,
featuring the math syllabi workshop. Twenty minutes well into the noon start time, the
meeting opened with multiple business operations such as flex credit announcements and
department chair elections. Only full-time faculty were allowed to cast their votes; in
total, four ballots determined the fate of the department. The results were immediately
announced and upon being reelected, Dr. Talbot pronounced to his colleagues, “Feel free
to say what you want to say in the open – we need to tell the truth.” In this context, Dr.
Talbot wanted the faculty to be honest and tell the truth while participating in the
workshop, his own way of asking the group to express their true thoughts and feelings as
95
a shared understanding before beginning their work. He felt that is was appropriate to
speak freely about what they believed and it was important not to hold back. And with
that request to verbalize beliefs that sometimes go left unsaid, began an examination of
their department chair’s syllabus through the perspective of a student. A majority of the
faculty comments focused on stylistic and factual details about the syllabi, rather than
probing deeper for connections and disconnections and effective or ineffective practices
as communicated through the syllabi. The feeling throughout the room was that of
apprehension to speak out about the chair’s syllabus and the need to give surface-level
feedback to avoid any tension. If honest self-assessments of the problem was an
important first step, as one participant pointed out, then why were the participants so
reluctant to give constructive feedback about the syllabus that could have been mistaken
for a course outline and not syllabus because of its limited information?
One of the core Inquiry Project goals was to build practitioner capacity. “…the
project will help improve student learning outcomes and student successes. Help us to
identify underprepared students, give us recommendations to improve transfers and
effectiveness.” These were Dr. Talbot’s views on the role of the Inquiry Project – and
one of the ways this was facilitated was through inquiry-based, hands-on activities,
beginning with the Math Syllabi Review Assessment conducted in October. Only the
math team convened for this activity in which they learned about their own syllabi
through a structured protocol. The team partook in the reflection exercise together and
was conducted in two parts: an examination of the document itself, and then an
identification of indicators for equity conscious practices. As a group, they attempted to
96
make meaning of the data through an extended discussion and analysis about the
effectiveness of the syllabi they examined.
The first part of the exercise included a discussion on the completeness and
clarity, testing and grades, pacing, and professional appearance of the syllabi reviewed.
In a meeting scheduled for only one and a half hours, the ambitious protocol was not
begun until almost one hour into the meeting, thereby limiting progression through the
exercise to the “pacing” portion of the protocol due to constant off-topic comments that
deterred the conversation. Although the participants could not be characterized as
uncooperative, they were unfocused on the goal and purpose of the syllabi review, taking
away from their ability to closely examine such an important institutional document.
When the team members delved into the first syllabus, Dr. Talbot immediately mentioned
that one of the problems of the school is not having textbooks available during the first
three weeks of school which prevents students from completing their homework.
Moving onto the “completeness and clarity” part of the exercise, participants talked about
features that should be included in a model syllabus. A team member commented about
one of the syllabi they were reviewing and pointed out that professor contact information
was missing and the advanced math needed to calculate one’s grade – all of which
seemed to be unacceptable. With scores of thoughts and ideas to bring to the table about
topics outside of the syllabus, the next steps in the protocol were constantly taken off into
tangents throughout the meeting. However, the project facilitator always gently
redirected the team to resume its task and focus on the goals of the meeting.
97
When the topic shifted to the usability of the math lab during the syllabi review,
Dr. Talbot pointed out that instructors should be responsible for telling students that the
process is easy and helpful, as he often does in class.
“…I’m a big supporter of the math lab. I’m always everyday referring students to
the math lab and when they have problems in math class, we got tutors there
waiting. They got varied levels of tutoring, we got one on one, computer-aided,
group, collaborative tutoring…”

He further added to the discussion on student relationships that teachers have their
different ways of giving feedback. He suggested that it would be a great idea to give
feedback to students during a class period, if possible. Structuring feedback, he added, is
another way to analyze student mistakes on homework and exams. The team members
did not entirely finish going through the two-part math syllabi reflection activity and,
although they were able to examine the content of the syllabi, they did not engage in
discussions and connections between the syllabi and equity. Nonetheless, beginning the
protocol to review the syllabi and having an outside facilitator to lead the discussion
aided the inquiry-process for the team members because they were encouraged to be
descriptive in their analysis of the syllabi and connect their reflections to the own
expertise and practices.
The Inquiry Project participants at Markham College took action steps only when
support was explicitly provided and did not initiate change independent of the project.
One of these opportunities for guided inquiry was the spring syllabi workshop held by the
math department and co-presented by the department chair and a CUE Researcher. Most
of the workshop was planned and facilitated by the CUE researcher, while the chair
participated in the activities. Fourteen members of the math faculty, both full-time and
98
part-time, attended the Friday department meeting that was combined with the April
Math Syllabus Workshop. The two-hour meeting, which allowed participants to earn flex
credit, was held on the same day as the high school “Senior Day” where 12
th
graders
visited the campus for a general overview of what the college offers. Faculty strolled in
to the meeting, many late, picked up their boxed lunch, and were prepared to examine
syllabi. Although expected to bring in a copy of their own course syllabi, a majority
attended empty-handed. Despite this, they attentively listened to the objectives of the
workshop: help faculty become aware of what their syllabus communicates, understand
how syllabi can be a tool for communication, and finally, conceptualize the role of
faculty members as agents of change who are capable of making a difference in student
achievement.
The meeting began with recognition to the math department from both the
president and dean for its “commitment to student success” and “energy in helping with
student success and promoting transfer” at the college. Shortly after, the math
department chair was re-elected and then participants briefly introduced themselves.
Because an overwhelmingly large number of faculty did not bring their syllabus, nearly
all groups were given the department chair’s syllabus to review. Seated in the very last
row in the classroom, visibly disconnected from the group conversation, Dr. Pascal was
the only one to provide any criticism about the syllabus presented – he mentioned that the
document was not even titled syllabus and that it read “course outline.” He also added
that faculty needed to help students, but he didn’t know how they were going to get to
where they needed to be because it was not explicitly stated. Other faculty members
withheld any opinions of criticism, thereby reducing the amount of feedback on the
99
syllabus presented. The department reviewed a syllabus from a student’s perspective,
taking into consideration fears, concerns, responsibilities, and prior schooling experiences
that a typical student would arrive with to the college. Faculty communicated their
reactions to the syllabus’ tone, communication of goals, instructional role and learning
activities. Participants were then divided into four separate groups to discuss teaching
philosophy, framework for learning, classroom assessment and feedback, and links to
supplemental instruction/tutorial resources. They discussed their thoughts on how to
promote student success through their own syllabus through the lens of one of the four
topics above and then shared out their responses for their assigned question with the
entire department. Thoroughly engaged in the inquiry activity, math faculty voluntarily
continued the discussion of the syllabi well after the proposed end time of 2:00 p.m.
In an earlier team meeting, Dr. Pascal pointed out that it was important for the
math chair to be involved in thinking about how the syllabus could be redesigned and
serve as a catalyst for pushing change within the department. He also noted that as a
math committee, they decided that there was a collective need to develop student-friendly
syllabi that focuses on what the students can do, rather than a deficit perspective of what
they cannot do. Dr. Pascal thought that the math department knew little about how the
math labs/learning centers operate with respect to student needs and the problem with
adjunct faculty not being able to reach out to their students. And then in a reflection
months later, Dr. Pascal said, “I think one of the things is happening, you got the chair
involved, you’re exposing the chair to different ideas in terms of what can be done, which
has opened his eyes and he has influence over the faculty, you know.” Eight months into
the project, this participant acknowledged that in collaboration with CUE, he began to see
100
how with structured support, expertise had been adapted by one of the college’s key
stakeholders.
Resistance to Change
In learning about their role to address the problem of low student success rates for
basic skills students, the team members would at times react with resistance to the
process of change. During the hunches activity at the beginning of the project, one
participant specifically wrote “resistance to change” as a problem that affects student
outcomes. In October, the Inquiry Project members at Markham College convened for its
monthly team meeting. They reviewed materials for research activities and decided that
they would work on syllabus reflections, classroom assessments, and classroom
observations. A CUE researcher again led the discussion on the relationship between the
syllabus reflection exercise and its relation to culturally responsive pedagogy that
connects students’ experiences to curriculum objectives. Dr. Pascal raised questions
about instructors’ willingness to buy into a collaborative learning process because
typically students are reluctant to study together and share resources. In examining
sample syllabi for the meeting, only half of the team members had a positive reaction to
the syllabus – the other half pinpointed improvements they wanted to see before
considering it a model. Some even suggested that expectations and resources available
should only be provided to students verbally, instead of in a written form such as the
syllabus.
The team members often discussed change – what they would change and how
they would go about bringing it to fruition. However, the discussion of change also
brought about resistance. During the December team meeting, the group explored a
101
sample math syllabus that embedded a socio-cultural framework for instruction. A
majority of the group agreed that it was a model syllabus, but again, drew much of its
attention to limitations of implementing it. Specifically, the math chair mentioned that
because there is an overwhelming amount of content to cover in each course, embedding
five projects to teach the material would be impractical. There was no further negotiation
on how such projects could be incorporated, but rather, a consensus among participants
that it would be too much, additional work. The discussion then moved into having a
standardized syllabus template, but again caution flags were immediately raised,
including: required approval still needed from the academic senate, violation of academic
freedom, and difficulty in getting buy-in from the adjunct faculty. The verbal cautioning
was in reference to institutional barriers and never about their willingness to standardize
the syllabus or its potential impact. The intention of the model syllabus was
overshadowed by the more reluctant team members who vocalized their concerns. A
promise of what a culturally responsive syllabus could mean for student success was not
even voiced.
For the January team meeting, the goal was to review the sections for the project’s
interim report and delegate the remaining sections to team members. In examining each
section of the report, the team members were responsible for modifications of the
recommended next steps based on the needs of the college. After the discussion on the
report, the team turned its attention to the “pathways” and “gateways” courses (basic
skills courses that are non-transferable and not at the college level) in math. The
curriculum maps with the data show that courses such as Math 105 and Math 112 were
three to four levels below transferable courses. A majority of students attending
102
Markham College were enrolled in basic skills courses because over half were
unsuccessful in completing the courses. Like the informal structure of many of the
previous meetings, skeptics’ voices were raised first, setting an oppositional tone from
the offset. Some maintained that although students failed certain prerequisite courses,
they were still able to enroll into the next level math course because of a loophole. Dr.
Pascal stated that there was an administrative block that faculty could place on a student’s
record to prevent this enrollment from occurring. He further added that the college might
want to look into an early alert program that is in place at another local district college.
The comments about basic skills students’ performance were attributed mainly to
institutional barriers and never were the instructor’s role in contributing to the low
success mentioned. The rich discussion regarding the action steps for the pathways and
gateways courses led to an immediate solution rather than establishing a developmental
process for addressing the performance gap between basic skills and transfer-ready
students.
Acceptance of What Is New
Slight change was brought about slowly at Markham College, but it definitely
arrived. During the third monthly team meeting, the Inquiry Project sub-committees
reported on their inquiry activities progress. A representative from the math sub-
committee briefed the group on their findings and next steps as a result of the math
syllabus reflection activity. Their proposed areas for change included providing more
accessible information on student services resources and changing departmental rules for
the make-up exam policy. Some of the math team’s findings from the syllabi review
activity included a better awareness about the limited availability of tutoring for students
103
via the math lab and decided that they would further probe into the math lab for its next
inquiry activities. Limited resources in the lab referred to the number of tutors available
and also experience in supporting students. In addition to observations of the math lab,
the committee also decided to conduct faculty surveys, but never actually did. The
purpose of observing the math lab was to better understand how instruction is provided to
students and what resources were available to students. When the group questioned
whether the math policy for no make-ups on exams was a state or district policy, Dr.
Talbot quickly elaborated on the school policy. He said that the no make-up policy was
implemented to avoid students from taking advantage of multiple make-ups and missing
too many classes. The policy, he added, has been in effect at the institution for over 15
years and may need to be revaluated. Dr. Talbot took on this initiative by proposing, “I
will need to talk to all instructors and work out a solution.”
In the December meeting where a model syllabus was reviewed, Dr. Talbot
mentioned more necessary steps for the math department to take and the importance of
moving the project forward by implementing a common math exam. After reviewing the
provided syllabus, said that the department was capable of implementing at least two
projects that connect math content to cultural activities, but was limited because of the
multiple skill requirements in the content area. He thought that their own syllabus could
embed one or two of the projects from the model syllabus, if they first saw the textbook
from which the projects were based. Furthermore, he mentioned the need to address
challenges in academic freedom because as Dr. Talbot pointed out, academic freedom
was “too much” and the job just needed to be done. He also made a connection to the
104
proposed curriculum assessment and the common math assessment the department
thought about implementing.
Of all the next steps outlined in the November and December team meetings –
providing math faculty surveys about learning in the math lab, investigating
informational resources for the math lab, changes in the math syllabus, including projects
in the syllabus, and creating common math assessments – two of the changes took place.
Throughout the course of the project, all those involved in running the math lab learned
about ways to better support students who attended the lab. During a preliminary
observation of the lab, office hours were not posted, the room temperature was
uncomfortably warm, the lighting was slightly dim, and the student sign-in sheet to
record their lab attendance was difficult to locate. Math resources, such as calculators,
pencil sharpeners, and books, were not readily or visibly accessible to students. Despite
hosting a large number of students, some of the math professors and tutors were reading
newspapers with their feet set upon the table and engaged in conversations amongst
themselves – an affirmation of what one math faculty said about the math lab in a team
meeting early in the year:
“There’s a good percentage [of math faculty] who haven’t gotten what they’re
supposed to do while in the math lab. They are correcting papers and not working
with students. For those who view that as a place to bide their time, they’re not
doing the math lab any good. Some got the message and are tutoring the students.
If you walk in there periodically, a good percentage will be in there working on
something else.”

