University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: a collaborative inquiry approach

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: a collaborative inquiry approach

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

EXPLORING FACULTY BELIEFS ABOUT REMEDIAL MATHEMATICS
STUDENTS: A COLLABORATIVE INQUIRY APPROACH

by

Leticia Tomas Bustillos

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

May 2007

Copyright 2007 Leticia Tomas Bustillos
DEDICATION

To my husband and daughter, who’s love sustains me and who’s dedication inspires me.
ii
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

“Will you own a business when you’re done?” My 25-year dedication to my
education has alternately pleased and baffled my family and friends. To explain what I
do and why I do it has not been easy, nor has it been easily understood. Yet amidst the
bewilderment, there has always been encouragement, support, love and pride. All freely
given to me by a close circle of family, friends and advisors. It is my honor to recognize
the contributions of this indispensable network in the completion of my dissertation.
To The James Irvine Foundation, whose generous fellowship enabled me to
pursue my doctoral studies on a full-time basis. Additionally, their support of the
Diversity Scorcard Project facilitated the creation of the Math Project. Without their
support this dissertation certainly would not have been possible.
To my advisor, Estela Mara Bensimon, who introduced me to a new field of study
and believed in my talents. To the members of my committee, Drs. Robert Rueda and
Gelya Frank, who challenged me with their difficult questions and honest critiques.
Combined, these pillars of the profession have given me a kind of guidance and support
that is without compare. I am truly grateful for their wisdom, and their confidence in me
as a scholar.
To my colleagues, who continuously amaze with their intelligence and their
dedication to the work they do. Together we’ve spent innumerable hours discussing,
analyzing, proofreading, complaining and crying on each other’s shoulders as we went
through this very difficult process. To them – Edlyn Vallejo Peña, Lan Hao, Karri
Holley, and Jaime Lester – I give my heartfelt thanks for their support and friendship.
iii
To my special friends, Edna Mata, Letty Ornelas, Tanya Vargas, and Alex Hart,
for their patient understanding when I didn’t always return phone calls or cancelled plans
for dinner and a movie. Despite my absence, they always made themselves available to
me for a laugh, for a cry, or for a long-delayed shopping expedition. Thank you.
To my family in the Center for Urban Education, who in the last four years
provided me with a place to call home. My sincere gratitude goes to Arlease Woods,
Frank Harris, Lindsey Malcom, Daniel Park, and Dafne Espinoza for sharing in my
journey and lending assistance when needed. Their enthusiasm and joy over the birth of
my daughter and their celebration of the first CUE baby underscored my good fortune in
having a second family such as this.
To my mentor, Dr. Lori White, who took me under her wing and gave me her
unconditional friendship and guidance. The path she has taken and the decisions she has
made throughout her professional career is a source of inspiration and strength, as she
represents a future I hope to one day attain. To have such a well-respected and admired
individual as my mentor is truly a blessing.
To Ray and Stella Bustillos, my in-laws, who always asked after my welfare first
and my studies second. They welcomed me into their family, shared their love and
kindness, and always let me know just how proud they are of my accomplishments. For
that I thank them.
To my parents, Gilberto and Bella Tomas, who did not have the luxury of a
formal education. My father completed the third grade while my mother was never
allowed to go to school. The values they grew up with in Mexico often conflicted with
iv
my more American upbringing, especially in regards to friends, outings, and boys. Yet
from them I learned the value of education, my love for books, and my desire to succeed.
My decision to go to college 3,000 miles away as an undergraduate was openly
embraced, despite the fact I was their youngest child and only daughter. This dissertation
would not have been possible without the many sacrifices and compromises they made
throughout much of my life.
Finally, to my husband John Ross and my daughter, Isabella Jolie. In the five
years it has taken me to complete this dissertation, the love and support of my husband
has been steadfast and strong. Too often he has listened to me think out loud, played
devil’s advocate, and watched me pace whenever I suffered from writer’s block. He
encouraged me to persevere when times grew exceedingly tough, joined me in my
procrastination dances and always found a way to make me laugh when I least wanted to.
Together we celebrated every triumph and found solutions to any setbacks. His belief in
me gave me the confidence to break down some of my own self-imposed boundaries.
The birth of our daughter, Isabella, during the dissertation phase only tightened our bond
and focused our goals. Isabella, whose smile gives me great joy, has led me to see the
world with a different lens. This new perspective impels me to work diligently and
efficiently so that I may enjoy the present and envision the future. It is they who inspire
me to excel and to whom I dedicate this manuscript.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Community Colleges and the Social Construction of Remedial Education 12
Purpose and Significance of the Study 16
The Study 21
Organization of the Dissertation 24
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 24
The Formation of Belief Systems 28
Framework for the Formation of Beliefs among Faculty Members 43
Influences Shaping Faculty Members’ Belief Systems 45
Summing up the Importance of Beliefs 71
CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 75
Evolution of the Math Project 78
Professional Development as Vehicle for Change 85
Action Research and Collaborative Inquiry: Impetus for Change 91
Bringing It All Together: The Math Project 108
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 111
Research Approach 112
Site and Participant Selection 119
Data Collection 125
Analysis of the Data 132
Ethical Concerns 138
Role of the Researcher 140
Tracing Change 145
vi
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA PRESENTATION 149
Stage 1: Pessimism and Resistance 150
Stage 2: Engagement and Buy-In 170
Stage 3: Discovery and Motivation 202
Stage 4: Delayed Action and Uncertain Ownership 232
Epilogue 262
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION 264
Review of the Problem 266
Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework 270
Discussion 273
Limitations to the Study 301
Implications for Practice 306
Implementing a Collaborative Inquiry Project 310
Concluding Reflections 314
REFERENCES 316
APPENDIX A 333
APPENDIX B 334
APPENDIX C 336
APPENDIX D 337
APPENDIX E 338
APPENDIX F 340
APPENDIX G 341

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Percent of postsecondary institutions that offer remedial courses: Fall 2000 13
Table 2: Percent of freshman enrolled in remedial courses: Fall 2000 14
Table 3: Three components of beliefs 29
Table 4: Summary table of definitions regarding beliefs 30
Table 5: Typology of beliefs 33
Table 6: Key components shaping the belief systems of faculty members 41
Table 7: Synthesis of the mission of the present day community college 48
Table 8: Features of effective professional development 90
Table 9: Components of action research 94
Table 10: Features of collaborative inquiry 102
Table 11: Faculty members involved in CCC’s Math Project 122
Table 12: Data collection methods used 126
Table 13: Timeline of Math Project activities and events 333

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Undergraduate mathematics degrees granted by race and ethnicity, 2004 6
Figure 2: Influences shaping community college faculty members’ belief systems 44
Figure 3: Relationship between beliefs and the impact on practice 66
Figure 4: Enrollment by race and ethnicity at CCC, Fall 2004 79
Figure 5: Diversity Scorecard framework 81
Figure 6: Action research cycle 96
Figure 7: Enrollment in college math vs. remedial math spring 2005 120

ix
ABSTRACT
The learning and understanding of mathematics is widely acknowledged to be a
critical component for economic and civic life (Oakes, 1990a). Yet, 35 percent of
students, many of whom are African American and Latino, enroll and do not attain
success in remedial mathematics courses at the community colleges (NCES, 2004).
While many reforms aim to remediate presumed or identified deficiencies among
students, rarely is the critical role faculty members’ play examined within the complex
web of underachievement among minority students enrolled in remedial mathematics
courses.
The Math Project is a unique, collaborative effort between community college
faculty members and higher education researchers from the Center for Urban Education
(CUE) at the University of Southern California begun in May 2004. The project brought
together community college mathematics faculty members and university researchers in a
professional community of collaborative inquiry that was based on a shared goal of
improving educational outcomes for African American and Latino students enrolled in
remedial mathematics courses. The goal of the project was to engage faculty members in
reflective dialogue to aid them in developing a more conscious awareness of how their
individually held beliefs influence and impact the educational outcomes of this specific
population of students. Most importantly, CUE researchers sought to influence change
within the belief systems of faculty members and the manner in which they understand
student underachievement.
x
Qualitative methods were used to understand the impact of the Math Project in
influencing the beliefs of community college math faculty members. The design of the
study included participant observation, analysis of institutional data, individual
interviews and a focus group with faculty members, and transcript data from the projects
meetings over a nearly two-year interval. Results of this study reveal the myriad forces
that shape beliefs, including historical, departmental, institutional, and societal contexts
and the inherent difficulty in changing those beliefs without direct intervention. The
findings from this study reveal additional elements rarely explored in our understanding
of beliefs, mathematics instruction, and the educational outcomes of students enrolled in
remedial mathematics courses.

xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
A meeting is taking place in Johnson Hall 205. In this dilapidated classroom
the walls are painted an institutional shade of green, evidence of graffiti line the
walls, chalk is missing from the blackboards, and not all of the fluorescent lights are
working properly. An assortment of desks has been pushed together to form a U-
shape facing the west side of the classroom where a projection of a Microsoft Excel
chart is telling a story. The story is a recounting of the shrinking numbers of
students, particularly African American and Latino, who successfully transition from
remedial mathematics into transfer-eligible mathematics courses at California
Community College (CCC)
1
. As the story unfolds, faculty members are made aware
of the following:
• Out of 74 African American students enrolled at CCC, 63 African Americans
are enrolled in remedial math courses while only 11 qualify
2
for college level
math.
• Out of 254 Latino students who begin remedial math courses, only 59
students progressed to college level math and passed their courses with a C or
better (Seymour, Love, Tillberg, Bensimon, Soto & Hao, 2002).
Sitting on mismatched wooden chairs, the mathematics faculty members take in this
information, some with shock and dismay while others have expressions on their
faces that convey the message, “I already knew this.” This group of individuals has
come together on this early summer day to decide if they will participate in a

1
A pseudonym has been used to protect the identity of the institution in this research study.
2
Data based on CCC math placement results.
1
collaborative inquiry
3
project that will help them to investigate the reasons
contributing to the making of the above story. Most importantly, they must decide if
their participation in such a project will yield new understandings into why their
students are not achieving in remedial mathematics courses and what they can do to
further prevent the decline.
As they discuss the merits of embarking on this project, the faculty members
express their opinions as to why the students identified above are not achieving.
“Students don’t know how to learn,” indicates one faculty member. Another
suggests, “Many of the community college students have family to take care of and
they have jobs to work. They have no time to study.” Another puts forward the
opinion that the use of computers in the classroom may impede the progress of
minority students when he says, “These are the students who don’t know how to use
computers…I have students who are worried about how to turn on the computer,
rather than the math.” Yet another faculty member proposes, “Students are not
trained to develop good work and study habits, punctuality, and consistency.”
Other suppositions are made, ranging from a lack of resources in the
community colleges to poor K-12 preparation, to explain away the underachievement
of African Americans and Latino students. Because the issues raised are external to
their immediate purview, the faculty members are skeptical as to the relative import
and impact of a collaborative inquiry project on student achievement. “The number
one issue has to do with students. How do we, the teachers, have any impact…?”