On a third observation of the lab, over one year into the project, one could witness
dramatic changes. Most notably, the interaction between students and tutors/professors
was intense and focused as expressed through their body language, constant eye contact,
105
and the mathematical context of their conversations. All five support staff members in
the lab were engaged in instruction either on a one-on-one basis or in small groups.
Additionally, the room environment had changed, creating a more inviting atmosphere
for students. Large posters with multiplication tables and common formulas were hung
from walls, laminated individual tutor schedules were posted on the door fronts, multiple
signs reminded students to login and logout to record attendance in the lab, and bright
lights illuminated the room. Math lab hours, which now included Saturdays, were
clearly displayed throughout the space, and the design of the room allowed for students to
work collaboratively in groups or individually. The math lab in itself was a resource that
was refined in order to better serve students.
The second change came about in the form of the syllabus. Weary about the slow
progress the college made over the course of the project, Dr. Pascal predicted that “If the
department implemented some of the things discussed in the project, then there wouldn’t
have been a student uprising.” During the Fall semester, approximately 35 students
gathered at the college to protest their math classes, claiming that some of their
instructors lacked respect for and engagement with the students. In response to the
uprising, the vice president and one of the deans held a forum with the students to listen
to their concerns and suggestions for improvement. With college changes taking place at
such a cautious pace, Dr. Pascal and Dr. Talbot each gave a verbal testament to their
syllabi changes. In his Fall syllabus, Dr. Talbot included logistical changes such as: a
welcome message, formula sheets, open indication of grades, office hours, and examples
of rewarding experiences from the class. Dr. Pascal, on the other hand, made changes by
including his pedagogical approach:
106
“I have changed my syllabus and, to my surprise, and I’m saying this truly, to my
surprise changing my syllabus made this easier. It made it easier for me to teach,
and manage my class...and it changed my ways of thinking in terms of, versus
saying okay well here’s the syllabus, it tells you, here’s what we have to do, but it
doesn’t, didn’t tell us how we need to get there. And so what I tried to do is look
at the syllabus and say okay, here’s what we got to do now. Here’s the roadmap
of how we have to get where we need to go…”

At CUE’s Effective Practices Symposium, invited discussants who were asked to consult
with Markham College revealed to the college that it takes a revolution to prepare a new
generation of teachers for more exposure to its student needs. It’s a “slow process” one
suggested – one that may only be resolved once the knowledge needed to address the
problem is acquired. This “knowledge” perhaps includes the social competencies and
awareness that promote constructive action to take place. Additional feedback from the
discussants pointed in multiple directions, and many team members were challenged to
think from multiple perspectives outside of their role as instructors. While some
suggestions were aimed at approaching problems from a student’s perspectives (i.e.
examining student access to resources, developing skills profiles for students, and student
feedback), other suggestions were addressed from a school-wide perspective where
collaboration amongst disciplines and programs could be fostered.
Individual Learning
The above case study highlighted the learning opportunities team members
experienced as a result of participating in the Inquiry Project. There were opportunities
to both learn about individual and departmental practices. Each of the research questions
for this study aimed at encapsulating how the process of reflection enabled the
participants to better learn about their impact at the community college in which the
project was conducted and also the students, a majority of whom face challenges in
107
successfully completing math courses. Specifically, based on the Fall 2006 Baseline
Mathematics Data, student success in below transfer level courses did not exceed 40%.
Learning about professional practices results have been divided into two subgroups:
individual learning and math department learning. For the purposes of measuring
reflection, four steps of Costa & Garmston’s (2002) Cognitive Coaching Reflective
Cycle, were utilized in categorizing the participants’ responses. Different types of
statements were interpreted as data to measure phases of reflection. One of the phases,
summarizing impressions, entails elaborating on specific details of supporting
information that participants recalled throughout the project. Another phase of reflection
is analyzing causal factors, where the attributes and justifications for how the participant
felt about certain aspects of the project are expounded. This is also the phase where the
participant compares what he expected versus what actually occurred or draws
relationships between actions taken and outcomes. The third part of the reflective cycle,
construct new learning, is where participants elaborate on new ideas and information
acquired as a result of the project. The final step, commit to application, is the part where
participants discuss the future actions they commit to applying based on what they have
learned.
The last two steps of reflection are particularly important for answering the
research questions because learning and acting upon what one has learned lies at the core
of the study. However, as demonstrated in the figures below, a majority of time was
spent in the first two phases of reflection because it is the part where identifying and
explaining the problem takes place. Dewey (1933, 1944) refers to these stages as
“naming the problem” and “generating possible explanations.” Kruse (1997) purports that
108
these are the “building knowledge” and “scrutinizing the situation” stages and Rodgers
(2002) categorizes these stages as “description of the experience” and “analysis of the
experience.” Nonetheless, learning and application only take place after these important
steps have first been taken and should not be discounted. Table 4.1 includes the
percentage of responses for each reflection step for each of the participants. Responses
were first categorized into each of the four reflection steps and then tallied for the table.
Table 4.1 Percentage of Responses for Each Reflection Step
Learning
Individual Math Department

Reflection
Process
Dr. Talbot Dr. Pascal Dr. Talbot Dr. Pascal
Summarize Impressions 14 10 12 6
Analyze Causal Factors 1 5 1 5
Construct New Learning 1 5 3 9
Commit to Application 1 2 12 3
TOTAL 17 22 28 23
Source: Interview Data
Questions from the interview and prompts from the inquiry-based activities provided
opportunities for both participants to reflect on their learning through four steps of the
reflection process. Overall, 45 data points from team meetings, activities, and interviews
for each participant were used to capture phases from the reflection process. It was
important to disaggregate responses for each participant because their learning, through
the process of reflection, was distinctly different. Over half (58%) of Dr. Talbot’s
responses on what he learned as a practitioner fell into summarizing impressions, the first
step of the reflection cycle. Rodgers (2002) purports that this ability to describe and
differentiate an experience is a critical stage because one must be able to simultaneously
provide accurate descriptions and avoid interpretations. Four percent of Dr. Talbot’s
109
responses were categorized as analyzing causal factors and 9% fell into the construct new
learning category. When Dr. Talbot considered his own teaching, he pointed out his role
as one who teaches students, but also cares about them:
“After 20-30 minutes, I’ll do 8-10 examples and give them 15 minutes to work on
their own and I’ll check. After, I’ll call them and have them do it on the board. I
say to treat each person as a friend, family… we are here to help each other and
we can make mistakes. Throughout the class they are focused and can
concentrate.”

His perception of himself as a teacher was that as someone who cares for his students and
treats them with respect. He also referenced his pedagogy that strategically went from
direct instruction to independent work time and then moved to a collaborative structure
involving the whole class. Also important was Dr. Talbot’s reflection in the commit to
application phase. Reflections captured in this stage constitute a verbal
acknowledgement of taking action deliberately, rather than routinely:
“Ultimately what we want to have is the best course outline and because it’s
practically a contract between students and teacher so if you have the best
contract in written form, then later we can also ask teachers to do their job as best
as they can.”

The action Dr. Talbot refers to is twofold: first, create an effective course outline, and
second, work on effective teaching that will better support student learning.
Dr. Pascal’s process for reflection on his individual learning was markedly
different from Dr. Talbot’s. One third (36%) of Dr. Pascal’s responses were recorded
into the summarizing impressions category and almost one third (31%) were in the
construct new learning step. A large percentage (22%) of his responses were categorized
in analyze causal factors – a phase that Rodgers characterizes as “unearthing
assumptions” because it is an opportunity for the respondent to compare actions taken
110
versus outcomes achieved. Dr. Pascal explained the positive outcomes captured in a
student survey by outlining the specific actions he took in the classroom in an effort to
bring it “alive”:
“I think that if you look at Rate My Professor which is, with the students you’ll
see that my teaching style is right in tune to not only the minorities here but the
minorities in this socioeconomic group that grew up in this economically
depressed community…My classroom comes alive, that’s the third time I’m
saying it now. It literally comes alive. It’s a lot of interaction, a lot of laughing, a
lot of talking, it’s like everyone, it’s like one, one big happy family and it requires
a teacher who knows what he’s doing, [what] he/she’s doing in order to bring the
classroom alive.”

Dr. Pascal alluded to his perception of his role as an engaging teacher who brings the
class together in a positive atmosphere. His assumption was that if students were
enjoying his class, they were performing well, but he did not mention actual outcomes
outside of the survey. He provided another example of explicit reflection “in-action”
during a team meeting when he announced a proud accomplishment he had in one of his
math classes:
“Today I had a milestone – I asked the students to identify where in the process
you aren’t getting to the solution. They’re having a problem taking the translation
from the word to math form. I did a mapping. Not all instructors do that. It just
came to me. I had to do something and find out where the process is breaking
down.”

In a single lesson, he subconsciously went through an entire reflection cycle beginning
with a meta-cognitive awareness of why students were not comprehending the content to
taking action, namely adjusting his instruction to address the students’ needs in
understanding how to solve the math equation.
Participation in the Inquiry Project provided both participants from the Markham
College Math Department with an opportunity to reflect on what they perceived as
111
institutional barriers to student success. More importantly, it challenged them to think
about the institutional resources available and their own role in facilitating change. As
stated earlier, the two most important phases of reflection for the purpose of this study are
those involving constructions of new learning and commitments to application because
they represent what has been learned and action steps that will be taken as a result of that
learning. Both Dr. Talbot and Dr. Pascal demonstrated their ability to reflect on what
they learned in two different phases. Whereas Talbot elaborated more upon his
commitments to application, Dr. Pascal reflected on his new learning. As the department
chair, Dr. Talbot established action steps to lead the department in changing and
improving existing practices that begin to align with student needs. Dr. Pascal, on the
other hand, learned about Dr. Talbot’s potential role to enact change because of his
position of power as the department chair. He also learned that the syllabus is not just a
document for stating course content, but also a tool for communicating expectations and
pedagogical approaches. Together, they participated in learning experiences that
highlighted their roles and impact as leaders within the math department.
Learning about Professional Practices
When Dr. Talbot reflected on math department practices, his responses captured
more of what he learned and his commitment to application whereas his reflection on his
own practices remained mainly in the first stage, summarizing impressions. Twelve of
his 26 responses about the math department were recorded in the summarize impressions
step and one in the analyze causal factors step. Moreover, three responses were included
in the construct new learning and twelve in the commit to application stage. The data
collected in the commit to application category included: communicating openly,
112
collaborating with the math department, revising syllabi, adopting course outlines,
working hard in the classroom, and changing the transfer pathway in basic skills math
courses. Dr. Talbot also said that he would be a liaison between the project and the math
department:
“My role in the project would be I’m willing to cooperate at all steps with the
Inquiry Project people at USC, be a middle man between teachers and USC
people by listening to recommendations…Only knowing where the problems are
coming from is not enough to solve the problems.”

He took steps to create to a math department flyer for the syllabi workshop and included
language that communicated a focus on student outcomes. At the top of the flyer, it read,
“It is time again for a workshop that will promote student success through your
syllabus…This ongoing project with USC will help increase readiness and actual transfer
of academically underprepared students who begin postsecondary education.” The
premise that participation in reflective practices leads to changes in the self is upheld in
Woodcock et al’s (2004) collaborative model for reflection project whereby others
contribute to one’s construction of knowledge. In Dr. Talbot’s case, participation in
inquiry activities led to various actions taken within the department. The last two stages
of the cycle are significant to the research questions in that the participant’s learning and
application are central to the effect of the inquiry-based activities. Dr. Talbot’s ability to
reflect in-depth was more apparent in the math department practices content, as noted
especially by the number of responses where there was a commitment to application.
What he learned from his participation in the project created a platform for the
conception of action steps to take within the department and his own practices.
113
Dr. Talbot’s reflection responses about the math department were significantly
different. Specifically, in the construct new learning phase, nine of his reflections
expounded upon his learning about the math department and issues related to it such as
the syllabi and the department chair’s role. The project enabled him to further learn not
only about his role in impacting student outcomes, but also of the role that other people
and department policies have on students. One of the attributes that Kruse’s (1997) study
on reflective activities in practice included was the reflection process as a way to
encourage collegial interdependence in three ways: teachers build trust with one another,
feedback is sought after, and assistance is desired. Another attribute of fostering
collaborative relationships is the identification of resources that helps to build one’s
knowledge base. In Dr. Pascal’s reflections on the math department, he referenced what
he believed were beginning stages of capacity and resource building for students:
“…in order to change, you know, and think differently, you have to throw away
your preconceptions of what teaching is all about and basically start out new and
have a whole new mindset and a lot of these teachers that have been there for
years are set in their ways.”

Problem-solving knowledge is one type of fund of knowledge that Stanton-
Salazar (1997) outlines in his social capital framework. Three components of problem-
solving knowledge – the accurate perception and assessment of the problem, knowledge
of the types of resources that may ameliorate the problem, and knowledge and social
competencies relevant to getting agents to act on one’s behalf – are three measures of
learning about one’s role in supporting the improvement of student outcomes. The 45
participant responses gathered from the data have been organized based on the reflection
steps as a first layer. With the same 45 responses from each participant, a second layer of
analysis involved categorizing the responses based on one of the three types of the
problem-solving knowledge with which their response most closely aligned. Figure 4.4
represents the number of responses for both participants combined. The percentages for
the three different types of problem-solving knowledge are depicted in the pie graph.
Figure 4.2 Number of Problem-Solving Knowledge Responses per Category:
Participants – Dr. Pascal and Dr. Talbot

N=90 responses
29%
40%
31%
Accurate Perception and
Assessment of the
Problem
Types of Resources that
May Ameliorate the
Problem
Knowledge and Social
Competencies Relevant
to Getting Agents to Act
on One’s Behalf

Problem Assessment
When given the opportunity to reflect upon his learning from the project about the
topic of instruction and his role in improving student learning outcomes, Dr. Talbot’s
responses were almost evenly distributed among efforts to accurately assess the problem,
identify resources that may ameliorate the problem, and the knowledge about his own
agency to act on the students’ behalf. Accurately defining a problem entails identifying
an issue and seeing that the issue requires attention. For Dr. Talbot, student performance
gaps and a lack of resources to address those gaps were at the core of the problem. More
114
115
frequently than having a problem with the subject and content of math, Dr. Talbot
pointed out that “We have to teach them to learn here. It’s the biggest problem here.” He
viewed his role as an instructor as a resource for students. However, he still believed that
that the source of the problem was the lacking student skill set in learning content and not
the instructional approach. Teaching content only begins after reinforcing study skills.
The causal factors Dr. Talbot identified through his reflections about low success rates
for students mirrored those that were discussed in the August Kick-Off meeting where
Inquiry Project team members brainstormed hunches for why students were failing to
transfer from basic skills to transfer-level courses. A lack of focus, a lack of preparation,
and a lack of study skills were three of the hunches that Dr. Talbot referenced when he
mentioned some of the problems at Markham College.
In assessing the problem students face in experiencing math success, Dr. Pascal
noticed that basic skills students are as equally motivated as university bound students
and that they share the same types of dreams, goals, desires and aspirations. The
problem, he said, lies in the starting point of skills for students because of the discrepancy
in level when they enter the college:
“The students that we got here at Markham are not prepared for college, so we
have to deal with that. The students that come to Markham it’s common that they
haven’t really learned how to study, don’t have any study skills, don’t know what
it means to take a college level course, so we have to take all of that into
considerations and give with it from that standpoint, from that level.”

Dr. Pascal believed that these factors were contributing to low student performance, as he
pointed out when assessing the problem of low student success rates. Similarly,
“Students bring high school academic ‘baggage’” was one of the hunches the team
116
members came up with at the Kick-Off meeting in August – a hunch that resonated in Dr.
Pascal’s own problem assessment.
Available Resources
When Dr. Talbot reflected on what he learned about improving math department
practices through inquiry-based activities, his responses about the types of resources that
may improve the problem superseded that of identifying the problem and knowledge and
social competencies relevant to taking action. The specific resources he mentioned
included the Inquiry Project, the revision of course outlines and syllabi, curriculum
changes, and looking at the data that highlighted inequities in outcomes. When
discussing the role of the Inquiry Project, Dr. Talbot proposed that “…the project will
help improve student learning outcomes and students successes. Help us to identify
underprepared students, give us recommendations to improve transfers and
effectiveness.” Moreover, as a resource for the math department, he characterized an
effective syllabus as one that is friendly, readable, and clearly understandable. His
perception of the math department’s problems incorporated two layers of issues. From an
institutional barrier standpoint, gateway courses, false promotion, grade inconsistencies
and poorly written syllabi posed problems.
However, from the second layer of an institutional context standpoint, Dr. Talbot
suggested the need to be honest about the school’s problems by viewing it through
multiple perspectives. By examining a problem through precise descriptions,
interpretations are avoided and meaning is made when evidence is provided for claims
(Rodgers, 2002). Pinpointing problems and its source involves having accurate
perceptions – a component involved when institutional agents develop problem-solving
117
knowledge. The everyday meaning of being honest involves being creditable and to be
creditable is be worthy of belief (http://www.merriam-webster.com). Nine months into
the project, Dr. Talbot said, “I believe that when teachers are open and discussing their
own problems with students and open to adopting best practices with respect to the
syllabus, that’s a perfect sign of cooperation between full-time and part-time and
administration.” One perception he maintained is that honesty in identifying problems
can lead to a resolution of it. For Dr. Talbot, he believed that he was knowledgeable and
open about problems, but that some participants were unable or perhaps unwilling to
openly state the nature or context of problems within the institution. Initially, team
members may not have been assessing the problem openly, but Dr. Talbot recognized
that the team was making progress in their communication of the problem and believed it
was a good sign.
Dr. Pascal, upon reflecting on the problem-solving knowledge he acquired from
the project, discussed most frequently resources that may ameliorate the problem. He
highlighted the department chair, math lab, Inquiry Project, and syllabus as being key
resources to help resolve problems. More particularly, he credits the chair’s involvement
with the project as a valuable human resource. When asked about his views on the
project’s impact on the department, he maintained “…a lot of things he [the department
chair] brought back to the department we’re getting ready to implement so I think it’s
making a difference.” Although Dr. Pascal viewed the math lab as a resource for
students and the department, he also suggested that it was dually a source of the problem
because little is known institutionally about how the math labs and learning centers are
operating.
118
“We didn’t know what kind of tutoring was done in the center. At what point do
we send them to the math lab or math center for tutoring? Other math instructors
aren’t going to know where to go for what. How are they spending their time?
How are do they reach out students?”

These were questions for which initially he did not know the answer. One of the main
things Dr. Pascal learned about his own role in acting upon the students’ behalf is the
importance of delivering an effective syllabus of his own. He also acknowledged that the
syllabus activities forced him to look at syllabi from a student’s perspective.
“Most of the syllabus tells us what we have to do, but it doesn’t tell us how we
got to get there. How we’re going to do this, you know, and that’s the main
objective. So I took a long look at that and then I related that to what I was
personally doing and I was able to apply the difference.”

Dr. Pascal emphasized the newly implemented section of his syllabus that referenced the
different types of pedagogy that would be employed as a way to better address the needs
of his students. Along with the content in the syllabus, he included the pedagogy that
will be applied to achieve the course’s objectives.
One of the action steps from the initial hunch of not having enough tutors in the
math lab led to a departmental policy change – math faculty holding office hours in the
learning center. During two out of three observations that were made in the math tutoring
lab, Dr. Pascal was present, continuously working with students on an individual basis
and spent an average of ten minutes with each student. The differences from the first
math lab observation to the last, in conjunction with student feedback from another
research project at the college, revealed several structural changes. In student interviews
with another Inquiry Project research assistant, students described changes they observed
in the math lab. To begin with, the location had changed from the first floor of the
technology building to the library and then back to the technology building. With more
119
space to concentrate and collaborate, more tutors to receive assistance from, and more
computers to access information, the math lab’s physical appearance and purpose had
improved.
Agency: Knowledge and Social Competencies
Dr. Talbot drew attention to the variety of ways in which he supported students:
staying in contact, working with them after class or during the week, encouraging the use
of the math lab, carefully reviewing math content, reminding them to pay attention, and
consistently being in class. He acknowledged the resources he was extending to students
who may have otherwise gone through the semester without his support. With respect to
the knowledge and social competencies necessary to act upon the problems at the
campus, he emphasized specific instructor characteristics that enable one, including
himself, to support students. Caring, encouraging, practicing patience, working hard,
maintaining high expectations, and providing borderless limits to success are all attributes
he says he possesses as a teacher. Because students come in with a math deficit, he
insisted that it is necessary to be patient as their skills develop and that despite these
deficits, as a teacher he must continue to work hard to counter the issue. His perception
of effective teaching was characterized by personal qualities rather than best pedagogical
practices. These personal qualities are what Stanton-Salazar (2001) defined as positive
“appraisals” in his study to determine the transformative relationship between an
instructor and student. Specifically, the appraisal of informal mentorship functions as a
form of agency in that it requires the instructor to be responsive to the needs of students.
For Dr. Talbot, he assessed that students needed instructional support and was responsive
to their needs by providing that support in a “caring” and “encouraging” way. “Over the
120
years, I came to the conclusion that you have to be a caring teacher,” he mentioned. Dr.
Talbot further added that encouragement comes in the form of communication when he
supports students in fighting for a higher grade, meaning working harder to earn a higher
grade.
Although the student groups responding to a CUE researcher’s simultaneous
study readily had suggestions for ways to improve the math lab, the initial step of
increasing the number of students walking through the math lab door had been realized.
Sanchez, Reyes, & Singh’s (2005) qualitative study aimed to identify who, how, and by
what measures support is provided to underserved students. Participants in the study
identified parents/siblings, institutional agents, and peers (friends or romantic partners) as
their social support providers. The participants further recognized specific support they
received throughout their college experience. One of the supports mentioned was
informational and experiential support from institutional agents. In essence, instructors,
counselors, and other support staff at the institution were credited for providing relevant
information and relating college experiences to real life experiences.
In terms of the third type of problem-solving knowledge, social competencies
relevant to getting agents to act on one’s behalf, Dr. Talbot acknowledged the importance
of developing more conducive teaching environments and building collegial relationships
with faculty in order to improve student outcomes. After being re-elected as chair, Dr.
Talbot thanked the department for their trust and affirmed, “I will make double efforts to
improve the quality of teaching and make sure we give enough treatment [to improving
teaching]. My efforts alone are not enough.” His role in affecting change must be a
concerted effort with the college administrators as well:
121
“Only studying why the college is doing poor is not good enough at the end of
this study process. There should be some kind of recommendations…At least
right now I see that some administrators and some teachers are not afraid to talk
about the problems. So to improve, we have to recognize that there are problems
and work together to improve.”

Dr. Talbot’s recognition that team members needed to be willing to discuss problems
openly in order to take appropriate action could be one path to improvement. His sense
of determination to address the problem is what Stanton-Salazar (1997) characterizes as
problem-solving knowledge that had been learned conditionally, requiring one to
synthesize knowledge and apply it in the decision-making process.
As Dr. Pascal reflected on instruction and student learning with respect to what he
learned from the project, he mostly identified the knowledge and social competencies
needed to act upon problems. When responding to a question about how he promotes
equity within his own classroom, he said he did it “By reaching everybody in the class as
an instructor. By giving everyone a chance to go through this math phobia because
everybody has the math phobia and as a result makes it a little easier to develop
confidence.” Gonzalez, Stoner, & Jovel’s (2003) study that examined the role of social
capital for Latina students’ access to college introduced the theoretical concept of
institutional neglect and abuse – one’s inability or unwillingness to enable students. In
their study of a college opportunity framework, emotional discouragement is defined as
one of the ways in which institutions create barriers for student success. Because of Dr.
Pascal’s perception of his available resources to students, he created an opportunity for
students to better support students in his proposal for better awareness of the lab tutors
and the type of language utilized in course syllabi:
122
“Maybe at the beginning we could put something in bold that says welcome and
all the rules and regulations for the students. We know that this is a difficult
subject matter, but you can commit to working hard and seeking a tutor. Put that
in bold. Most students who talk to us are afraid of us. Words of encouragement
that are in bold. They may or may not listen to you. We’re working on the
students in the D, C range or lower level. Capturing their attention, eye catching, I
know it would be more work. Class behavior is very important. How about
putting a positive statement there? They’re not connecting. Input on how the
relationship with a tutor would help.”