3
“Collaborative inquiry” is a process of faculty development, which promotes the notion that learning
is not an individual activity but rather takes place and is negotiated in a social, contextualized setting.

2
questions one professor. A student, who is one of two students who happens to be
present at this meeting, challenges the faculty members to rethink their mental
frames when she questions, “What would you do to close the [achievement] gap in
your class?”
I begin with this vignette to emphasize an oft-ignored inclination in higher
education. Students who succeed in postsecondary education are credited to possess
specific skills and characteristics, which may result from (but are not limited to)
access to a college preparatory curriculum in high school (Oakes, 1990a; 1990b), a
high degree of cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986), and parents who hold
college degrees (Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, G.C., & Terenzini, P.T.,
2004). Conversely, students who are not equally successful are attributed to having
an absence of these desirable skills and characteristics (Bauman, G.L., Bustillos,
L.T., Bensimon, E.M., Brown III, M.C., & Bartee, R.D., 2005). Higher education’s
characterization of students is buoyed by research studies that overemphasize the
presence or absence of these external factors as the underlying causes for inequitable
educational outcomes, particularly amongst African American and Latino students
(Tinto, 1987; Adelman, 1999; Braxton, 2000).
When solutions are therefore sought to remedy inequities in educational
outcomes, the presumed deficiencies of students are typically at the forefront of these
explorations (Barajas, 2001) as institutions of higher education ask, “What can we do
to bring about change within students to make them more successful?” Seldom will
one hear or read about institutions of higher education turning the question unto
3
themselves by asking, “What can we or should we change about ourselves to bring
about equitable educational outcomes for students?” The possibility that the
institution itself is responsible for unequal educational outcomes either as a result of
its implemented policies, structures or procedures or as a result of the attitudes,
practices and beliefs of its attendant representatives is rarely, if ever, considered
(Peña, Colyar & Bensimon, 2006).
This tendency by institutions of higher education to rectify poor educational
outcomes by looking for and redressing student deficiencies limits the collective
ability and power of faculty members and other institutional actors to induce
institutional change for improved and equitable educational outcomes for African
American and Latino students (Richardson & Skinner, 1991; Tierney & Dilley,
2002). Hence, it is not surprising to hear mathematics faculty members in the
opening vignette doubt their personal impact in preventing the further plummeting of
transfer-eligible students and the value of a collaborative inquiry project. The intent
of this dissertation, therefore, is to detail the extent to which a collaborative inquiry
project challenges the above beliefs held by mathematics faculty members in an
urban community college in regards to African American and Latino students in
remedial mathematics courses.
In collaborative inquiry, institutional factors, such as the beliefs of
mathematics faculty members are at the heart of a collaborative dialogue that seeks
to understand why inequities persist among minority students in remedial
mathematics courses. The beliefs held by mathematics faculty members at CCC
4
attribute poor educational outcomes on presumed student deficiencies (i.e.,
inadequate academic preparation, poor study habits); the solutions devised by faculty
to redress these problems are then centered on correcting these deficiencies (i.e.,
studying harder, going to tutoring, lack of resources). As a result, the beliefs held by
faculty members bear significantly on the educational outcomes of minority students
enrolled in remedial mathematics as they influence either explicitly or implicitly the
manner in which change is sought, instruction is delivered, and how success is
defined. So long as mathematics faculty members continue to believe that students
are the source of both the problem and the solution, they are unlikely to consider
how they themselves may be contributing to the poor educational outcomes of these
students. Without such a consideration, faculty members will neither change their
beliefs about students, nor will they see themselves as agents capable of changing the
educational outcomes of minority students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses.
The collaborative inquiry project engages faculty members in a
contextualized group process that allows them to reflect on the nature of the problem
– the low achievement of minority students enrolled in remedial mathematics. This
process encourages faculty members to share their “hunches” with their colleagues,
talk about the problem in relation to themselves, and share what they know and do
not know about their students. The project, therefore, provides the space and a
structured opportunity for faculty members to rethink their assumptions about
students so as to better understand how their personal and collective beliefs influence
the success or failure of students.
5
Statement of the Problem
Mathematical competency is a precursor to access and success in college and
beyond. Without a solid mathematical foundation, individuals will not only be
prevented from attaining a baccalaureate degree, but will fail to secure employment
within a knowledge economy increasingly dominated by highly technical jobs.
According to the United States Department of Labor (2006), three-fourths of the jobs
created between now and 2014 will be in computer and mathematical occupations.
However, access to and success in mathematics either in high school or college has
proven to be elusive for African Americans and Latinos (Perie, Grigg, & Dion,
2005).
In 2004, approximately 13,755 students received undergraduate degrees in
mathematics across the United States. Figure 1 below demonstrates the breakdown
of degrees awarded in mathematics by race and ethnicity.
Figure 1: Undergraduate mathematics degrees granted by race and ethnicity, 2004

Am Indian, 0.43%
Asian, 9.04%
Black, 5.70%
Hispanic, 4.91%
Other, 4.88%
Temp Res, 4.96%
White, 70.08%

Source: National Science Foundation (NSF), 2007
6
Of those degrees, 70 percent were awarded to White students, six percent to African
Americans, and five percent to Latinos. In graduate school, these low percentages
continue, as less than five percent of both African Americans and Latinos received
Master’s degrees in mathematics in 2004 (NSF, 2007).
Understanding the reasons for this lag in educational outcomes among
African American and Latino students has proven to be difficult (Oakes, 1990a).
Yet, throughout the literature there is a persistent research orientation that looks at
inequitable educational outcomes as a result of student deficits (Tierney & Dilley,
2002). In fact, as can be seen by the opening vignette, mathematics faculty members
at CCC ascribe low mathematical performance and outcomes of minority students to
variables outside their control. As such, it is not surprising that solutions devised by
postsecondary faculty members are concentrated on “fixing” what is wrong with the
student who is not succeeding in mathematics. Stanic (1989) notes,
…the typical and seemingly starting point for identifying ways to improve
[student] performance has been what these students do not know and cannot
do; that is, the experience of these students, rather, than school mathematics,
is viewed as the source of the problem (p. 63).

Such an attribution, however, diminishes faculty members’ capacity to improve and
have an effect on student achievement.
The student deficit perspective
A plethora of research exists that documents the relationship between
motivation (Willig, Harnisch, Hill, & Maehr, 1983), beliefs (Garofalo, 1989;
McLeod, 1992; Schoenfeld, 1989) and other attitudinal factors such as persistence,
determination and a desire to succeed (Griffen, 1990; Gross, 1993; Reyes & Stanic,
7
1988) and mathematical underachievement. Other studies point to an implicit
relationship between language (Orr, 1987), culture and group membership with
minority underachievement in mathematics (Secada, 1992). The adherence to peer
norms concerning academic achievement (Fullilove & Treisman, 1990) has likewise
been shown by research to promote the deliberate underachievement by minority
students within the mathematics context. Still other research suggests that the
variation in mathematical achievement among minority student groups (i.e.,
differences between Asians and African Americans and Latinos) can be connected to
the use of out-of-school time and study habits (Stevenson, 1992; Walberg, 1984).
Although there are studies that point to the effect of institutional policies
(Moses, 1994; Oakes, 1985, 1990a, 1990b), the lack of culturally appropriate
pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), and classroom environment (Fraser, Walberg,
Welch, & Hattie, 1987) as evidence of “deep structural injustices in how the
American schooling system distributes opportunities to learn mathematics” (Secada,
1992), many of these studies are restricted to the context of K-12 education. The
literature’s overemphasis on students’ academic, social, and cultural deficits in
addition to the extensive focus on K-12 educational environments minimizes the
important role postsecondary institutions and mathematics faculty members play
within the complex web of mathematical underachievement of African American
and Latino students.
Further missing from the discourse is a fundamental understanding of the role
faculty members’ beliefs play within mathematics classroom in general and remedial
8
mathematics environments specifically. The possibility that faculty members’
beliefs, attitudes, and practices may lead to unequal educational outcomes or prevent
them is hardly ever considered (Rousseau & Tate, 2003). This is especially true
given that mathematics is viewed as being culture and context free (Ladson-Billings,
1997; Stanic, 1989), as the tasks assigned while learning the discipline are the same
for all students. I would argue, however, that mathematics faculty members are
socialized by their experiences as students and graduate students to interpret the
construction of mathematical knowledge in specific ways (Cooney, Shealy, &
Arvold, 1998). Moreover, the professional experiences and the students that faculty
members encounter within their everyday practice further cement their beliefs. As
such, faculty members’ beliefs about mathematics are situative (Fennema & Franke,
1992) in that they emerge from experiences that are grounded in biographical,
historical and cultural contexts.
The meanings that ensue from these experiences largely determine how
mathematics is constructed by faculty members (Stanic, 1989): how mathematics
should be learned, how instruction will be delivered, and how students will be
categorized according to predetermined assumptions. Students who succeed within
the established parameters of the classroom environment reaffirm and justify the
actions taken by the professor (Fennema & Franke, 1992). Students’ failure to prove
competency within the established parameters, in contrast, are largely attributed to
external factors and outside the control of the instructor. As a result, the parameters
established by faculty members’ beliefs of the discipline (and of the students) serve
9
as either gatekeeper or gateway to the future opportunities of minority students
within remedial mathematics courses.
Data show that African American and Latino students populate remedial
mathematics courses in the community colleges at higher percentages than their
Asian and white peers (NCES, 2004). The high placement of African American and
Latino students in these courses with no appreciable decrease, combined with
faculty’s socially constructed knowledge of mathematics (Stanic, 1989) and remedial
education (Astin, 2000), subject students to a double disadvantage. The
preponderance of African American and Latino students in remedial mathematics
courses may lead faculty to unconsciously deduce that the inferior mathematical
abilities of students are a result of membership in particular ethnic groups (Anderson,
1990). Just as President Sumner of Harvard University speculated, or rather
attributed, the low percentages of women within the scientific pipeline to their
genetic makeup (Bombardieri, 2005), so too may faculty members ascribe
mathematical deficits to students simply as a result of their racial makeup. The
consequence of this is the separation of remedial education from contextual factors
influencing below-capacity performance with the end result being that race becomes
a proxy for remediation.
The convergence of all these factors hinder faculty from fully appreciating
the circumstances affecting students in the remedial mathematics classroom. African
American and Latino students must contend with the implicit, deficit beliefs held by
mathematics faculty members – a confluence of socially constructed beliefs in
10
regards to the discipline of mathematics, remedial education and the intellectual
capacity of minority students. As Barajas (2001) notes, “In developmental
education, specifically, we continue to utilize deficit and individualistic models and
definitions of developmental education masking other kinds of relationships in the
educational organization that affect taken-for-granted assessments of student skill
and student need” (p. 73).
Faculty members see students’ failure to learn in accordance to instructor
precepts and failure to achieve within the established parameters of the remedial
mathematics classroom as either a result of external factors or innate ability
(Rousseau & Tate, 2003). For example, in a study of seven low-track high school
mathematics teachers, Rousseau and Tate documented teachers attributing low
mathematical performance to socioeconomic status. By doing so, “the school and
the structures of schooling [were] left unquestioned as contributing to student
failure” (p. 213). Similarly at the tertiary level, faculty’s unconscious self-removal
from the equation of student underperformance in remedial mathematics de-
emphasizes their capacity to impact learning outcomes and places the burden of
responsibility for academic achievement squarely on the shoulders of students. This
incapacitates faculty from ceasing their deficit discourse and engaging in a discourse
of action that will ensure not only equal opportunities for African American and
Latino students but equal outcomes in mathematical achievement as well.

11
Community Colleges and the Social Construction of Remedial Education
Community colleges have the dual distinction of being the gateway into
higher education (Perin, 2002) as well as being the mainstay of second chances
(Grubb & Associates, 1999). As open access institutions, comprehensive community
colleges provide educational opportunities to a wide spectrum of students (Cohen &
Brawer, 2003). According to Roueche and Roueche (1999), the open door policy
was “established on the belief that education is necessary for the improvement of
society and helps equalize opportunity for all people” (p. 9). Accordingly, students
who attend the community colleges may be traditional students seeking to complete
general education courses prior to transfer into four-year institutions, while others
may be adult learners returning to school to update job-related skills (Schulock &
Moore, 2007).
A critical segment of the community college population are those students
who enroll without having the proper educational foundation for college level
coursework as a result of inadequate K-12 preparation (Woodlief, Thomas &
Orozco, 2003). For this population of students “whose motivation and performance
were inadequate to gain them admission to four-year colleges” (Grubb & Associates,
1999, p. 3), the two-year college allows them to repeat coursework that will facilitate
their transition and integration into higher education and beyond (Soliday, 2002).
Offering remedial coursework therefore seems to be a natural extension of the
mission of the community colleges. In fact, as Roeuche & Roeuche (1999) explain,
“community colleges are obligated on principle and funded by law to match the
12
abilities of underprepared students in their curriculum and instruction, and to give
those students true access to higher education” (p. 8). Nonetheless, there appears to
be a disconnect between the mission of the community colleges, the democratic
premise of the “open door,” and faculty members’ expectations of community
college students.
Remedial education is comprised of precollegiate coursework that is offered
at postsecondary institutions (ECS, 2004). The presence of remedial education has
been a constant on postsecondary campuses since 1849 and has increased since the
open-door policies were initiated in the 1960’s (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; McGrath &
Spear, 1991; Traub, 1995). Progressively large numbers of postsecondary students
entering college for the first time find themselves placed in remedial courses for not
having mastered the requisite skills needed to succeed in college-level math
(Merisotis & Phipps, 2000). According to the National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES, 2004), approximately 71 percent of the nation’s postsecondary
institutions offered remedial mathematics in 2000 (see Table 1).
Table 1: Percent of postsecondary institutions that offer remedial courses: Fall 2000
Percent of institutions that offered remedial courses in:
Year and institutional type
Reading, writing
or mathematics Reading Writing Mathematics
2000
All institutions 76 56 68 71

Public 2-year 98 96 96 97
Private 2-year 63 37 56 62
Public 4-year 80 49 67 78
Private 4-year 59 30 46 49

Source: NCES, 2004

The greatest concentration of remedial coursework, however, is found in the public
two-year colleges of which 97 percent of institutions offered remedial coursework in
13
mathematics. Approximately 10 million students are presently served by the
community colleges – more than 40 percent of which enrolled in remedial courses
across the disciplines (see Table 2). Thirty-five percent of these students are
enrolled in remedial mathematics courses in public 2-year colleges.
Table 2: Percent of freshman enrolled in remedial courses: Fall 2000
Percent of students enrolled in remedial courses in:

Year and institutional type
Reading, writing
or mathematics Reading Writing Mathematics
2000
All institutions 28 11 14 22

Public 2-year 42 20 23 35
Private 2-year 24 9 17 18
Public 4-year 20 6 9 16
Private 4-year 12 5 7 8

Source: NCES (2004)

In an age of fiscal uncertainty and greater accountability, innumerable
questions have arisen surrounding the effectiveness of the community colleges
(Lanaan, 2001) and their remedial efforts (Roueche & Roueche, 1993). Public
perception holds that remedial education is not an effective means to transition
disadvantaged students into the four-year institutions (Shaw, 1997). Educational
critics contend that remedial education is not a legitimate enterprise within
postsecondary institutions (Gallego, 1995). For that reason, critics declare,
dwindling state funds should be earmarked towards more college-eligible students
(“Remedial Education: The High Cost,” 1995) who are more apt to succeed in a
postsecondary milieu. Even more damaging is the notion that remedial education, or
rather the presence of high concentrations of at-risk students, places community
colleges at risk themselves, as “their very presence would damage a college’s
reputation for providing quality education” (Roueche & Roueche, 1999, p. 11).
14
Although research demonstrates the relative import of remedial courses to
poor and minority students (Lavin & Hyllegard, 1996), research likewise suggests
that the negative construction of remedial education has permeated the community
college environment. Community college faculty members bemoan the lack of
preparation of incoming students and resent having to teach remedial courses.
According to Grubb and Associates (1999), faculty members perceive remedial
education as a low status activity in which students are not “college material” and
whose course content is uninspiring and derived from a high school curriculum.
Perin (2002) similarly suggests that academic discipline instructors construe the
teaching of remedial education courses as a punishment rather than as a reward.
Astin (1998) indicates that faculty members “value being smart much more
than…developing smartness” (p. 12); thus the teaching of less able students may lead
others in their ranks to view them as being less competent. Subsequently, as Astin
notes, full-time faculty members elect not to teach in remedial courses and instead
departments bring in part-time or adjunct faculty to teach what is arguably the
population most in need of assistance. The shunning of students enrolled in remedial
education courses sends out a powerful message to students, faculty members, newly
hired part-time faculty and the community at large—this population is not valued
and is unwanted. Astin concludes it is “no wonder [then, that] teaching
underprepared students is viewed as unglamorous, unimportant, and – in many
institutions – demeaning” (p. 131).

15
Purpose and Significance of the Study
Acquiring a solid mathematical foundation is of vital importance for the
upward mobility of African Americans and Latino students. Reform efforts within
the last decade have been concentrated on improving the instruction and delivery of
mathematics, such that students “engage in the processes of mathematical thinking,
that is, to do what mathematicians and other professional users of mathematics do”
(Ladson-Billings, 1997, p. 697). Yet, as previously noted, mathematical
achievement continues to elude large segments of the African American and Latino
populations (Secada, 1992) as many of them begin their postsecondary careers
enrolled in remedial mathematics courses. Although studies have sought to
understand the reasons for these inequities, there has been an absence of research
that focuses on the discipline itself, the institutional structures that govern the
discipline of mathematics, and the beliefs of faculty members charged with the
delivery of instruction. Why is this the case?
In many respects, the discipline of mathematics occupies a privileged
position in society whose assumptions about teaching, learning, success and failure
are rarely questioned by the general public (Stanic, 1999). Mathematics operates
under a hierarchical structure of knowledge, where only a select few individuals will
demonstrate the aptitude and capacity to become competent learners of mathematics.
Such notions are so commonplace within American mathematical culture that there
is a de facto acceptance of mathematical illiteracy (Moses, 2001). Unlike reading
where public service announcements calling for the eradication of illiteracy appear
16
periodically during television programming, an apparent lack of mathematical
literacy is openly proclaimed and consciously mocked by individuals, albeit in a
playful and teasing manner. Ladson-Billings (1997) clearly summarizes the
mathematical culture prevalent in the United States when she articulates,
Mathematics functions as a feared and revered subject in our culture. We
fear it because we believe that it is too hard, and we revere it because we
believe that it signals advanced thinking reserved only for the intelligentsia.
Ours is a nation where no one would readily admit to being unable to read,
but many proclaim with pride their inability to balance their checkbooks or
compute the amount of interest on a loan (p. 698).