A simultaneous flow of ideas for how to better support students reverses the notion of
institutional neglect that enables one to overcome barriers to college success. These are
ideas that Dr. Pascal believed he has translated into action in the classroom and appear as
features on his syllabus.
Discussion of the Findings
In the context of the Inquiry Project, participants engaged in reflection activities
as one way to better learn about their role in supporting students enrolled in basic skills
courses. The process of reflection was sometimes individually guided, but often
conducted collaboratively in the project’s settings such as team meetings and activities.
Ewell (1988) maintains that through this type of collaborative inquiry to examine
institutional practices that an important initial step is taken to problem solving. These
findings suggest that as a result of engaging in reflection cycles, team members learn to
think from multiple perspectives, better understand their potential role in enacting
change, and are more equipped to foster collaborative relationships.
Thinking from multiple perspectives refers to the different approaches
participants used to address the problem of basic skills success. Each activity in the
project allowed team members to maintain a viewpoint that they were sometimes not
conditioned to using. Enacting change is in reference to the steps taken by team members
123
as a result of their ongoing learning. Through structured reflection activities, participants
collaborated together as one team and then in subgroups in order to address basic skills
student performance within the institution. These opportunities for reflection created
platforms for professional collaboration and capacity building for the college’s key
stakeholders.
Think from Multiple Perspectives
Team members on the Inquiry Project were afforded with various opportunities to
reflect upon and address the college’s problems surrounding student outcomes by
thinking from multiple perspectives. Whether it was from the viewpoint of an instructor,
researcher, student, or leader, the participants stepped into roles sometimes other than
their own to gauge problems through a different lens. In the hunches activity at the
kickoff meeting for the project, team members wore their instructor hats to identify
reasons why students were not producing successful outcomes. Whether they looked
inward for the locus of control or outward at the institution and the students, they
discussed their personal knowledge and beliefs about core problems within the school
through syllabi reflection activities and workshops incorporating multiple steps of
analysis.
When the participants examined disaggregated baseline data for students in basic
skills courses and documents outlining pathway courses from basic skills to transfer-
level, they assumed roles as researchers by participating in authentic inquiry based
activities. Participants were encouraged to use descriptive analysis, avoid judgmental
language, provide constructive feedback, and make connections to one’s own expertise
and practice. Quantitative data about students progressing or not progressing in courses
124
through the transfer pipeline provided an accurate detailing of student performance. To
be able to think from an objective standpoint, perceptions and personal beliefs were asked
to be held back as the participants analyzed and interpreted the data through the lens of a
researcher who first stepped back to assess the problem before taking action steps. The
low successful completion rates reflected Ivory & Lew’s (2007) notion of the “math
milestone” because math functions as a barrier to those intending to transfer. In essence,
once students successfully complete a transfer-level math course, they have achieved a
milestone. Some team members were also asked to think from the role of a researcher as
a select few assumed responsibility for different parts of the interim and final project
report to the president. With a task of communicating findings and action steps, it was
one way to contextualize and connect their work in the project with the overall
institutional goals for those who capitalized upon the opportunity to contribute to the end
product.
Participants reversed roles with students and thought from their perspective in the
syllabi review activities and workshops. The reflection protocol called for looking at the
syllabus through the eyes of a student, thereby forcing them to adopt a completely
different mindset in approaching the task. The first task was to,
“Put yourself in the shoes of the student who wrote the petition that you were
given. Think about the fears, concerns, responsibilities, and prior schooling
experiences that this student arrives with when entering their next math course.
Then, read through your syllabus as if you were the student on the first day of
class.”

Thinking from a student’s perspective in the activities was a way to step back and think
about how clear expectations were being communicated and what specifically those
expectations were for students. It was also a way for team members to take ownership of
125
institutional problems. The process served as a forum to consider their roles and
contributions to the success of math students and ultimately improve their quality of
instruction (Bustillos, 2007). Initially the task was met with an inkling of resistance.
Participants commented on their “old school” teaching style and students’ inability to
keep up with the amount of content covered in class. However, team members began to
see how there was a disconnect in their own syllabi between expectations and the
communication of it, whether it was verbally through the syllabus or the type of
instruction employed in the classroom.
Another important role team members were asked to play was that of an
institutional leader. In team meetings, participants were asked to think from the
perspective of a leader who had the capacity and willingness to not only to make
important decisions on behalf of the institution, but also to do so in a way that kept
students’ best interest in mind. After the hunches activity at the beginning of the project,
participants contextualized the problems within the institution and prioritized which
problems they would address first in their committee work. All the while, team members
tried maintaining their practitioner roles, constantly being in a stage of disequilibrium as
they thought about their status quo work and the ideas the project challenged them to
think about periodically. The project was not only about centralizing an institution’s
focus on a target group of students – basic skills students, but also an approach to
thinking from the perspective of a student as a way to keep their work connected and
meaningful. Participants discussed larger institutional changes with respect to the math
curriculum sequence and the different purposes of the learning lab.

126
Enact Change
Collaboration and communication were key elements that allowed Markham
College to enact institutional changes. As practitioners, team members engaged in
different capacities to develop practitioner skills as they participated in a change process.
Through structured team meetings and activities, they reflected together about problems
in their basic skills programs and took proactive steps to address their role to solve it
collaboratively. Within one Markham College team were two subgroups: mathematics
and developmental communications. As an individual group, the math team worked
together with the direction of CUE facilitators to host the syllabi review workshops and
make explicit improvements to the math lab in order to enhance learning.
The new knowledge participants acquired from the project and steps they have
taken to address student needs have a relationship to the amount of “problem-solving
knowledge” the institutional agents have as individuals and as a collective group. This
new knowledge included characteristics of effective syllabi and features of a valuable
math lab that were developed along the way. Specifically, knowledge and social
competencies relevant to getting agents to act on one’s behalf and knowledge and
competencies of how to apply effectively obtained resources to solving the problem
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997) becomes a form of knowledge that is necessary for institutional
agents who are committed to addressing the issues of equitable outcomes. Specifically,
participants learned about their role to better support students, whether it was through the
language utilized in their syllabus, the communication of available resources through the
math lab, or an assessment of factors that prevent or promote student success.
Progression toward achieving positive outcomes was facilitated by data-driven decision
127
making. Action steps were taken after reviewing the college’s baseline data, identifying
hunches, and coming together to create a comprehensive approach to address the
institution’s needs. Additionally, once the math team learned about the shortcomings
within the math lab, a collaborative effort between the institution’s leadership and the
math department was made to make necessary improvements. These improvements were
initially cosmetic, but later became procedural and then instructional.
In addition to collaboration, ongoing communication throughout the one and a
half year span of the project among team members facilitated the process of change at the
institution. Communication was a catalyst for the effective collaborative efforts
employed by team members. They promoted awareness about the Inquiry Project to
Markham College faculty outside of the project by incorporating inquiry-based activities
in department meetings and having both the president and dean invite a Center for Urban
Education Co-Director to speak out about the project’s purpose and goals during a faculty
flex day.
Outside of promoting project awareness, equally important was communicating
the project’s results and planning for additional action steps. Although there was an
initial struggle to assign the various writing parts of the final report to the president, the
task was successfully completed by the team’s members with the support of CUE. This
struggle exemplified the ongoing resistance with which change was met at the institution.
The co-directors even assumed the role of some sections of the report when no one took
the initiative to write it. Advocates argue that with knowledge, comes the embracement
of responsibility for improving upon those results (Shavelson & Huang, 2003). Involving
key stakeholders in the process of change allowed each person to maintain a sense of
128
accountability and it gave a role to all, no matter how big or small, to contribute to the
college’s overall development because when vital information is not communicated to
key stakeholders, including the faculty and students, there is a risk of failed
implementation.
Throughout the course of the project, participants were building their capacity
because they were exposed to the notion of beginning to think from multiple
perspectives, thereby giving them a larger framework for addressing institutional needs.
Although the level of resistance to changing how problems were perceived was
maintained throughout the project, there was a preliminary sense of understanding of the
unique, yet different stakeholders’ roles – all of whom impact student outcomes in their
own capacities. Many times reflection came before action, such as the hunches activities
then committee forming, and syllabi review then syllabi changes. Stepping back to think
from different lens led to collaboration and communication between team members and
others within the institution that may not have normally occurred without the context of
the project. Ultimately, however, it was a process of enacting change that resulted from
participation in inquiry-based activities.
Foster Collaborative Relationships
Another key finding was the critical role that the partnering university had in
spearheading some of the proposed changes via the Inquiry Project. Dr. Talbot and Dr.
Pascal were in attendance at all three project activities (syllabi review, symposium,
syllabi workshop). Dr. Talbot attended every single team meeting and Dr. Pascal only
missed one team meeting throughout the course of the project. Their consistent effort to
represent the math department provided them with opportunities for learning and voicing
129
their departmental concerns. Looking closely at disaggregated data of student
performance throughout the project and comparing syllabi from Markham College
professors to those at other colleges afforded Dr. Talbot the opportunity to think about
the rigor of the department’s work. The project, whose role it was to facilitate change,
was clearly viewed as a liaison for institutional change. Dr. Pascal thought that the
project had a strong impact on the math department because action was being taken on
the syllabi, curriculum, and math lab. Although team members took small, incremental
steps throughout the project, it was the collaboration time allotted through the project that
encouraged open, structured communication and professional relationships even when
there were philosophical teaching differences between the participants. The context of
the project sustained the communication and working lines between those who may not
necessarily have worked together outside of the Inquiry Project.
Participation in the institutional self-assessment project gave Dr. Talbot and Dr.
Pascal, along with the rest of the team members, an opportunity to step back, name, and
describe problems surrounding basic skills instruction within their institution. Reflecting
on one’s agency, including one’s skills and capacities, and then taking action based steps
upon that learning has led to institutional and departmental changes aimed at benefiting
all students. Shared learning opportunities for the two participants served as first steps
toward embracing the process of an institutional paradigm shift.
Limitations of the Inquiry Project
According to a Markham College inquiry team member, the project impacted
multiple facets of the institution, including course syllabi, course sequences, learning
labs, involvement of key stakeholders, and reshaping the way the institution addresses
130
student success. One limitation that hindered the Inquiry Project’s ability to complete the
last two steps of the inquiry cycle as it did with the first steps was time.
One of the main goals of the Inquiry Project goals was to cultivate equity-
mindedness. Evidence from this study shows that one and a half years with one group
may not have been enough time to tap into a new approach for thinking about
consciousness and responsiveness to students’ color, race, and socio-economic status.
The complex concept encapsulates a broad way of thinking about students and confronts
deep-seated notions or assumptions about students; it is not a simple solution-based
approach to the problem. Without a doubt, many steps were taken toward thinking from
an equity-minded perspective through inquiry protocols, but it will take more than
eighteen months to make a pivotal impact on the way one thinks about and acts upon the
meaning of equity.
Another effect of the limitation of time included the complete dissemination of
findings. The Inquiry Project Interim Report to the President written by the team
members and presented to the college’s president was a compilation of initial hunches,
findings, action steps, and assessment and evaluations six months into the project. It
served as a mid-project census to outline what the team had accomplished at the halfway
point and next steps it planned to take. Establishing clear writing roles to highlight the
project’s findings at earlier meetings or even including it in team member’s role
description could avoid the overwhelming task during the end of the semester.
Additionally, to regain the group’s focus on the project, a half or full day retreat with the
team members could facilitate the completion for each section of the report. Despite the
already large time demands on the team members, bringing closure to the project by
131
means of reflecting and writing the report, could have allowed more time to process on
the project as a whole. Disseminating and reiterating the information learned from the
project was the final of eight steps in the cycle of inquiry, an important step that was
overshadowed by simultaneous pressures to complete accreditation reports. Shavelson
and Huang (2003) assert that in higher education, any useful feedback based on research
must be promulgated to all stakeholders, including academic leaders and teaching faculty.
Without this shared knowledge, meaningful feedback that could help the college could go
unnoticed if it is not communicated effectively.
Another limitation in addition to time was the lack of meaningful feedback team
members received from students. The use of the “I Learn Best…” open-ended reflection
tool was agreed upon and intended to capture student beliefs on specific instructional
methodologies that facilitate or inhibit learning. The fact that that the tool was not used
can be attributed to a lack of time instructors had to administer the tool. However, not
using the “I Learn Best…” tool reflects the instructor’s lack of motivation or
unwillingness to seek feedback from the students in their classes. Although they often
mentioned how much content they needed to incorporate in weekly meetings in order to
meet all of the objectives outlined in their syllabus, the reflection tool would have only
taken a few minutes to complete and would have provided valuable feedback.

132
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION

The goal of this study was to better understand how a reframed form of
assessment focused on equity and inquiry could bring about changes in the equity of
minority student outcomes. In the Markham College case study, we see that learning on
the part of practitioners has taken place not through a traditional problem and solution
pattern, but rather, a cycle of inquiry. The inquiry process functioned as a way to
promote institutional capacity because team members were involved through their role as
research practitioners and not merely passive participants who readily accepted
resolutions given to them.
Three objectives for the study were established: 1) develop an understanding of
how project participants reflect on their professional practices when participating in self-
assessment activities, 2) document participants’ new learning and commitments to
application through the process of reflection, and 3) develop an understanding of how
faculty who were motivated by equity used the notion of equity as a building block to
learn about their capacity to become an institutional agent. Participation in an
institutional self-assessment project provided structured opportunities for reflection that
enabled team members to learn how their role within an institution could facilitate
improvements in their professional practices. Utilizing the cycle of inquiry to facilitate
the learning process and facilitating each step throughout the course of the project helped
to accomplish the first two objectives. Although participants engaged in reflection
activities, the process did not always result in learning. However, at the times when
participants successfully engaged in the “construct new learning” phase of Costa &
133
Garmston’s (2002) reflection cycle, they were able to convey how what they learned
affected their professional practices. Those practices included their work with students,
both directly and indirectly. As team members stepped back to think about the ways in
which syllabi written by their faculty communicated both high and low expectations, they
indirectly learned about how their own syllabi were communicating the notion of equity
for students. Creating a forum for participants to discuss their equity based practices and
beliefs helped to partially achieve the third objective. Team members also learned
directly from participatory inquiry that student outcomes for basic skills students could be
improved upon with specific aesthetical, physical, and pedagogical adjustments made in
their math learning labs. Another key finding was learning about the roles that the
leaders on campus needed to assume to transform their instructional approach to students
who lacked both the study and content skills to be successful. The reflection process
supported changes in participants’ practices because they were able to identify problems
within the institution and discuss ways in which their individual and departmental
capacity could positively affect student outcomes.
In the first part of this chapter, the implications of the study are discussed in the
context of readiness – readiness for participation in an inquiry project, readiness for the
process of inquiry, and readiness for change. Readiness for participation refers to the role
that participants can choose to play within an inquiry project. Readiness for the process
of inquiry is in reference to the forms of inquiry that do or do not promote inquiry.
Readiness for change deals with participant’s new knowledge learned, willingness to
embrace new practices, multiple perspectives that others have, and highlights the
134
instruments and measures that would make the inquiry process more effective via
professional development.
The next part of the chapter draws attention to the limitations of the study,
capturing the difficulty in using the reflection process to measure participant learning.
For every individual, reflection is personal, meta-cognitive, and timely. One’s process
for reflection can be uniquely different from another, thereby making it difficult at times
to attribute learning specifically to the project. In the third section of the chapter,
suggestions for future research are given. Specifically, more research on additional
follow-up activities for the use of action inquiry can guide shifting the institution’s
approach to thinking about equity and its impact on students. Second, a study on
community college staff’s existing knowledge base for instructing students in basic skills
courses can guide how an institution creates committees and assigns courses. Another
suggestion for future research is the tracking of cohort math programs and how projects
such as the Inquiry Project can help to support student programs targeted at basic skills
students. The last part of the chapter is a summary and personal reflection of the
project’s impact on my own work.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study demonstrate that through participation in a structured
inquiry process, practitioners are able to learn about how their roles as faculty members
can impact student success outcomes. Specifically, participants engaged in reflection
activities and were provided with opportunities to think from multiple perspectives, enact
change, and foster collaborative relationships in an effort to address institutional
problems. Similar to the participants in the Markham College Inquiry Project,
135
participants in inquiry projects can expect to learn about the role which reflection plays in
their higher education setting and the levels of readiness that colleges have to have in
order to fully participate in an inquiry project, engage in the process of inquiry, and
change their practices based on their new knowledge about institutional agency.
Professional development is also a key implication for an institution because the process
and content of new learning is dependent on readiness.
The concept of readiness is used to synthesize the themes from the results chapter.
In order to think from multiple perspectives, enact change, and foster collaborative
relationships, there must be an inherent sense of readiness to engage in such processes.
The findings of this study support several important assertions about the value of using
inquiry as an approach to professional development. The process of reflection facilitated
the development of various levels of problem solving knowledge, based on participant
readiness. As shown in the Markham College case study, assessing the problem is a key
step in the inquiry process, one that many team members were able to do throughout the
project. Some participants developed knowledge about the types of resources available
within the institution to address the problem. The most critical problem-solving skill to
develop is taking action on a student’s behalf to ensure that he/she has the support
necessary to be successful.
Readiness for Participation
A major implication of the Inquiry Project at Markham College is that the role of
an institutional agent is one that has a transformative power (Stanton-Salazar, 2001) and
one that an instructor can choose or not choose to play in a student’s educational
experience. Reflection is a form of inquiry that is likely to lead an instructor to choose
136
this agent role because at the end of the reflection process is a stage characterized as
Experimentation: Learning to take intelligent action (Rodgers, 2002). The intelligent
action that one takes is not merely the decision to participate in an inquiry project, but
rather, to take appropriate action based on experiences that have been described and
analyzed. Readiness to participate also means the ability to recognize a team’s
commitment and willingness to engage in a process that will challenge one’s attitudes
and beliefs. How professionally, socially, and emotionally one is ready to discuss
sensitive, yet important issues about outcomes for marginalized students impacts the
effectiveness and outcome of the inquiry work. When data by gender and ethnicity is
disaggregated, there must be a level of readiness to talk not just about who the students
are, but also why they might be performing at an alarmingly different rate in comparison
to their counterparts.
Readiness for the Inquiry Process
One’s readiness to reflect on others and oneself can vary from person to person.
According to Stanton-Salazar (1997), institutional agents have different “funds of
knowledge,” one of those being problem-solving knowledge. Participation in inquiry-
based activities can help to promote three specific types of problem-solving knowledge
that could be distinguished by their level of difficulty to achieve: the accurate perception
and assessment of the problem (easy), knowledge of the types of resources that may
ameliorate the problem (medium), and knowledge and competencies relevant to getting
agents to act on one’s behalf (hard). I have categorized these three levels of difficulty to
highlight a hierarchy of action and problem-solving. Participants in an inquiry process
can readily develop the first type of problem-solving knowledge because reflection
137
requires accurate problem identification in its first step before delving into the next steps.
Knowledge of the resources that may ameliorate the problem is promoted through the
inquiry process, but is more difficult because participants are required to extend one’s
thinking about who and what can advance and support student learning outside of
systems that already exist. As key findings from this study suggest, thinking from
multiple perspectives is an outcome of reflection-based processes. The hardest type of
knowledge to promote through inquiry is agency – it asks participants to look inward at
what one can do to support students within the classroom. This means extending one’s
roles outside of the instructional duties and providing support that students might not
otherwise receive.
The collaborative process for reflection in the Inquiry Project also entails a
readiness to use communication as a tool for exchanging and a shared nature for socially
constructing ideas (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, Lopez-Torres, 2003). Monthly meetings and
focused group objectives within the larger framework of an inquiry team’s goals help to
direct the purpose of coming together as a group. The Inquiry Project in this study
incorporated structured opportunities where reflection through different perspectives and
different aspects of student learning were encouraged. The project was extended
throughout the course of over a year to allow process time and the situated activities were
planned at times when the groups were ready to participate in the next step.
Readiness for Change
Another implication of this study is readiness on both a group and individual
level to make changes based on new learning. As instructors develop an understanding
of what their ability is to resolve problems surrounding low student outcomes, it is the
138
action they commit to and take that determines how ready they are for change.
Instructors’ ability to serve as institutional agents functions as a “bridge” between a
students’ world and the classroom experience (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992).
One of the key findings from the study is the support that inquiry-based projects provide
participants in enacting change. To serve as a “bridge” for students would include
participants developing a sense of institutional agency and awareness that their practices
must be adapted to meet student needs. Whereas some participants learned about the
bridge their course expectations and student performance communicated through their
syllabi, others learned about the bridge between challenges in their own class and the role
of the math lab.
Readiness to participate in an inquiry project, the process of inquiry, and change,
all have important implications for the way in which action inquiry is implemented at the
higher education level. While on the one hand, inquiry serves as a form of institutional
self-assessment, on the other hand, one’s ability to respond to accountability demands is
contingent upon one’s readiness to fully commit to the process. Community colleges
have responded in various ways to the drive for a self-assessment process through several
accountability measures established at both the national and state level. These guided
inquiry processes have provided colleges with the opportunity to demonstrate how
looking inwardly at their practices can promote success for basic skills students. Though
not directly connected with the state-level Basic Skills Initiative launched in 2006,
projects such as the Inquiry Project have worked collaboratively to equip community
colleges with assessment tools and inquiry-based activities to identify effective practices
as one step to improve institutional outcomes. The Accountability Reporting for the
139
Community Colleges is a reporting system that supports accountability measures that
lead to an institution’s self-assessment if ARCC data is specifically used for that purpose.
Through seven performance indictors focused on student progress and achievement rates,
community colleges mutually agreed with the State of California to address student
performance. By strategically examining baseline data for basic skills math and English
students, such as in the Inquiry Project, the college’s performance rates were highlighted
through this self-assessment project intended to allow the college to create actions based
on data.
When responding to accreditation demands in education, performance at
institutions is driven by bureaucratic forces rather than internal needs. The findings of
the Markham College case study demonstrate that enacting change is partially self-
initiated and partially forced. Towards the end of their participation in the project,
Markham College was forced to take action on findings and recommendations that were
highlighted in an accreditation visit. These types of external accreditation pressures drive
the focus of participants’ work, experiences held, and actions taken place within an
institution. However, the pressures of accreditation are not unique to any single college.
Approximately 33 California Community Colleges have had some type of sanction over
the past five years.
Being an institutional agent for students is not innate; it is an approach to thinking
about and addressing issues surrounding outcomes for minority students. As a prior
participant in an inquiry project with CUE, two of the Markham College team members
were exposed to student success practices and the notion of practitioner-based research.
The second round of exposure came about through participation in the Inquiry Project.
140
The reinforcement of goals and conditioned approach to equity strengthens an
institution’s ability to address such issues. Fostering a strong relationship between
community colleges and universities can open communication lines about transfer-access
and conjoin resources to better serve underserved students. Centers such as CUE and
colleges like Markham can make both short and long-term commitments to work
collaboratively, each time delving deeper into issues that matter and building upon
existing knowledge and skills.
Professional development for faculty members working specifically with basic
skills students must be able to “…tap into that talent, engage students with the pleasures
(and difficulties) of reading, writing, and fundamental mathematics, sustain their
academic ambitions, and stimulate their critical and creative powers of mind,” (Huber,
2008, pg. 1). In essence, this means that professional development should account for the
ways in which faculty inquire about how to address students’ unique multitude of needs
as named above. Professional development should take shape in the form of faculty
inquiry whereby teachers investigate ongoing problems about student learning and then
transfer the knowledge back into the classroom through improved curriculum,
assessments, and pedagogies (Huber, 2008).
In the Markham College case study, participants in the Inquiry Project worked
collaboratively within their department and across disciplines to find performance
patterns that needed to be addressed through differentiated and improved approaches.
Based on Huber’s (2008) findings, the center of the inquiry would not be on why the
students are not performing, but more importantly, on how to support student learning.
As shown in the inquiry-based syllabi review protocol and syllabi workshop activities for
141
the Inquiry Project studied here, faculty are encouraged to think from a student’s
perspective in identifying ways to target lacking skills and enact change within their
classroom. These action steps do not serve as the final step in the professional
development process. Rather, it serves as the beginning point for which further inquiry is
driven. All the while, the focus of inquiry is on the instructor and the ways in which
he/she is able to adjust instruction to connect to all students, thereby eliminating a blanket
instructional approach. From this faculty inquiry process, instructors would build their
capacity to self-assess both their students and instructional delivery.
Time is also integral to effective, sustainable professional development, whether it
is in the form of meetings, flex days, committee work time, outside support, or
participation in collaborative projects. Structured and extended opportunities to meet
would ensure that participants are able to gain a deeper perspective on the work they are
doing, but also strategically plan for the action they will take to address their work.
Long-term collaboration between higher education institutions can also improve the
quality of relationships that are fostered between members and provide each with time to
acculturate themselves into an institutional culture that may function very different from
their own.
An adequate amount of time dedicated to inquiry that is guided with a data-driven
decision-making process for classroom instruction is a powerful combination for
improving higher education practices. Adding to the existing framework of the Inquiry
Project would include extending the project timeline from one year to two years and
involving and larger number of stakeholders, including students, who should have a
voice, too. Brief, but periodic classroom focus walks where qualitative data is collected
142
for specific equity-minded practices can also structure team conversations on existing
best practices and help to prioritize areas of growth. Another instrument that would make
an inquiry project more effective is the use of critical conversation protocols that could
guide debriefs of the focus walks. The National School Reform Faculty is a professional
development initiative that focuses on adult learning in the service of student
achievement (www.nsrfharmony.org) and has protocols for beginning these
conversations. As an extension of the reflection process, the critical conversation
protocol can delve deeper into analyzing classroom practices and lead to next steps.
Ultimately, professional development focused on teacher inquiry as a way to address
accreditation and accountability pressures is a direction that will lead institutions to foster
a culture of inquiry that becomes a habit of mind where problems and solutions are paired
with evidence for what works and doesn’t work (Huber, 2008).
Limitations of the Study
Beyond the limitations of the Inquiry Project, a major limitation to my study has
transpired – the use of reflection to measure learning. Reflection is personal, meta-
cognitive, and timely. To begin, the project aimed to understand how one learns through
the process of reflection. For the participants in the project, learning took place on two
levels – learning about oneself as an individual and learning about the impact of one’s
own professional practices. Although participants engaged in multiple structured
inquiry-based protocols and meetings, what each learned is personal and difficult to
define because one may not always verbalize the entirety of what he learned, nor fully
articulate the extent to which learning took place because of social pressures to say the
“right” thing. As much as reflection is personal, it is also meta-cognitive. Even these
143
two cases show that we can expect people to approach their process for their thinking in
different ways.
Additionally, team members on the project were involved in multiple ongoing
committees within the institution during the time of project. These included: academic
senate, department chairs, curriculum, counsel of instruction, and online committee.
Each committee focused on a different facet of the institution and provided its own forum
for learning about one’s role to address specific student needs. It is difficult to capture
learning specific to the Inquiry Project’s desired general outcomes when the participants
were engaging in various other opportunities for reflection. With accountability and self-
assessment demands simultaneously impacting the institution’s work, the timeliness of
the project and its goal of promoting more reflective practitioners limited the depth of
participation. Specifically, when institutions respond to accreditation pressures, the
timeliness of reflection and action is even more critical then when experienced under the
demand of educational bureaucratic forces.
Suggestions for Future Research
The Inquiry Project endeavored to develop the expertise of individual
practitioners and foster equity-mindedness within an institutional context by completing
the cycle of inquiry. From problem identification to problem solving, my study has
specifically contributed to the body of research on how the process of reflection and
problem identification through data analysis has leads to the identification of and action
steps necessary to facilitate change. Markham College’s math faculty concluded the
project having completed two inquiry activities – the syllabi review and syllabi
workshop. However, future research is needed on specific follow-up activities that can
144
further enhance an institution’s ability to cultivate a culture of inquiry and simultaneously
build faculty capacity. Activities that address and challenge pedagogical and cultural
frameworks can extend the reflection process and enhance progress that has already
begun, especially within the context of an historically underperforming institution.
Additional institutional research, both quantitative and qualitative, is also needed
on the instructional staff of community colleges. What do they know and what do they
do with what they know? The knowledge base the faculty possesses is unknown as well
as the best practices employed within each individual classroom. Specifically, instruction
in basic skills courses at the community college level has not been thoroughly assessed
for promising pedagogical practices, effective curriculum content, and support networks
within the institution. Research on an institution’s faculty will provide contextualized
data of the transferability of the knowledge already present versus generalizing what the
faculty know about how to increase student success.
Finally, future research can bring about a broader understanding of the impact that
cohort math programs have on basic skills students. Summer entry programs before
students begin a new school year, study skills programs, and full loads of math-only
courses should also be included as components to math program research. How effective
are such programs across other urban community colleges? The focus of support for
math students can be shifted beyond the initial focus on math and first turn its attention to
how students develop learning skills that could then be readily applied across disciplines.
Also, research on the progress of students in small learning communities in comparison
to those who are not in the cohorts could provide a richer knowledge of the students and
their path to success.
145
Summary
Over the last seven years, I have had the opportunity to serve minority students in
various urban settings, many of whom will attend community colleges for multiple
reasons. As a former secondary English Language Arts teacher and literacy coach, I have
listened to the countless preoccupations and anxieties students hold about the subject of
math. Likewise, I have entertained discussions from another perspective, that of math
teachers. They argue that rather than building upon their math abilities, students are
becoming disturbingly deficient in foundational math skills, especially as they advance
grade levels. This study has brought me to the realization that when those same students
who have been conditioned to avoid math enroll in a community college, math failure no
longer equates to the possibility of social promotion. Rather, it is a manifestation and
repercussion that extends into ones’ future social and economic status. As a final
pathway for students intending to earn a bachelor’s degree, success at the community
college level is pivotal, critical, and most importantly, desirable. For these reasons,
understanding the role and impact of instructors is important because the instructional
conditions of a college directly affect student outcomes (Grubb & Badway, 2005).
Providing community college faculty and leadership with an opportunity to assess
their impact and actively participate in a cycle of inquiry can lead to the development of
more reflective practitioners. As I reflect on the same students for whom I have served as
an educator, I am grateful and optimistic that community colleges have begun to take a
step toward consciously serving as the gate key holders who unlock success for these
students.