In the United States, mathematical fitness is believed to be more a result of one’s
genetic inheritance (Ladson-Billings, 1997) rather than access to equity-minded
faculty members and high quality resources. It is within this cultural framework that
mathematics faculty members are reared and provides the justification for their
beliefs and actions in regards to students in remedial courses (Mezirow, 2000).
If equity of opportunity and equity in outcomes for African American and
Latino students are to be achieved within the remedial mathematics classroom, the
beliefs of faculty members must be unpacked and understood. Critical theorists
suggest that the selective tradition (Apple, 1979; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977;
Giroux, 1983) of mathematics privileges certain group members at the expense of
others. Yet, because the view of mathematics is predicated on a “commonsense view
of the world” (Stanic, 1999, p. 66), the privileging of certain groups is taken for
granted. Secada (1999) thus advises that if we are to reduce the number of African
American and Latino students from falling out of the mathematical pipeline, “we
need to be open to the possibility that many of our assumptions about mathematics
17
education and about who that education is for are founded upon the past” (p. 48).
When these taken-for-granted assumptions are combined with faculty members’
socially constructed views of remedial mathematics education and minority students,
the notion of capacity building amongst community college mathematics faculty
members to improve achievement becomes acutely compromised.
This dissertation addresses the question: Can the beliefs of community
college mathematics faculty members’ be reconceptualized through collaborative
inquiry such that they can effect change within the remedial mathematics classroom?
More importantly, can faculty members move from a position of deficit thinking –
attributing the problem of inequitable outcomes to student deficiencies and external
factors – to a more self-critical position that addresses inequities from within? In
this dissertation, I sought to answer the following research questions:
• In what ways does a faculty member’s involvement in a collaborative inquiry
project influences and brings changes to their beliefs about students in
remedial mathematics courses and their role as remedial mathematics
professors?
Specifically, the research aims to deconstruct:
• How biographical, historical and cultural influences shape faculty’s
conceptions about mathematics, remedial education and minority students;
• How faculty members’ construction of mathematics, remedial education and
minority students influence the manner in which they perceive their roles as
instructors of remedial mathematics and their capacity to effect change.
18
Before proceeding, I wish to make clear that personally held belief systems
are not the only, nor are they the most critical variable to contribute to poor
educational outcomes among underrepresented students. To make such a claim
would disregard what is known about educational context, academic preparation, and
the socializing effects of schooling. However, what I am proposing in this
dissertation is that beliefs are an accumulation of facts, experiences, and observations
that occur over time through one’s exposure to context, socialization, and interaction
with one’s peers or students. Thus, all of these factors are subsumed within the
overarching framework of individual belief systems. The belief systems that form
impact how a faculty member perceives and interacts with students within the
remedial mathematics classroom. Yet, the deficit orientation of the literature –
focusing solely on student deficits – ignores this critical segment of the educational
community and the extent to which their beliefs bear on the educational outcomes of
students.
The knowledge gained from this study is significant for a number of reasons.
First, the data presented above clearly show that the current policies and practices in
remedial mathematics education in community colleges are not promoting greater
achievement amongst African American and Latino students. Yet, faculty members’
ascription of external factors to explain the underachievement limits the extent to
which institutions and their representatives believe that they can induce greater
outcomes from within. By problematizing beliefs, faculty members will be able to
articulate their personal experiences and develop a conscious awareness of their
19
assumptions, practices and actions on student achievement. Thus the frame of
reference for understanding the underperformance of minority students in remedial
mathematics courses is no longer the student, but rather the institutions and its
representatives.
Second, a bridge is provided to connect the discipline of mathematics with
remedial education within the community colleges. As noted by the literature, much
of what we know of mathematics and underachievement is restricted to K-12
contexts. The privileged position of mathematics in conjunction with the low-status
positioning of remedial education suggest contrasting ideologies that can have
detrimental effects on students, especially students from underrepresented groups.
Through an understanding of how faculty are socialized by the discipline and the
constructs they develop in situ enabled me to develop a greater awareness of what it
means to be a remedial mathematics instructor within the community colleges.
Third, questions of race and ability are brought into the discussion of
mathematical underachievement of African American and Latino students. The
notion that mathematical knowledge acquisition is reserved for a select few erases
from public consciousness inequities that persist in mathematics. Specifically, the
disproportionate numbers of African American and Latino students who populate
remedial mathematics courses has the effect of influencing the belief and expectation
that inferior mathematical capacity is equated with race.
Finally, this research is significant because the use of collaborative inquiry
(1) sheds light on the explicit and implicit beliefs of mathematics faculty in regards
20
to the discipline of math, remedial education, minority students, and (2)
reconceptualizes those conceptions. Guiding the collaborative inquiry is the theory
that change in the practices of individuals can be brought about by a frank
examination of belief structures and individual action. The inquiry project is
premised on the notion that learning and change is socially constructed and
facilitated by faculty members’ engagement in a collaborative activity (Bensimon,
Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004).
The Study
A collaborative inquiry project – otherwise known as the Math Project – was
formed to provide faculty members with a structured opportunity in which to
examine, digest and discuss the myriad reasons for the persistent underachievement
of African American and Latino students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses.
Formed in collaboration with researchers from the Center for Urban Education
(CUE) at the University of Southern California and mathematics faculty members at
California Community College, the goals of the math project were twofold. From
the perspective of the faculty members, the purpose of the project was to develop a
better understanding of student underachievement and the development of
interventions that would ameliorate the educational outcomes of minority students
enrolled in remedial mathematics courses.
From the perspective of the researcher, the goal of the project was to draw
out the beliefs held by faculty members in regards to this population of students.
This would facilitate a more conscious awareness of the degree to which these
21
beliefs influence and impact the educational outcomes of minority students. These
belief systems, which I believe ultimately guide individual actions are tacitly held,
such that faculty members are unaware of their existence within their educational
pedagogy. Pepin (1999) says,
[M]any of the conditions that exert influence on human thought and practice
within classrooms are neither visible nor readily identifiable. Rather, these
forces are the unseen, sometimes ‘unperceived,’ and often unvoiced
principles, philosophies and beliefs that unwittingly penetrate the educational
enterprise…Thus there exists a complex relationship of forces with many
sources of influence at work. One of the quiet but powerful frameworks is
the epistemological beliefs and conceptions that teachers (and students) hold.
(p. 128)

The overarching goal of the project was to influence change – change in the way
faculty members address the issues of inequities and change in the way interventions
are conceived such that they are not solely based on student deficits but account for
institutional and personal practices.
Raising awareness, therefore, is the raison d’etre of the Math Project.
Through collaborative inquiry, faculty members are engaged in a process of deep
reflection in which they are asked to “look inward at their individual practice and
outward at the institutional, cultural and political contexts in which their practice is
situated” (Rousseau & Tate, 2003, p. 211) so as to develop a more complete picture
of inequities on their college campus. Most importantly, faculty members are
engaged in candid discussions about subjects that are uncomfortable. They are asked
to reflect on the condition of equity on their campus and to share aloud what they
believe are the factors contributing to the preponderance of underrepresented
students in remedial mathematics courses and their lack of achievement. Moreover,
22
they are asked to state their assumptions about students and illustrate how they came
about those assumptions.
In order to accomplish this, faculty members participated in activities
4
, which
provided them with numerous opportunities for reflection, a critical component to
initiating learning and self-change. Throughout the course of these exercises and
continuous dialogue, the beliefs faculty members hold subtly emerged and were
made visible. While the faculty members may not have explicitly said, “I believe
that…” (Rokeach, 1972, p. 113) the expressions they used and the illustrations they
provided enabled me to better understand what motivates faculty to say what they
say and do what they do. Most importantly, I was able to see how this collaborative
inquiry project promoted awareness and fostered change among faculty members
teaching within the context of remedial mathematics.
Most importantly, the Math Project provided faculty members with the space
in which to dialogue, on a continuous basis, with their peers concerning their fears,
their assumptions, their practices, and their ideas for inducing change. This notion of
“structured space” was of vital importance to the success of the project as faculty
members have very little opportunity to discuss these issues in the typical forums
provided, namely the department meeting. The project brought faculty members
together in collegial dialogue and debate on a regular basis to discuss nothing else
but the poor educational outcomes of remedial mathematics students.

4
Activities were provided to engage faculty members as researchers wherein they assumed
responsibility for identifying the problem, collecting data to understand the problem, and finally
putting together a report that outlines their findings (see Appendix A).

23
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into six chapters. The first chapter describes
the problem to be addressed. Chapter two provides a review of the literature in
regards to the social context of the community college, how belief systems are
formed, and the varying influences impacting the belief systems of community
college mathematics faculty members. Chapter three articulates the conceptual
framework of the study and chapter four describes the methods used to collect and
analyze the data. In chapter five I present the results of the study utilizing a narrative
format reminiscent of ethnographic fiction (see Chapter Four). Chapter six
concludes this dissertation with a discussion of the results and recommendations for
future research.
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The tension is palpable in Johnson Hall 205. One student has just suggested
to the roomful of math faculty members that instructors “have certain expectations
for certain groups.” As a result, she implies, some groups of students will attain
certain success while others will succumb to failure. A great deal of murmuring,
shuffling of papers, and heated looks follow this statement. One professor, clearly
upset by the student’s remark, emphatically declares, “I am speaking for
myself…when I teach, I don’t care about ethnicity, race, gender, etc. I teach to
everyone in the same way and I am not biased toward anyone.” Other professors
begin to speak, some appalled by what the student has just stated, while others are a
bit more pensive, carefully weighing the implications of the student’s words. “We
24
can’t discount what she said…we should not discount the student’s experience
because to her it is real even if we don’t agree,” so states the chair of the math
department, a West Point graduate with a military carriage and stern demeanor.
Throughout the meeting he has sat quietly by, taking copious notes and only
contributing on occasion. It is difficult to assess what he is thinking or feeling, yet
his pronouncement seems to have quiet the discord and engage all those present in
further reflection.
Encouraged, the student continues to express her observations, saying,
“Many times, the messages are unspoken…they’re almost automatic. It is the
unconscious gesture to certain groups of students. They are so common, so often
that they are automatic reactions.” Perhaps it is the students’ articulate cadence and
professional demeanor or perhaps it is the color of her skin (she is African
American) that draws the faculty members’ attention. Whatever it is, there is a
stillness in the room as one faculty member responds to her remarks. He says, “The
thing is, people don’t say it blatantly, but they still discriminate.” However, not all
faculty members’ are in agreement. An older, white, female faculty member is
visibly upset by what has just transpired. Decrying the direction the conversation
has taken, she asserts, “It seems to me that we are just trying to blame everything on
the instructor…I think students have a great responsibility too…I have a student that
I told him repeatedly, ‘see me, see me,’ but that student never contacted me. In cases
like this, how can you blame the instructor?”
25
This is the point of contention. Can, or should the burden of responsibility be
placed on the shoulders of instructors for the success or failure of students enrolled
in remedial mathematics courses? Equally important, can and should the notion of
race be accounted for as well, given the statistics that show a predominance of
underrepresented students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses? On the one
hand, some professors in the vignette acknowledge the relative merit of the student’s
observations, recognizing her interpretation of events. On the other hand, certain
faculty members take a more defensive posture, defending themselves and their
practices, ultimately removing themselves from the equation of poor performance by
implicating the students and their behaviors.
What the vignette makes transparent is the failure of the faculty members to
recognize the critical role they play as integral members of the remedial mathematics
classroom. Insofar as the student is responsible for his or her success (through study,
homework completion, etc.), the professor is likewise responsible for delivering
instruction that addresses all cognitive abilities and lending assistance to all students
(through differentiated instruction, answering questions in a non-threatening or non-
condescending way, etc.). Attempting to understand why inequities persist in
remedial mathematics classrooms without acknowledging or failing to account for
the beliefs, behaviors and actions of the professor will garner data that are unreliable.
Everyday, faculty members assume a critical role within the classroom – they are the
facilitators of knowledge. They “have the potential to impact, positively or
negatively, the educational outcomes of minority student groups” (Peña et al., 2006,
26
p. 50). Yet a lack of awareness of how individual belief systems (mediated through
action) impact student success limits the extent to which change can occur so as to
diminish continued inequities.
I wish to make clear, however, that the purpose of this dissertation is not to
blame instructors as implied by the female faculty member in the vignette. Rather,
the intent is to understand how faculty members’ experience the Math Project and
the degree to which change (in their beliefs about students, in their instructional
practices, in their capacity to induce change system-wide) has occurred as a result of
their involvement. By attaining a thorough awareness of faculty members’ beliefs as
a primary source of background information, I am able to see the extent to which the
Math Project, designed with the intent to raise awareness and yield change among
faculty members, has been effective in achieving its goals.
In this chapter, I will review the literature on beliefs by describing how
beliefs are formed, how they are held, and how they may or may not be subject to
change over time. I will follow this with a review of the literature on mathematics to
describe how beliefs emerge from this academic discipline. I will continue with an
illustration of the community college context and the numerous sources of influence
shaping faculty members’ belief systems. I will conclude this chapter by describing
how the formation of beliefs that emerges from the discipline of mathematics and
other contextual factors may lead faculty members to develop a sense of incongruity
regarding their role as instructors within an open access institution. This chapter
provides the rationale (which is fully articulated in chapter four) for the use of a
27
collaborative inquiry project within an urban community college to raise awareness
and foster change among mathematics professors teaching in remedial courses.
The Formation of Belief Systems
Rokeach (1972) stipulates that individuals hold thousands of differing beliefs
concerning the social and physical world. These beliefs, he states, are somehow
organized “into architectural systems having describable and measurable structural
properties which, in turn, have observable behavioral consequences” (p. 1). But how
are they formed? According to Rokeach, beliefs are formed through direct and
indirect observation and experience. They are formed as a result one’s interaction
with others within a social context. And they are arbitrarily formed such that they
express the taste of individuals without any real substantive foundation. Before
exploring the formation of beliefs, I will provide a brief synthesis of the varying
definitions articulated for beliefs and their various components.
Definition and components of beliefs
The research on teacher beliefs and attitudes has supplied numerous
definitions that can make it particularly challenging to decide on one definition to
adequately understand beliefs and belief structures. According to Rokeach (1972),
beliefs are defined as “any simple proposition, conscious or unconscious, inferred
from what a person says or does, capable of being preceded by the phrase ‘I believe
that…’” (p. 113). Both Fishbein and Azjen (1975) and Block and Hezelip (1995)
suggest that beliefs vary in strength and that changes to those beliefs are dependent
on how strongly or not they are held by individuals. Although Block and Hazelip
28
emphasize that beliefs are resistant to change, Thompson (1992) contends that belief
systems are capable of changing as a result of new experiences.
Beliefs have three distinct components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral.
Table 3 below summarizes the three distinct components of beliefs as described by
Rokeach (1972).
Table 3: Three components of beliefs
Component Description
Cognitive Represents a person’s knowledge with varying degrees of certitude, about what is
true or false, good or bad, desirable or undesirable.

Affective Under suitable conditions, the belief is capable of arousing affect of varying
intensity centering around the object of the belief, around other objects
(individuals or groups) taking a positive or negative position with respect to the
object of belief, or around the belief itself, when it’s validity is seriously
questioned, as in an argument.

Behavioral The belief, being a response predisposition of varying threshold, leads to some
action when it is suitably activated. The kind of action it leads to is dictated
strictly by the content of the belief.

Source: Rokeach, 1972, pp. 113-114.

The cognitive component of beliefs are representative of an individual’s knowledge
and “are held with varying degrees of certitude” (p. 113). The affective component
of beliefs prompt individuals to take a certain stance – either negative or positive – in
regards to the object of belief. The behavioral component of beliefs is indicative of
an individual’s predisposition to act in certain ways.
Belief systems are deeply personal, often unconsciously held, and incredibly
difficult to change (Pajares, 1992). Beliefs are frequently taken for granted notions
of the social and physical world surrounding an individual. Given the constancy of
beliefs, Rokeach (1972) remarks,
It may be supposed that any inexplicable disruption of these taken-for-
granted constancies, physical or social or self, would lead one to question the
29
validity of one’s own senses, one’s competence as a person who can cope
with reality, or even one’s sanity (p. 7).

Beliefs may or may not be logically formed; oftentimes they are formed in response
to a particularly intense experience that remains fixed in one’s mental schema. For
example, community college faculty members may believe that students in remedial
courses are unmotivated. Only when incontrovertible evidence is supplied will that
belief system be altered.
As can be seen by the definitions summarized in Table 4 below, numerous
definitions for beliefs have been articulated in the literature. Beliefs are complex and
are a result of “an intricate interaction of cognitive and social factors existing in the
context of schooling” (Dossey, 1992 citing Schoenfeld, 1988, p. 45). Beliefs are
consistent with experience (D’Andrade, 1981) and are heavily influenced by both the
culture of the classroom setting (Schoenfeld, 1989) and the curriculum guiding
instruction (Schoenfeld, 1988). Beliefs are not one-dimensional, but rather assume
distinct characteristics that make them resistant to change. Understanding what
beliefs teachers hold and how they influence their perceptions and actions is critical
to improving teaching practices (Pajares, 1992) and the educational outcomes of
students.
Table 4: Summary table of definitions regarding beliefs
Definition Authors
Students enter teacher education programs (in the case of tertiary
faculty, they enter a profession) with preexisting beliefs based on their
experience as students in schools, or their “apprenticeship of
observation” (Lortie, 1975).
Bullogh, 1997
Ethell, 1997
Fang, 1996
Pajares, 1992
Richardson, 1996

Beliefs are robust and resistant to change. Block & Hazelip, 1995
Clark, 1988
Kagan, 1992
30
Table 4, Continued
Beliefs act as filters allowing in or filtering out new knowledge that is
deemed compatible or incompatible with current beliefs.
Nespor, 1987
Pajares, 1992
Weinstein, 1990

Beliefs exist in a tacit or implicit form and are difficult to articulate. Clark, 1988
Ethell, 1997,
Nespor, 1987,
Trumbull. 1990

Source: Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002, p. 180

According to Block and Hazelip (1995), beliefs can be descriptive,
inferential, or informational. Descriptive beliefs emerge from observations;
inferential beliefs are a result of inferences made from those observations; and
informational beliefs are those gathered from outside sources. Beliefs that are a
product of experience (either through personal experience or observation) are the
most difficult to change. Over time, the belief systems that individuals formulate
begin to “cluster” in an intricate belief structure. New ideas are filtered through this
complex network and are either accepted or disregarded depending on their
congruence with the overall structure.
At the same time however, this clustering may also have the effect of
allowing an individual to hold conflicting beliefs. As noted by Green (1971),
“beliefs are held in clusters, more or less in isolation from other clusters and
protected from any relationship with other sets of beliefs” (p. 48). The protection of
conflicting beliefs is what can account for and explains why teachers often
demonstrate inconsistencies in what they profess to believe and the way they actually
act (Thompson, 1992). Finally, beliefs are not easily observed, but rather they must
be inferred (Pajares, 1992). That is, inferences can be made about individual’s belief
31
systems based on statements made and the intentionality of behavior to act in a
predisposed manner (Rokeach, 1972).
Typology and formation of beliefs
Rokeach (1972) proposes that beliefs are functionally connected with other
beliefs. In other words, the implications and consequences one belief can impose on
another belief is indicative of the centrality of the particular belief in question.
Accordingly, he outlines four assumptions about the interconnectedness of beliefs:
(1) existential versus nonexistential beliefs; (2) shared versus unshared beliefs about
existence and self-identity; (3) derived versus underived beliefs; and (4) beliefs about
matters of taste.
The first assumption presumes that beliefs that are most closely connected to
one’s “existence and identity” (p. 5) are more functionally connected than those that
are not. The second assumption stipulates that beliefs that are shared with others
(i.e., social group) have greater functionality and connectedness than those that are
individually held. The third assumption posits that beliefs that are a direct result of
experience are more functional than derived beliefs, which are indirectly referenced
by others. The fourth assumption articulates that beliefs are often a result of one’s
matter of taste and individually held. These beliefs are considered to be less
functional and have a lesser implication on other beliefs.
Rokeach further provides a typology of five classes of beliefs that explain the
centrality of specific beliefs and their capacity for change. These are: (1) primitive
beliefs – 100 percent consensus; (2) primitive beliefs – zero consensus; (3)
32
authoritative beliefs; (4) derived beliefs; and (5) inconsequential beliefs. Table 5
below synthesizes the five classes of beliefs.
Table 5: Typology of beliefs
Type Characteristics
A. Primitive Beliefs –
100% Consensus

Primitive beliefs are psychologically incontrovertible because they are
rarely, if ever, experienced as subjects of controversy and therefore have
an axiomatic, taken-for-granted character. Can be considered as being
represented within the innermost core of the belief system and represent an
individual’s “basic truth.”

B. Primitive Beliefs –
Zero Consensus

These beliefs are incontrovertible for they are learned through direct
encounter with the object of the belief. However, its maintenance does not
seem to depend on it being shared with others: there are no reference
persons or groups outside the self who could controvert such a belief.
Beliefs that are not shared with others are therefore impervious to
persuasion or argument by others.

C. Authoritative
Beliefs

Do not have the same taken-for-granted character as Type A primitive
beliefs. Are concerned with positive and negative authority, or reference
persons or groups. Such beliefs concern not only which authorities could
know but also which authorities would know. These beliefs are easier to
change.

D. Derived Beliefs

These beliefs are capable of being changed as they are ideological beliefs
derived from secondhand processes of identification with authority rather
than by direct encounter with the object of belief.

E. Inconsequential
Beliefs

Represent arbitrary matters of taste. Are incontrovertible because they
originate from direct experience and do not necessarily require social
consensus. Yet they are subject to change because they have no
connection with other beliefs.

Source: Rokeach, 1972, pp. 6-12.

Type A beliefs are those that are a direct result of personal experience and are
universally upheld by one’s reference group. These belief systems are the most
centrally held by individuals and are considered to be free of controversy because
they often assume a “taken-for-granted” quality. Type A beliefs are considered
primitive because they are representative of an individual’s “basic truths about
physical reality, social reality, and the nature of the self” (p. 6) and are thus the
beliefs most deeply adhered to by the individual. Any disruption of these constant
33
beliefs would lead individual’s to question the validity of all other beliefs within his
or her belief system.
Type B beliefs are likewise learned through experience but do not need to be
universally held by one’s reference group. According to Rokeach, these beliefs are
usually formed as a result of an intense, negative experience that belies any
authoritative support. These beliefs may not be as incontrovertible as Type A beliefs
and may be controversial to others. However, as Rokeach comments, “Beliefs that
are not shared with others are therefore impervious to change” (p. 8). Examples of
these types of beliefs include phobias, delusions, hallucinations, and other ego-
enhancing and ego-deflating beliefs that result from one’s learned experience.
Type A and B beliefs usually form in childhood and remain constant until
such a time that other experiences lead to their reformulation. Type C beliefs evolve
from these primitive beliefs in that they help an individual “to round out his picture
of the world, realistically and rationally to the extent possible, defensively and
irrationally to the extent possible” (p. 9). Through the development of Type C
beliefs, individuals are better able to conceive their beliefs in light of differing
opinions and the acknowledgement that some reference groups have greater
authority than others. Therefore, individuals begin to develop an awareness of
authority, learning to recognize those whose authority will be followed and those
whose authority will be questioned.
Type D beliefs are defined as “ideological beliefs originating with religious
or political institutions, and derived secondhand through processes of identification
34
with authority rather than by direct encounter with the object of belief” (p. 10).
These beliefs, like Type C, are subject to change and are not as deeply held as
primitive beliefs. Beliefs of this type rely on one’s respect for authority and provide
individuals with a sense of group identity.
The final type of belief, Type E, are those considered inconsequential beliefs
and subject to a matter of individual taste. They are similar to primitive beliefs in
that they emerge from one’s direct experience, yet they are inconsequential because
there is little functional connection to other beliefs. If these beliefs change over
time, they do not hold serious consequences or require a reorganization of one’s
belief system.
Beliefs as impediment to change
As can be seen in the above section, the formation and adherence to
particular belief systems gives people a sense of constancy, self and group identity.
Efforts to change these belief systems encounter barriers that are unforeseen and
difficult to negotiate. According to Cohen (1990), reform efforts that seek to impel
change may not address all inherent challenges of the context (including individuals)
in which the reform is to be implemented. As he says,
The new policy seeks great change in knowledge, learning, and teaching, yet
these are intimately held human constructions. They cannot be changed
unless the people who teach and learn want to change, take an active part in
changing, and have the resources to change. It is after all, their conceptions
of knowledge, and their approaches to learning and teaching that must be
revamped (p. 326).