146
WORKS CITED

Abrams, J. (2001). A new way of thinking: Beginning teacher coaching through
Garmston’s and Costa’s States of Mind. National Council of Teachers of English.

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. Retrieved December 30, 2007
from http://www.asccc.org/

Adelman, C. The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through
college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006.

American Association for Higher Education Assessment Forum. 9 Principles of Good
Practice for Assessing Student Learning, 2001.

ARCC/AB 1417 Fact Sheet (updated 2/13/07). Retrieved December 30, 2007 from
http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/TRIS/research/ARCC/ab1417_perf_framework_h
andout.pdf

ARCC 2007 Final Report (updated 3/19/07). Retrieved December 30, 2007 from
http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/TRIS/research/ARCC/arcc_report_2007.pdf

Barnett, B.G. (1995). Developing reflection and expertise: Can mentors make the
difference? Journal of Educational Administration, 33(5), 45-59.

Bauman, G.L., Bustillos, L.T., Bensimon, E.M., Brown, M.C., & Bartee, R. (2005).
Achieving equitable educational outcomes with all students: The institution’s role
and responsibilities. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.

Bensimon, E.M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change, 36(1), 45-52.

Bensimon, E.M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education,
131(8), 99-111.

Bensimon, E.M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in
the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-
469.

Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D.E., Bauman, G. & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research
that makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126.

147
Bensimon, E.M. & Dowd, A.C. (2007). Missing 87: A study of the “transfer gap” and
“choice gap”. A Collaborative Report by Long Beach City College and
University of Southern California Center for Urban Education.
Boudett, K.P., City E.A., & Murnane, R.J. (Eds.). (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step
guide to using assessment to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A.H.
Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 487-511). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Brown, R.S. & Niemi, D.N. (2007). Investigating the Alignment of High School and
Community College Assessments in California. The National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education.

Burke, J.C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J.C. Burke (Ed.). The Many Faces of
Accountability. (pp. 1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bustillos, L.T. (2007). Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: A
collaborative inquiry approach. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

California Community Colleges System Strategic Plan. (2006). The California
Community College System Strategic Plan Steering Committee & MIG.

California Postsecondary Education Commission. Retrieved June 24, 2009 from
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/TransferPathway.asp.

California State Board of Education. (1997). California standards for the teaching
profession: A description of professional practice for California teachers.
Sacramento, CA.

Center for Student Success. (2007, February). Basic Skills as a Foundation for Success in
California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: California Community
Colleges Chancellor's Office. Retrieved August 31, 2008 from
http://www.cccbsi.org/publications

Center for Urban Education Inquiry Project. (2007).

Cohen, A.M. (1985). Mathematics instruction at the two-year college: An ERIC review.
Community College Review, 12(54), 54-61.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

148
Consultant Response to Markham College, Inquiry Project Effective Practices
Symposium. (2008)

Costa, A.L. & Garmston, R.J. (2002). Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for
Renaissance Schools. 2
nd
Edition. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon
Publishers.

Credible. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 2, 2009,
from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credible

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, New York, NY: Prometheus Books.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press. (Original
work published 1916).

Dildy, D. (2000). Action research: Cognitive coaching as a vehicle to improve teacher
efficacy. Retrieved July 30, 2007, from
http://www.cognitivecoaching.cc/pdf/actionresearch.pdf

Dowd, A.C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond
the access “saga” towards outcome equity. Harvard Education Review.

Dowd, A. C., Bensimon, E. M., Gabbard, G., Singleton, S., Macias, E., Dee, J., et al.
(2006). Transfer access to elite colleges and universities in the United States:
Threading the needle of the American dream. Retrieved June 28, 2006, from
www.jackkentcookefoundation.org

Dowd, A.C., Cheslock, J. & Melguizo, T. (2008). Transfer Access from Community
Colleges and the Distribution of Elite Higher Education. Journal of Higher
Education, 79(4), 442-472.

Dowd, A.C. & Tong, V. P. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship of
"best practice". In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of Higher Education (Vol. 22, pp.
57-119): Springer Publishing.

Edwards, J.L. & Green, K.E. (1999). Growth in coaching skills over a three year period:
Progress toward mastery. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington,
DC, Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2003, from
http://wwww.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html

149
Ewell, P.T. (1988). Implementing assessment: Some organizational issues. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 59(15), 15-28.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice, New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Goldberg, B. & Morrison, D.M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership Lessons from
Comprehensive Schools Reforms, (pp.57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.

Gonzalez, K.P., Stoner, C., & Jovel, J.E. (2003). Examining the role of social capital in
access to college for Latinas: Toward a college opportunity framework. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(1), 146-170.

Greene, J.C. (2000). Understanding social programs through evaluation. In N.K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Second Edition
ed., pp. 981-999). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Grubb, W.N. & Badway, N.N. (2005). From compliance to improvement:
Accountability and assessment in California community colleges. Higher
Education Evaluation and Research Group.

Gurin, P., Dey, E.L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education:
Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review,
72(3), 330-366.

Hentschke, G.C. & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC
Urban Ed. University of Southern California: Rossier School of Education.

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A.J., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: Teacher
learning as praxis. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 248-254.

Honest. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/honest

Horn, L., and Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary
Education Institutions: 2003–04: With a Special Analysis of Community College
Students (NCES 2006-184). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.

Huber, M.T. “The Promise of Faculty Inquiry for Teaching and Learning Basic Skills.”
Strengthening Pre-collegiate Education in Community Colleges (SPECC).
Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2008.

150
Inquiry Project Information. (2007). University of Southern California, Center for Urban
Education.

Ivory, L. & Lew, S. (2007). Unexpected pathways: Transfer patterns of community
college students. MPR Research Brief.

Kruse, S.D. (1997). Reflective Activity in Practice: Vignettes of Teachers’ Deliberative
Work. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 31(1), 46-60.
Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding
teaching and learning about teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

McCrary, A.S. (2000). Notes from a marine biologist’s daughter: On the art and science
of attention. Harvard Educational Review; 70, 211-227.

McEwan, E.K. & McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s
not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Milner, H.R. (2003). Teacher reflection and race in cultural contexts: History, meanings,
and methods in teaching. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 173-180.

Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of Knowledge for
Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.
Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.

Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2007). Beyond the open door: Increasing student success in
the California community colleges. Sacramento: Institute for Higher Education
Leadership and Policy, California State University.