Compounding this obstacle to change is the lack of awareness and/or the lack of
opportunity that educators have to examine the belief systems they hold. Rokeach
35
(1972) posits that beliefs may or may not be accurately represented by individuals
because they may not realize they hold specific beliefs. Individuals dually hold what
Argyris and Schön (1974) call espoused theories-of-action and theories-in-use.
These two theories may or may not be at polar opposites, as one describes what an
individual professes to believe in and follow, while the other describes how an
individual will behave in actuality. Argyris and Schön explain,
When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances,
the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation.
This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon
request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually
governs his actions is his theory-in-use, which may or may not be compatible
with his espoused theory (p. 7).

Espoused theories of actions are consciously held beliefs that can be clearly
articulated when necessary. However, theories-in-use are implicitly held that cannot
be easily stated but are manifested in behavior. The behavior that results from tacit
knowledge is automatic and below consciousness. Argyris and Schön suggest this
lack of awareness of the incompatibility between espoused theories-of-action and
theories-in-use makes change difficult to attain let alone sustain over time. Thus,
belief systems, because they are often unconsciously held, have to be inferred by the
demonstrated actions and behaviors of individuals (Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1972).
Research on beliefs and the professoriate
Thompson (1992) acknowledges that research into teachers’ beliefs as a
mitigating factor in the poor educational outcomes of students is a relatively new
area of study. The studies that are in existence, however, focus primarily on junior
and senior high school mathematics teachers. Tate and Rosseau (2002) critique the
36
existing literature because while studies do shed some light on teacher beliefs, they
nonetheless “fail to study what teachers’ think, believe, and do as a function of their
diverse student populations” (p. 273-274). Despite the criticisms, inquiry into
teacher beliefs is an important area of study given the level of influence they have on
pedagogy and practice. As Dossey (1992) says, “The teacher’s view of how teaching
should take place in the classroom is strongly based on a teacher’s understanding of
the nature of mathematics, not on what he or she believes is the best way to teach”
(p. 42).
Studies that focus on beliefs and practice note the interconnectedness
between teaching and individual beliefs and the serious implications this has on
student learning (Burroughs-Lange, 1996; Samuelowicz & Bain, 1992; 2001;
Trigwell, Prosser, & Taylor, 1994). Understanding beliefs held by educators across
all levels of the education spectrum becomes singularly important given the training
of K-12 teachers and the lack of training of university instructors. For example,
university faculty members are offered very little to no formal teacher education that
will prepare them to instruct students (Kane, Sandretto, and Heath 2002; Louie,
Drevdahl, Purdy, Stackman, 2003). Any new knowledge constructed by faculty
members (most often through faculty development opportunities offered by the
institution or other organizations) is premised and filtered through the lens of
previously held belief structures and experiences (Putnam & Borko, 1997). Ball
(1996), citing similarities among K-12 teachers, comments,
In ways not well understood, the odyssey [for change] probably entails (at
some level) revising deeply held notions about learning and knowledge and
37
reconsidering one’s assumptions about students and images of oneself as a
[disciplinary] thinker, as a cultural and political being, as a teacher (p. 505)

Yet the enculturation during one’s life makes this kind of change difficult to attain.
Throughout one’s schooling, individuals (such as community college faculty
members) are inculcated with and experience “directed and purposeful
learning…[whose] main task [is to] bring behavior in line with cultural
requirements” (Pajares, 1992, p. 316). Faculty members who receive little to no
training in teaching methods are influenced by the “guiding images” of their
profession (Goodman, 1988) that ultimately influence their classroom practices and
their transmission of knowledge to their students (Calderhead & Robson, 1991).
This has serious implications for the remedial context if one’s point of reference is
based on the image of the traditional university student.
Enculturation into a particular discipline lead individuals to adopt beliefs
generally upheld by the reference group. In the case of community college
mathematics faculty members, the primary reference group may be one’s colleagues
within the discipline while a secondary reference group may be colleagues from
other departments or administrators. Belief systems that are created and fostered by
the discipline “[will] generally endure, unaltered” (Pajares, 1992, p. 316) unless they
are deliberately challenged (Lasley, 1980). These beliefs can be viewed as Type C
in Rokeach’s (1972) typology in that they evolve from primitive belief systems
(directly experienced and generally supported by a reference group) and are followed
because of one’s adherence to authority. However, they are subject to change
because “the believer has learned that some of his reference persons and groups do
38
and some do not share his belief” (Rokeach, 1972, p, 10). Because this dissertation
is explicitly concerned with the belief systems of community college mathematics
faculty members teaching in remedial courses, the following section describes the
formation of beliefs of this distinct group of individuals.
The belief formation of mathematics professors
The beliefs that faculty members hold in regards to mathematics are a result
of one’s enculturation (or socialization) into the discipline of mathematics. The
socializing effects of the discipline impact faculty members’ teaching and the
classroom environment in which they teach (Dossey, 1992). Specifically, they
influence what a faculty member believes about mathematical learning and the
application of pedagogy (LaBerge, Zollman, & Sons, 1997). According to Hersh
(1986) and Dossey (1992), an individual’s view of teaching is based on one’s
understanding of mathematics and not so much on what one believes is the best way
to teach. As such, a faculty member’s beliefs of mathematics can be defined as
follows:
A teacher’s conceptions of the nature of mathematics may be viewed as that
teacher’s conscious or subconscious beliefs, concepts, meanings, rules,
mental images, and preferences concerning the discipline of mathematics.
Those beliefs, concepts, views, and preferences constitute the rudiments of a
philosophy of mathematics, although for some teachers they may not be
developed and articulated into a coherent philosophy (Thompson, 1992, p.
132).

These beliefs stem from an individual’s world-view of mathematics (Schoenfeld,
1985) and are influenced by the diverse views held by society as to the nature of
mathematics. While some may perceive mathematics as a static discipline (Dossey,
39
1992) governed by rules, others perceive it “as a dynamic discipline, constantly
changing as a result of new discoveries from experimentation and application
(Crosswhite et al, 1986 as cited in Dossey, 1992).
Ernest (1988; 1989) differentiates three key components that shape the views
of mathematics faculty (see Table 6):
• The Instrumentalist view sees mathematics as “an accumulation of facts,
rules and skills to be used in the pursuance of some external end. Thus
mathematics is a set of unrelated but utilitarian rules and facts” (p. 250).
• The Platonist view sees mathematics “as a static but unified body of a
certain knowledge. Mathematics is discovered, not created” (p. 250).
• The Problem Solving view articulates the study of math “as a dynamic,
continually expanding field of human creation and invention, a cultural
process. Mathematics is a process of enquiry and coming to know, not a
finished product, for its results remain open to revision” (p. 250).
The role of the faculty member is thus derived from the model that most
resonates with the faculty’s conception of math:
• An instrumentalist will adopt the role of instructor whose ultimate
goal is concerned with the mastery of designated skills and correct
performance.
• The Platonist is an explainer, one who expounds upon and is most
concerned with conceptual understanding and unified knowledge.
40
• The problem solver will accept the role of facilitator whose goal is to
ensure her students are confident problem posers and solvers.
The three elements proposed by Ernest present a hierarchical structure in
which the instrumentalist occupies the lowest plane and the problem solver occupies
the higher plane. Adherence to one element, combined with the contextual factors of
the setting, will determine the classroom’s cultural environment and the degree to
which faculty will feel responsible for the educational outcomes of their students.
Table 6: Key components shaping the belief systems of faculty members
Elements Definition Role of Faculty Curriculum Behaviors
Instrumentalist/
Absolutest
Mathematics is “an
accumulation of facts,
rules and skills to be used
in the pursuance of some
external end. Thus
mathematics is a set of
unrelated but utilitarian
rules and facts.”

Faculty member is
an “instructor” who
values skills
mastery with
correct
performance.
The strict
following of a
text or scheme.
Passive reception
of knowledge.

Learner as
submissive and
compliant.
Platonist
Mathematics is “a static
but unified body of a
certain knowledge.
Mathematics is
discovered, not created.”

Faculty member is
an “explainer” who
values conceptual
understanding with
unified knowledge.
Modification of
the textbook
approach,
enriched with
additional
problems and
activities.

Passive recipient
of knowledge.
Problem
Solving/
Constructivist
Mathematics is “a
dynamic, continually
expanding field of human
creation and invention, a
cultural process. [It] is a
process of enquiry and
coming to know, not a
finished product, for its
results remain open to
revision.”

Faculty member is
a facilitator who
values confident
problem posing and
solving.
Teacher or school
construction of
the mathematics
curriculum.
Learning as active
construction

Development of
autonomy and
interest in
mathematics.
Source: Ernest, 1988; 1989

The above beliefs about mathematics may not be consciously held views, but
are more likely to be “implicitly held philosophies” (Ernest, 1989, p. 250) routinized
over time (Marland, 1995). In some instances, faculty members may not wholly fall
41
within one schema, but rather adopt aspects of more than one of the views described
above (Thompson, 1992). As such, faculty members may propose to believe and
behave in one manner while in actuality demonstrating beliefs and behaviors that are
in direct contrast. These, as previously mentioned, are one’s espoused theories of
action and theories in use (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Because implicit theories of
action are intensely personal and context-specific (Marland, 1995), mathematics
faculty may be unaware they hold these theories and are unable to verbally articulate
how they came to be.
LaBerge, Zollman, and Sons (1997) engaged in a study, which focused on the
belief systems of college mathematics professors. In interviews of 26 mathematics
faculty members from seven Midwestern colleges and universities, the researchers
sought to uncover their beliefs in regards to mathematical teaching and learning, the
extent to which they are familiar with reform efforts, and the pedagogical practices
they employ in the college classroom. Utilizing qualitative and quantitative
methods, the authors found that many of the beliefs stated by the mathematics
faculty corresponded to many of the reforms articulated by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
Despite their awareness and stated beliefs, the researchers found through
observation that the beliefs articulated by the faculty members did not translate into
their individual practices. Faculty members who participated in the study relied
heavily on traditional methods of teaching – lecture and note taking – in their
undergraduate courses. While faculty members indicated that they would like to use
42
more activities that required their students to “think about and communicate
mathematical ideas” (p. 14), the faculty members acknowledged that these activities
were more apt to be used in their upper division courses and may be unrealistic in
lower division mathematics courses. One of the constraints to utilizing these kinds
of activities in lower division courses, as noted by faculty members, were students’
“negative beliefs and expectations related to mathematics” (p. 15). Thus, while
faculty members verbally stated beliefs about what they ought to do in the
classroom, they revealed practices that were in opposition to reform efforts, often
citing assumptions about students that were premised on anecdote rather than fact.
Framework for the Formation of Beliefs among Faculty Members
Applying the research on general and mathematical belief formation, one can
surmise that the beliefs of faculty members are formed as a result of numerous
contextual factors and personal experiences. Beliefs are formed as a result of faculty
members’ early schooling experiences (K-12) as well as one’s more formative
experiences within the discipline (college and graduate training). They are further
formed as a result of their experiences within the classroom, both within and outside
the remedial context. Beliefs are likewise affected by the social context and one’s
interactions with colleagues and/or with students. They are likely to be affected by
the physical environment itself, the difference between an old and run down space to
the most artfully designed showplace. Beliefs are ultimately shaped by an
individual’s unique taste and personal view of the world, which may or may not be
subject to influence by others.
43
All of these influences and experiences form the unique belief systems of
faculty members and are capable of being reshaped by the context of the community
college environment. As such, I propose that the belief systems of community
college faculty members are shaped by an accumulation of factors, which include the
following:
• The historical context and mission of the community college;
• Early training and socialization;
• Experience with remedial education; and
• Institutional context (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Influences shaping community college faculty members’ belief systems

Historical
Context and
Mission
Early Training
and
Socialization

Experience
with Remedial
Education
Institutional Context
and Classroom
Experience
Influences
Shaping Beliefs

From the institutional and historical context of the community college to the
early training and socialization of faculty members into the professional ranks of
mathematics, faculty members are subject to numerous influences that shape their
identities as community college instructors. These work in concert and influence
44
their behavior toward their students. As can be seen in Figure 2 above, the varying
influences shaping faculty members’ beliefs are not direct links in a chain of
causality. Rather, the connections are interwoven, indicative of a complex weave
that makes up the tapestry of individual belief systems. Each factor described in the
figure may not impact faculty members with the same degree of influence. In some
instances, a faculty member may be highly impressed by a singular event that took
place during his formative schooling, thus shaping his beliefs about mathematics and
alternately shaping his teaching methods. In other instances, a faculty member may
be unable to, or have difficulty reconciling his beliefs about mathematics with the
historical mission of the community college.
In sum, belief systems are generated over the life span of an individual. They
are the result of both direct experience and the influence of individuals or groups
considered to be in positions of authority and whose knowledge is deemed valid.
The belief systems people hold are tacitly held and often difficult to change.
Mathematics faculty members bring with them to the community college context
these previously held belief systems. Their involvement in new experiences and
differing influences within a new environment can either result in the development
of new beliefs that challenge existing belief systems or may lead to the reinforcement
of existing belief structures.
Influences Shaping Faculty Members’ Belief Systems
The American community college has been described as an “educational,
social, community, and training institution” (McCarton, 1983, p. 679). With its
45
open-door policy, the community college endeavors to provide postsecondary
education to “anyone for virtually any purpose” (Cohen, 1990, p. 428). Notably, the
community college has long been viewed as providing equitable educational
opportunities for non-traditional students, particularly low-achievers and minority
students (Seidman, 1985). Cain (1999) says,
The public two-year colleges do not simply educate or credentialize. They
change lives for the better. They change them radically and they change
them permanently and they change them inexpensively. There is no other
institution in American education that can take a young man or woman with a
truly dismal previous school record and no academic accomplishment at all
and offer him or her a chance to overcome all of that history, to become a
different and better person academically and personally. In no other
American system can a person fulfill the basic American myth: to go from
nothing to something by her own effort (pp. i-ii).

The distinct mission of the community college, evolving from an institution with a
primarily transfer function to one with multiple foci (Bragg, 2001), has enabled
individuals with distinct interests and varying capacities to attain educational levels
beyond that which they potentially envisioned. However, it is the multiple foci that
make it especially challenging for faculty members to develop an institutional
identity (Cohen & Brawer, 1972) that reconciles the multiple sources of influence
impacting beliefs.
Historical context and mission of the community colleges
The junior college opened its doors in the early part of the twentieth century
with a focus squarely placed on transfer (Bragg, 2001). Junior colleges served as an
extension of the public high school, providing educational opportunities to
individuals residing in communities who did not have access to larger universities.
46
More prominently, however, the junior college served as a buffer (Seideman, 1985)
between recent high school graduates who sought postsecondary educational
opportunities but were perhaps not the traditional students more likely served by the
four-year universities. Accordingly, junior colleges in the early part of the century
had a mission focused on providing the first two years of college to a select group of
students intending on transferring and completing the baccalaureate degree (Cohen
& Brawer, 2003; Roueche & Hurlburt, 1968).
Emerging political, economic, and social circumstances in the 1930s and
1940s led to a greater emphasis on vocational training in the junior colleges.
Although many junior colleges still adhered to transfer and liberal arts education as
its primary focus, The Truman Commission Report of 1948 advocated for junior
colleges to become more encompassing of American youth seeking postsecondary
educational opportunities (Bragg, 2001). Marking a new era of federal policy which
called for greater access and expanded opportunity (Seideman, 1985), the Truman
Commission coined the term “community college,” alluding to the “comprehensive
mission that permeates the U.S. system of community colleges today” (Bragg, 2001,
p. 99). According to the commission, the current role of education was solidifying
rather than eradicating class and racial distinctions. By opening its doors to all
individuals, institutions of higher education would promote greater occupational and
social advancement for all people.
The war against poverty and the civil rights movement of the 1960s further
clarified the expanding role of the comprehensive community college. No longer
47
focused solely on transfer and a traditional liberal arts curriculum, the community
college offered courses in vocational education, liberal arts education, continuing
education, and remedial education (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). This new foci in
conjunction with the open-door policy governing the community colleges yielded a
demographic shift from a homogenous, baccalaureate-seeking student population to
a more diverse population of students with distinct levels of interests, preparation,
and socio-economic status. In fact, current demographics show that women and
ethnic minorities comprise over half of the student population and older adults return
to seek new job skills (Cohen, 1990).
The mission of the community college has therefore evolved from a historical
context of exclusion in the early parts of the twentieth century to a current context of
open-access and responsive to the needs of its student population. In Table 7, Cain
(1999) offers a synthesis of the mission of the community college today.
Table 7: Synthesis of the mission of the present day community college
Characteristic Definition
Democratic • Open admissions
• Low cost
• Geographically accessible
• Wide range of curricula offered

Comprehensive • Broad programmatic offerings to meet the needs of a diverse
group of enrolled students.

Community-centered • Charged with the development of the local community
• Locally supported and controlled
• Provided resources for the community at large

Dedicated to life-long
education
• Programs offered to students of all ages
• Classes geared towards interests outside of the terminal degree
• “The community colleges allow students to stroll along rambling
paths” (p. 46)

Adaptable • Flexible
• Meets the changing needs of the students

Source: Cain, 2001

48
The mission of the comprehensive community college is democratic for it
allows students, irrespective of academic preparation and economic ability to attain
educational experiences beyond K-12. It is comprehensive and community-centered
because it offers a range of curricular offerings that meet the needs of its student and
community base. The mission promotes life-long learning because students of all
ages can return to school to change careers, update job skills, or simply enroll in
courses that are of interest but may not necessarily lead to a degree or a specific
vocational intent. Last, they are adaptable because, unlike traditional university
programs, students can pick and choose an area of study without sacrificing their
placement within the institution. In addition to the above characteristics, the mission
of the community college further promotes an emphasis on teaching as well as a
central focus on students (O’Banion, 1972).
Although the literature suggests that faculty are fully aware and accepting of
the mission of the community college, there is nonetheless evidence that points to a
reserved judgment held by faculty members. One reason for this reserved judgment
concerns the placement of the community college within the higher education
hierarchy. Community colleges occupy a position somewhere between high schools
and four-year colleges and universities (Seideman, 1985; McGrath & Spear, 1991).
Rarely are community colleges cited for academic excellence; rather, that distinction
is often ascribed to such prestigious institutions as Harvard and Yale (Grubb &
Associates, 1999). Because community colleges operate under an open-door policy,
students enrolled in courses are more likely to be “low-achievers” who did not do
49
well in K-12 and are seeking a second chance at academic achievement (Grubb &
Associates, 1999). Community colleges, despite their important mission to provide
equitable educational opportunities to all students, are nonetheless viewed as
something “less than” the traditional college or university. Seideman (1985) notes,
“[There] is a nagging, pervasive sense, for both faculty and students, that being at a
community college means being near the bottom, of the higher education totem pole”
(p. 11).
This feeling of inferiority seriously compromises faculty members’
commitment to the mission of the community college. Cohen and Brawer (1972)
suggest that faculty members are ambivalent about their work and their setting.
London (1980) found that community college faculty would rather be university
instructors. According to Seideman (1985), faculty members at community colleges
must negotiate their own desires of attaining the American dream with that of their
students. Specifically, faculty members at community colleges will most often work
with students who are on the margins and are less likely to be successful than their
counterparts at a four-year institution. Community colleges, because they are
primarily noted for their commitment to the low-achieving student, are perceived as
having watered down their curriculum. As noted by one mathematics faculty
member interviewed by Seideman (1985),
Two forces are very real in my life that make me strive to have meaning at
my job. One is the force that, I guess, you call a social prestige type force
that says: “Oh, you only teach at a community college?”...And that is perhaps
a more significant force of my life because of the track of my education
through Harvard graduate school and having a lot of colleagues that teach
university and in four-year schools and have a doctorate. They have an
50
attitude of discussing the community college as “down there…” So those
forces really impact me…to honestly live that is sometimes a little tough (pp.
144-145).