National School Reform Faculty. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from
http://www.nsrfharmony.org/protocol/index.html.

Noffke. S.E. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research.
Review of Research in Education; 22, 305-343.

Pasquini-Torchia, J.S. (2006). Cognitive coaching: A reflective approach to education,
Chapter 3: The review of the literature. Bridgewater State College.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B.J, Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L.P. (2007). What makes
professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum
implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

151
Perin, D. (2002). The location of developmental education in community colleges: A
discussion of the merits of mainstreaming vs. centralization. Community College
Review, 30(1), 27-44.

Rodgers, C.R. (2002). Voices inside schools: Seeing student learning: Teacher change
and the role of reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253.

Rodgers, C.R. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective
thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.

Sanchez, B., Reyes, O., & Singh, J. (2005). Makin’ it in college: The value of
significant individuals in the lives of Mexican American adolescents. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 5(1), 48-67.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Shavelson, R.J. & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly. Change, 35(1), 10-20.

Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (2007) Invest in success: How finance policy can increase
student success at California’s community colleges. Sacramento: Institute for
Higher Education Leadership and Policy, California State University.

Stake, R.E.. (1995). The Art of the Case Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review,
67(1), 1-40.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2001). Manufacturing Hope & Despair: The Sand Kin Support
Networks of U.S.-Mexican Youth. Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Chapter 8, “Empowering Relations of Support Between Students and School
Personnel.”

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waycaster, Pansy. (2001). Factors impacting success in community college
developmental mathematics courses and subsequent courses. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 25(5/6), 403-416.

Woodcock, C., Lassonde, C., & Rutten, I. (2004). How does collaborative reflection play
a role in a teacher researcher’s beliefs about herself and her teaching?:
Discovering the power of relationships. Teaching & Learning: The Journal of
Natural Inquiry and Reflective Practice, 18(2), 55-73.

152
Appendix A: Data Matrix

Overarching Question:
How do practitioners reflect?

Methodology Methods
Theoretical Frameworks
Reflection and Institutional Agency

Research Questions **Research
Objectives
Data Collection Data Analysis
(Patton, 1995)
1. In what ways does
participation in an
institutional self-
assessment project
provide
opportunities for
reflection and
learning about
professional
practices and its
effect on equity in
student outcomes?
R01
R02
R03

Individual Faculty
Interviews
Monthly Team
Meetings
Observation
Mid-Year
Symposium
Observation
Math Department
Syllabi Workshop
Observation

Review data
Search for patterns
Seek linkages between
Inquiry Project
objectives and activities
and actual outcomes
Draw conclusions
Review/gather new data
Write a narrative case
history
2. How does the
reflection process
support
participants’
change in their
practices?
R01
R02
R03
Individual Faculty
Interviews
Monthly Team
Meetings
Observation
Math Department
Syllabi Review
Observation
Math Department
Syllabi Workshop
Observation
Review data
Search for patterns
Seek linkages between
Inquiry Project
objectives and activities
and actual outcomes
Draw conclusions
Review/gather new data
Write a narrative case
history
3. What do
participants learn
about their
capacity to have a
positive effect on
student learning?
R01
R02
R03
Individual Faculty
Interviews
Monthly Team
Meetings
Observation
Math Department
Syllabi Review
Observation
Math Department
Syllabi Workshop
Observation
Review data
Search for patterns
Seek linkages between
Inquiry Project
objectives and activities
and actual outcomes
Draw conclusions
Review/gather new data
Write a narrative case
history
**Research Objectives
RO1 = To develop an understanding of how project participants reflect on their professional
practices when participating self-assessment activities.
RO2 = To document participants’ new learning and commitments to application through the
process of reflection
RO3 = To develop an understanding of how faculty motivated by equity use the notion of equity
as a building block to learn about their capacity to become an institutional agent.

153
Appendix B: Faculty Interview Protocol I

Center for Urban Education:
Faculty Interview Guide
Instructional Practices & Assessment

Introductory Script: Project Overview

The goal of this study is to investigate factors that promote success in basic skills
education at your campus. Our interview today will last approximately one and half
hours during which I will ask you about your roles and responsibilities, and instructional
views and practices.

All information you share with me during our interview will be kept in strictest
confidence. For example, your identity will not be revealed, nor will the information you
share with me be used against you or influence your teaching assignments. Your
participation in this study is voluntary. How much you decide to share with me in the
interview is completely at your discretion. You may decline to respond to any questions I
pose throughout the interview and you may withdraw from the study at any point. If you
permit, I will record this interview to ensure that I capture all of the information that you
share with me.

Do you have any questions for me before we begin?

I. Roles and Responsibilities
Let’s begin with some questions about your roles and responsibilities on campus:

1. What is your current position/title?
• How long have you been in this position? Are you full-time or part-time (ask for
details on how many courses part-time or full-time employment entails)?
• What courses do you teach? How many students do you instruct in your courses?
• Probe: courses taught, types/levels of courses – e.g. basic skills, etc.?]

2. Apart from teaching, what other roles or responsibilities do you have at your campus?
• Probe: working in learning center, tutoring, serving on departmental and/or
campus-wide committees, registration, scoring, administrative tasks, etc.]
• What activities do these roles/responsibilities entail?
• Are these activities expected in your job title? If not, how did you come to do
them?

II. Instructional Views & Practices
3. In your experience, what practices do you implement in your classroom that
effectively promote student success in your courses? [SUMMARIZE IMPRESSIONS
154
– I want the participants to revisit episodes in their classroom and think about their
personal practices ]

4. What are the demographics of your class? Do you adapt your teaching based on these
demographics? [If yes] How do you make it more culturally responsive?
[SUMMARIZE IMPRESSIONS – I want to understand how the participants perceive
“culturally responsive” and whether they draw on those “culturally responsive
practices in their own classroom]

5. How do you know when students have problems in your class? [SUMMARIZE
IMPRESSIONS – I want the participants to revisit instances in teaching when they
became self-aware of students having problems]

6. When your students begin to have problems in your class, how do you deal with it?
[SUMMARIZE IMPRESSIONS – I want to understand the approach that the
participants took in addressing the problems of students]

7. How do you know that you have been successful? [ANALYZE CAUSAL FACTORS
– I would like to know how the participants know they have addressed student needs;
I want to understand how they explain and give reasons for their in action decisions]

8. What do you consider your three greatest challenges in teaching right now?
[SUMMARIZE IMPRESSIONS – I want the participants to think back on all of their
challenges as instructors and select three of their greatest barriers]
• Probe: How do these challenges manifest in your basic skills levels classes?
• Probe: Where or to whom do you go for support or help with these challenges?

III. Contextualizing Basic Skills / Developmental Education and Equity
9. How do you view the problems of student success in basic skills education at your
campus? [ANALYZE CAUSAL FACTORS – I want to understand what the
participants attribute the problems of student success to in Basic Skills]
• Probe: rates of student success in the different basic skills levels courses
• Probe: racial/ gender gaps in achievement
• Probe: number of students migrating from basic skills to college credit courses
• Probe: number of basic skills who transfer to 4-year college

10. What institutional factors do you feel help you do your job? [ANALYZE CAUSAL
FACTORS – I want to know what specifically the participants feel help them to
produce the results they have in student outcomes]
• Probe: Institutional factors – practices/policies/resources/faculty

11. What institutional factors create barriers for student success? [SUMMARIZE
IMPRESSIONS – I want to know about the conditions that the participants feel pose
as barriers for student success]

155
• How do you know? [ANALYZE CAUSAL FACTORS – I want to understand
who or what they attribute those barriers to]
12. The notion of “equity” can have many different interpretations.
• What does it mean to you? [SUMMARIZE IMPRESSIONS – I want to know
how they interpret this term]
• How would you explain achieving equity to someone in your department?
• In what ways might your role promote equity? [CONSTRUCT NEW LEARNING
– I want to understand how the participants make meaning from their role as
instructors and as agents of change]

III. Impact of Assessment and Evaluation
13. Recently, a math syllabi review and workshop occurred at your campus.
• Were you involved in the workshop [If yes,] how so? What did you learn from
participating in the activity? [SUMMARIZE IMPRESSIONS – I want a general
understanding of the participants’ takeaways from the workshop]
1) What was the purpose of the math syllabi workshop?
2) What do you see as the connection between the workshop and student success?

14. In what ways has the math faculty syllabi workshop made a difference in how you
think about your work? [CONSTRUCT NEW LEARNING – I want to understand
what new insights participants gained as a result of participating in the workshop]
• What practices have you done differently since the activity? [Prompt for details
what they are doing differently, e.g. what changes have they enacted. .
[COMMIT TO APPLICATION – I want to know what specific actions the
participants will transfer as a result of their learning from the workshop]
• How have you incorporated these practices in your instruction in ways that impact
students’ experiences in your classroom? [COMMIT TO APPLICATION – I
want to understand how the new learning was applied in the classroom]
• Compare old to new or changes in colleagues

15. What has been students’ reaction to what you’ve implemented since the workshop?
• Probe: How has it impacted their engagement, participation and achievement in
your courses? [SUMMARIZE IMPRESSIONS – I want the participants to recall
how the students reacted to the changes they implemented after the workshop]

16. What would you say are three things that still need to occur to improve student
success in basic skills education at your campus? [SUMMARIZE IMPRESSIONS –
want to understand who or what the participants feel is responsible for improving
student success]

That completes my questions…..
17. Are there any important points you have that I did not ask you about?
18. Do you have any additional questions or comments about my project?
19. Would you be interested in having your students complete the “I Learn Best…”
feedback form after one of your classes?
156
Appendix C: Faculty Interview Protocol II

Center for Urban Education:
Faculty Interview Guide
Instructional Practices & Assessment

Introductory Script: Project Overview

Thank you again for meeting with me for a second interview. When we last spoke,
we discussed issues of equity surrounding basic skills students. The purpose of today’s
interview is to further discuss your learning from the inquiry based activities you’ve
participated in throughout the project and the ways in which you’ve modified your
instruction as a result of participating in those activities.
All information you share with me during our interview will be kept in strictest
confidence. Your participation in this study is voluntary. How much you decide to share
with me in the interview is completely at your discretion. You may decline to respond to
any questions I pose throughout the interview and you may withdraw from the study at
any point. If you permit, I will record this interview to ensure that I capture all of the
information that you share with me. Do you have any questions for me before we begin?

Question Coding:
Reflection Institutional Agents: Problem-Solving Knowledge
1. Summarize impressions
2. Analyze causal factors
3. Construct new learning
4. Commit to application
a. Accurate perception and assessment of problem
b. Types of resources that may ameliorate the
problem
c. Knowledge and social competencies relevant to
getting agents to act on one’s behalf

Part One. Impact of Assessment and Evaluation

I. Recall: Let’s think back to when we examined syllabus through the Math Syllabus
Reflection Activity and Math Syllabi Workshop. Do you recall what we did together
with our committee members and department members? Who was there? What was
the process like?
As you think back on the math syllabi review and workshop, how did it go? What did
you hear participants saying that made you feel that way? [1-A]
i. What were your reactions to the activities and reflection process? What hunches
do you have to explain the low student performance here at this campus? [2-B]
ii. What did you learn from math syllabi review and workshop? What did you learn
that you don’t do? About your own teaching philosophy? [3-C]
iii. As you consider the ways in which you can further support students in your basic
skills courses through the type of syllabi you present, what ideas did you develop
from the activities that might be carried forth into your classroom? [4-D]
iv. What did you learn about resources available to students? About the school
culture? About the students? Your own syllabus? Your own expectations? [4-D]
157

II. As you think back on your own syllabus since the review and workshop, has your
syllabus changed? If so, in what ways? [1-B]
i. What caused you to change your syllabus? [2-A]
ii. What did you learn about your students since you’ve changed your syllabus?
How do you know? [3-A]
iii. What did you learn about yourself as a teacher and how your teaching impacts
students? [3-A]
iv. As you consider the ways in which you can further support students in your basic
skills courses through the type of syllabi you present, what additional changes
will you make in your classroom – including curriculum, content, interaction
with students, interaction with people who can help students? What compels you
take make these changes? [4-C]

III. Recall: Let’s think back to the mid-year symposium last spring. Do you recall what we
discussed with our team members and the guest discussants? Who was there? What
was the process like?
As you reflect back on the mid-year symposium and the recommendations made by the
consultants, what are you thoughts on the recommendations? What specific things did
they say that made you feel that way? [1-A]
i. How did their recommendations compare with what you feel should be done to
address inequitable student outcomes on your campus? [2-A]
ii. What did you learn from the mid-year symposium? About your institution? [3-
B]
iii. As you consider the ways in which you can further support students in your basic
skills courses through the recommendations made, what ideas did you develop
that might be carried forth into your classroom? [4-C]

Part 2. Contextualizing Basic Skills / Developmental Education and Equity
IV. For the past year we’ve been discussing this notion of equity. One year later, discuss
what equity means to you. What is equity’s relationship to race and outcomes? [1-A]
i. How has your definition of equity changed from when the project first began?
What caused it to change? [2-A]
ii. What did you learn about your role in promoting equity? What specific activities
made you learn these things? How did these activities help you to reflect on your
understanding of equity or the relationship it has to equity? [3-B]
iii. As you consider your role in promoting equitable outcomes for all students, what
new ideas or action steps might be carried in your instructional practices? [4-C]
V. What would you say are three things that still need to occur both on your part and the
institutions to improve student success in basic skills education at your campus? [I-B]

That completes my questions…..
VI. Are there any important points you have that I did not ask you about?
VII. Do you have any additional questions or comments about my project?