The mission of the community colleges, while laudable in its intentions, has been
shown to produce negative feelings amongst faculty members. This is especially
evident in the early years, making it difficult for them to sustain their sense of self in
comparison to their more highly respected counterparts (Cohen & Brawer, 2003).
Yet these feelings to a large degree are unavoidable given the early training and
socialization experiences of community college faculty members.
Early training and socialization of community college faculty members
Cohen and Brawer (1972) have suggested that the placement of the
community college somewhere between the high school and the four-year college or
university has yielded a lack of professional identity among community college
faculty members. Moreover, the varying foci comprising the mission of the
community college creates further ambiguity given the diverse goals and directions
of each focus area. They note, “[T]he junior college instructor…is in a particularly
ambivalent position…He stands uneasily between two levels of education and has
yet to carve out a defined place for himself” (p. 12).
Consequently, faculty members often look towards their counterparts at
colleges and universities in their search for identification (Cohen & Brawer, 1972).
To some degree, as Cohen and Brawer suggest, identification is appropriate given
the placement and importance of academic senates and faculty ranking systems on
community college campuses. Additionally, community college faculty members
51
are encouraged to participate in research endeavors, often sponsored with outside
agencies or universities. Yet the differences between university faculty members
and community college faculty members still remain acute.
First, teaching is reported in the literature as being the raison d’etre of the
community college (Cohen & Brawer, 1972; Grubb & Associates, 1999). Second,
community colleges are student centered, thus faculty members are encouraged to be
available to students at all times (Seideman, 1985). Third, given the broad range in
the abilities of students enrolling in the community colleges, faculty members must
have a broad knowledge base of teaching in addition to their specialized disciplinary
focus (Cohen & Brawer, 1972). Last, the community college is inclusive of all
abilities and interests, providing educational opportunities to a diverse student
population.
Universities, on the other hand, are primarily recognized for their research
orientation with teaching assuming a subordinate position. University faculty
members are perceived as being uninterested in students, or rather restricting the
amount of time they spend with their students outside the allotted class time (Majors,
1976). Because four-year colleges and universities have restrictive admissions
policy, their scope of knowledge does not have to be as broadly encompassing of
varying abilities (Cohen & Brawer, 1972). Given this lack of professional identity
and the dissimilarity between their university counterparts, community college
faculty members look to their early training and socialization experiences of their
discipline for guidance.
52
Cohen and Brawer (1972) believe that faculty members are complex
individuals who are products of their “personal and collective experiences” (p. 11).
Accordingly, individuals entering a new “bounded system” such as the community
college bring with them knowledge and “rules of behavior” that have been formed
from earlier socializing experiences. For example, students entering public
education for the first time are socialized into a cultural construct that defines what
appropriate behavior is for a member: all students are quiet, all students walk in a
straight line to and from the cafeteria, all students raise their hands when asking a
question, and the list goes on. Socialization, therefore, is the process through which
individuals “acquire the knowledge, skills and dispositions that make them more or
less able members of society” (Brim & Wheeler, 1966, p. 3).
For community college faculty members, these socialization experiences
occur throughout their formative schooling (K-12) and later during their graduate
experiences. Community college faculty members are typically required to be in
possession of a master’s degree, which demonstrates their mastery in a specific
discipline (Grubb & Associates, 1999). Allowing for slight variations in
programmatic structure, community college faculty are more likely to be enrolled in
traditional master’s degree programs which focus exclusively on content mastery
(Cohen & Brawer, 2003). One’s knowledge of teaching and understanding of “high
standards” usually results from sitting in classrooms with discipline specialists and
not from a particular emphasis placed on teaching. In rare instances, community
college faculty members may receive early training through teaching assistantships.
53
A faculty member participating in Grubb and Associates’ study of community
college teachers remarked, “[T]hey kind of leave the teaching aspect of our
profession to work out for itself” (p. 295).
The early training and socialization of faculty members enable them to
formulate and assume “the possession of a systematic body of theory, the formation
of professional associations, and the existence of a code of conduct” (Bayer &
Braxton, 1998, p. 188). Adherence to these professional norms and rules of conduct
serve the dual purpose of providing faculty members with a sense of identification
and guidance with respect to teaching (Bayer & Braxton, 1998). Yet, because most
faculty members are trained within the traditional structures of higher education,
their adherence to disciplinary norms may be inadequate for the non-traditional
environment of the community college (McGrath & Spear, 1991). This is
particularly evident among faculty members who have gone beyond the master’s
degree and are the recipients of the doctoral degree.
Stein (1972), writing about the pedagogical practices most effective for the
“captured student
5
,” writes about his experience moving from constant lecture in his
classroom to a format of small group learning. He recounts what it is like to walk
around the room, seeing students first hand as they struggle through their problem
sets, realizing that the “intelligent remarks” made by a few students provided him
with a false sense of achievement, believing that his lectures were effective for all
students. Despite the learning evident in the classroom, as well as the knowledge he

5
Students who take mathematics as a prerequisite to the college degree or to satisfy a prerequisite for
a major. The phrase ‘captured’ student was chosen to convey the mood of failure, fear, frustration,
and perhaps hatred that such a student frequently brings to his mathematics class.
54
gained from observing students in action, Stein remarks he nonetheless felt as if he
was doing something wrong, or rather not doing something that he should be doing.
As he says, “I always feel a twinge of guilt in using the small-group method, for I
have been accustomed to identifying teacher-speaking with student learning.
Doesn’t a singer sing, a preacher preach, and a teacher teach?” (1972, p. 1028).
Although Stein makes no explicit mention of this, one can assume that his
own education and training involved the use of the lecture method. Lecture is what
teachers do and that is how students learn. For Stein, this deviation from what he
ought to do as an instructor of mathematics yielded certain feelings of guilt and a
lack of adherence to what the profession called for. The process of socialization held
such a strong effect on Stein that although he recognized the effectiveness of small
group activity, he still felt guilt for not following the precepts of his profession.
In Seideman’s (1985) study of 76 community college faculty members,
professors are beset with uncertainties in regards to their professional affiliation to
the discipline and the open-access mission of the community colleges. On the one
hand, faculty members in the study have certain expectations of what students should
be able to do in a college classroom. One faculty member says, “I think it is
unfortunate right now that for students at our community colleges, their average load
is less than six hours…” (p. 130). Another faculty member comments,
I explain to [students] that the course they’re taking…is no more rigorous
than I feel it would be at a four-year school…they don’t always agree with
my rationale. They feel it’s a community college; one ought to perhaps
compromise the rigor of your course because it’s a community college (p.
138).

55
On the other hand, faculty members recognize that they are in a distinct environment
with challenges uncommon to the traditional training they themselves received as
graduate students. A professor of mathematics says,
At the university where I was a TA, what interfered with academic processes
were, ‘I couldn’t come to school because…we drove to New York and stayed
out’…Here, you know, it was ‘I couldn’t come to school, my husband
died’…It was a horrible shock for me. It is a whole lot different when you
are going to college and your parents are sending you there (p. 149).

For this professor of mathematics, he recognizes that while his training in the
discipline led him to know a great deal of abstract mathematical concepts, the reality
of the community college setting is such that students are learning mathematics not
because they want to become mathematicians or go on to graduate school like he did,
but rather because they need to get “someplace else” (p. 151).
McGrath and Spear (1991) suggest, “Community college professors are
drawn into and reshaped by the culture of open access, but they seldom leave behind
all traces of traditional academic styles and expectations” (p. 140). Thus, the
incompatibility between one’s academic training and the mission of the community
college may result in frustration as noted by the quotes above. This incompatibility
may also result in a more extreme form of frustration, leading faculty to develop a
sense of resentment against students. Most notably, this resentment may be aimed
towards those students who are the primary beneficiaries of open-access–the low
achieving student enrolled in lower division or remedial courses (London, 1980).

56
Experience with remedial education
At the start of the twentieth century, the junior college’s primary function
was that of transfer. Students enrolled in junior colleges with the intent of
completing the first two-years of the baccalaureate before transferring into a four-
year college or university. The expansion of the junior college mission beginning in
the 1940s and the widespread implementation of open access policies in the 1960s
(Bragg, 2001) led to a dramatic shift in the student population (McCarton, 1983).
The community colleges no longer served just the needs of a select homogeneous
population, but accepted all individuals with differing abilities, academic
preparation, and goal orientations. These “different types of students” included
students who left K-12 unprepared for the rigors of college, thus ushering in a rise in
remedial education programs.
The increased focus on remedial education on the community college campus
has not come without its fair share of criticism. Many have questioned the validity
of the open door policy given the proliferation of the low achieving student (London,
1980; Seideman, 1985; Grubb & Associates, 1999). Majors (1976) summarizes the
perceptions of the community college (by the same university faculty that
community college faculty looked to as models) that were in evidence three decades
ago. He says,
To many university faculties, community colleges are glorified high schools
without properly trained faculties, whose quality of instruction is
substandard. To them the principle of the open door inevitably means lower
standards, which will eventually inundate the universities with transfers of
poor quality (p. 577).

57
Three decades later, many of these same sentiments prevail as community college
faculty members struggle with the inherent challenges of working with students who
come to college with skill proficiencies less than that of an expected high school
graduate.
Within the last decade, policy initiatives curtailing or effectively eliminating
remedial education from the four-year colleges and universities has led to the notion
that community colleges are the “only appropriate site for the delivery of [remedial
education] courses” (Shaw, 1997). Though Levin (2001) points to the fact that
remedial education is the social and legal mandate of the community college, not all
are accepting of this mission and resist the designation as a school dominated by
remedial education students. In fact, a chancellor from a large urban community
college is quoted in Gallego (1985) as saying, “We must not destroy the integrity of
the ongoing occupational and academic programs serving so many of our community
college students by shifting existing resources to remedial work” (p. 3). Research
likewise shows that faculty members within the two-year colleges are resistant to
teaching students who are unprepared for college (Grubb & Associates, 1999).
The effect of teaching large populations of underpreprared students is well
documented in the literature. Cohen and Brawer (1972) contend that students have a
marked effect on the behaviors and personalities of the faculty members charged
with their instruction. They say, “Students affect the instructor as a person, subtly
warping his personality, perhaps causing him to become something other than he
might have become if he were in a different field” (p. 113). They further note that
58
faculty members “chafe at teaching students” (p. 113) classified as remedial because
they have difficulty maintaining their identification with their discipline and their
counterparts in universities (London, 1980). Moreover, faculty members may begin
to have feelings of isolation and develop a belief that they are not college professors
(Cohen & Brawer, 1972). These feelings may coagulate to such an extreme that
faculty members may begin to express resentment against their students, behaving in
ways that are detrimental to their success and in opposition to the mission of the
community college (Moore, 1970; Roueche & Kirk, 1973).
The