Appendix D: Learning Center Observation Guide

Type of Center: Time In: Time Out:
Date: Building:
*attach school map & circle location
Hours of Operation:

FACILITY ARRANGEMENT (draw the physical arrangement of the room)

ROOM RESOURCES
F Calendar F College catalog/schedule
F Center schedule/hours F Lounge chairs
F Clock F Study carrels #________________________
F Multimedia: LCD, copier, projector, TV, audio/video equipment, etc.

STUDENT RESOURCES
F Computers: #________________________ F Printers: #____________________________
F Computer Program(s) __________________________________________________________
F Course Syllabi________________________________________________________________
F Manipulatives for students with special needs
F References: dictionary/thesaurus/handbooks/translation books, etc.
F Supplies: pens, paper, markers, compasses, calculators, etc.
F Textbooks ___________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENT (1 – below standards, 2 – meets standards, 3 – exceeds standards)
F Décor 1 2 3 _______________________________________
F Inviting 1 2 3 ____ ___________________________________
F Lighting 1 2 3 _______________________________________
F Spacing 1 2 3 _______________________________________
F Temperature 1 2 3 _______________________________________

STUDENT DATA
Enter: Exit:
Males: Females:
Under 30: Over 30:
158
159
Race: F Black______________ F Hispanic________________
F Asian______________ F White___________________
F Other__________________________________________
STAFF DATA

Instructors: Tutors:
Males: Females:
Under 30: Over 30:
Race: F Black______________ F Hispanic________________ F Other______________
F Asian______________ F White__________________ F Other _____________

STUDENT CHECK-IN/OUT

F ID tracking device F Sign/out log
F Problem/support/question record F Worker at check-in
F Station F How do students get help?_______________

INSTRUCTOR/TUTOR-STUDENT INTERACTION
F Provided opportunity for student discussion
____________________________________________________________________________
F Maintained student attention
____________________________________________________________________________
F Responded to nonverbal cues of conf usion, boredom, and curiosity
____________________________________________________________________________
F Paced lesson/session to allow time for note taking
____________________________________________________________________________
F Answered student questions
____________________________________________________________________________
F Asked questions to monitor student progress
____________________________________________________________________________
F Asked students to answer diffe rent levels of questions
____________________________________________________________________________
F Asked probing questions when student answer was incomplete
____________________________________________________________________________
F Restated questions and answers when necessary
____________________________________________________________________________
F Method(s) of instruction – direct, 1:1, whole class, group, independent
____________________________________________________________________________
160
F Level(s) of questions
F 1 – knowledge_____________________________________________
F 2 – comprehension _________________________________________
F 3 – application ____________________________________________
F 4 – analysis _______________________________________________
F 5 – synthesis ______________________________________________
F 6 – evaluation _____________________________________________

STAFF-STUDENT INTERACTION

A
Staff Member

F Greeted student
F Made eye contact
F Recorded question/problem
F Helped student
F Engaged in constructive dialogue
F Directed student
Student

F # minutes waited ___________
F Made eye contact
F Voluntarily came to center
F Advised to come to center
F Asked relevant questions
F Engaged in task(s)
F Brought materials ( notes, books, etc.)

B
F Greeted student
F Made eye contact
F Recorded question/problem
F Helped student
F Engaged in constructive dialogue
F Directed student
F # minutes waited ___________
F Made eye contact
F Voluntarily came to center
F Advised to come to center
F Asked relevant questions
F Engaged in task(s)
F Brought materials ( notes, books, etc.)

C
F Greeted student
F Made eye contact
F Recorded question/problem
F Helped student
F Engaged in constructive dialogue
F Directed student
F # minutes waited ___________
F Made eye contact
F Voluntarily came to center
F Advised to come to center
F Asked relevant questions
F Engaged in task(s)
F Brought materials ( notes, books, etc.)

D
F Greeted student
F Made eye contact
F Recorded question/problem
F Helped student
F Engaged in constructive dialogue
F Directed student
F # minutes waited ___________
F Made eye contact
F Voluntarily came to center
F Advised to come to center
F Asked relevant questions
F Engaged in task(s)
F Brought materials ( notes, books, etc.)

NOTES
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
161
Appendix E: “I Learn Best...” Assessment

“I Learn Best….”

Prepared by USC Center for Urban Education

As an instructor, I am always looking for ways to make my teaching more
effective, and I need your help. Please take a few moments and think of specific
things that really help you learn in this class or others you have taken. Your
comments will help me better structure my teaching in ways that support your
learning and success in this course.
Please remember this is not a test! Please be honest and as specific as
possible.

The most effective thing we have done in this class that helps my learning so far
is……

The least effective thing that we have done in class so far which keeps me from
learning is…….

One thing I wish you would change…………….

Three things that other teachers have done that really helped me learn were:

1.

2.

3.
162
Appendix F: Math Faculty Syllabi Workshop

MATH FACULTY
SYLLABI WORKSHOP

Prepared for Markham College by USC Center for Urban Education

Workshop Outline

I. The California Benchmarking Project at LASC
Inquiry Project within LASC Math Department
II. Introduction: Syllabi as a Means to Organize
Student-Centered Instruction

III. Getting to Know Your Students Exercise

IV. Reading YOUR Syllabus from a student’s
Perspective

V. Promote Student Success through Your Syllabus:
Designing a Math Syllabi Template

Workshop Learning Objectives:

• Become aware of what your syllabus communicates -- explicitly and implicitly -- to
your students.

• Understand how a syllabus can be used as a communication tool in your classroom
to promote student success.

• Conceptualize the role of faculty members as agents of change capable of making a
difference in students’ educational aspirations and achievement.

Workshop Outcomes:

• Develop syllabi templates that contain required information by LASC Academic
Senate as well as student-centered information such as learning goals and
expectations, your teaching philosophy and descriptions of the types of feedback and
classroom assessment opportunities that will be provided for students.

• Set departmental standards for syllabi development and dissemination.

163
Common Perceptions of a Syllabus

• First Impression / Introduction

• Road-map to a Course

• Contract between Instructor and Student

Student-Centered / Culturally Relevant Syllabus

• Communication of High Expectations for Student Success

• Incorporation of Rigorous Learning Activities

• Consideration of Students’ Academic Needs and Aspirations

• Provision of Multiple Resources for Academic Assistance

Reading Your Syllabus from a Student’s Perspective

Put yourself in the shoes of the student who wrote the petition that you were given. Think
about the fears, concerns, responsibilities, and prior schooling experiences that this student
arrives with when entering their next math course. Then, read through your syllabus as if
you were this student on the first day of class. While reading the syllabus, answer the
following questions from the standpoint of the student:

1. What is the tone of the syllabus? Is it welcoming? Encouraging? What issues of
classroom behavior are targeted?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

2. How are the goals and objectives of the course communicated? How does the instructor
plan for me to meet these goals? What skills will I gain and where can I use these skills (next
class it prepares me for, real-life experiences that it will aid me with such as doing my taxes,
credit card finances, etc.)?
164
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. What role(s) does the instructor describe that shows her/his commitment to my success?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

4. Is there a variety of learning activities and instructional techniques that will be utilized in
the class that spark my interest? Will I work with my peers or have the chance to do
collaborative work?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5. What do I do when I need don’t understand a lesson? Receive a failing grade? Miss class
or a test?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

6. How does the classroom learning activities link with supplemental instruction or other
resources on campus? Where can I find these resources?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Discussion Questions as a Group:
After reviewing your syllabus from the perspective of a student who has a history of failure
in math, reflect about your own practices, knowledge of how to connect and engage
students, and teaching philosophy. Discuss your responses to the following questions as a
group:

1. What would you like to communicate to students about your expectations for
student success on the first day of class?

2. What changes would you make to your syllabus to make it more student-centered?
What things would you keep?
165
Promoting Student Success Through Your Syllabus
Designing a Math Syllabi Template

In addition to the Syllabus Checklist requirements set by the Academic Senate, there are
additional ways in which a syllabus can communicate to students your commitment to and
encouragement of their success. Some suggestions are listed below:

TEACHING PHILOSOPHY
• Introduces you to your students and shows that you have been thoughtful about
your instructional work
• Walks students through your plan for accomplishing course goals
• Describes the learning community you want to create
• Emphasizes what you value about teaching and working with students

FRAMEWORK FOR LEARNING
• Outlines both what you will do to help students meet the course objectives as well as
what the student can do to meet the course objectives
• Incorporates a wide-range of learning activities (collaborative, computer-based, etc.)
• Discusses a model for study skills (note-taking, completing homework, etc.)
• Encourages students to develop a self-awareness of why the content of the class can
be beneficial for them to learn (what skills will they learn that can help them in the
course that comes directly after your course? what skills will they learn that will help
them take a college credit (transfer level) course? What skills will they learn that will
help them in their everyday life experiences?)
• Outlines how you will monitor and assess students’ progress

CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK
• Outlines the opportunities in which students can give input into your instructional
techniques and course content and explains your willingness to make changes based
on students’ input (see classroom assessment handouts)
• Describes the various ways you will provide feedback to students (tests, homework,
progress reports, monthly meetings, etc.)

LINKS TO SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION / TUTORIAL RESOURCES
• Explicitly explains how course content will link to supplemental instructional
resources (labs, Math Success Center “workshops”, etc.)
• Describes how students can get extra tutorial help and where to go
• Encourages visits to Math Success Center and describes the resources available to
students there

Resource: Grunert O’Brien, J. and Mills, B.J. and Cohen, M.W. (2008). The Course Syllabus: A Learning-Centered
Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study examined the self-assessment process of faculty and administrative team members from an urban community college who participated in a one and a half year long inquiry project aimed at addressing success outcomes for "minoritized" students. Through inquiry-based activities, participants examined institutional student data from students enrolled in basic skills courses and formed teams to address issues surrounding institutional performance in mathematics and developmental communications. A math department faculty participating in the project was the focus of the study because student success in math has been inequitably low on national, state, and local levels. Over the course of the project, participants were observed in various college settings and interviewed as a way to gauge what they were learning about their role to impact student success. Specifically through structured inquiry, participants acquired new knowledge to facilitate action steps in both the classroom and within the department to better support outcomes for students beginning in basic skills courses. The findings of this study suggest that there are different levels of readiness for a practitioner driven inquiry project in higher education - readiness for participation in a project, readiness to engage in the process of inquiry, and readiness to change both individual and institutional practices. Through the process of reflection, participants developed varying levels of problem solving knowledge, based on their readiness. While many were able to accurately assess the problem, some developed knowledge about resources to address the problem, and a select few learned how to take action on a student's behalf.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

PDF

Developing adaptive expertise among community college faculty through action inquiry as a form of assessment

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning

PDF

Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution

PDF

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

PDF

Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

PDF

The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The “lost boys” of higher education: African American males from basic skills through university transfer

PDF

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

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university

PDF

A multi-perspective examination of developmental education: student progression, institutional assessment and placement policies, and statewide regulations

PDF

Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions

PDF

Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes

PDF

Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university

PDF

Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Javier, Mary Grace (author)

Core Title Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/27/2009

Defense Date 04/20/2009

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

Tag inquiry-based,institutional agents,math faculty,OAI-PMH Harvest,reflection,reflective cycle

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Dowd, Alicia C. (committee chair), Bensimon, Estela M. (committee member), Watford, Tara (committee member)

Creator Email emjavier@hotmail.com,mgjavier@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2390

Unique identifier UC1297701

Identifier etd-Javier-3140 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-565428 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2390 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Javier-3140.pdf

Dmrecord 565428

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Javier, Mary Grace

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu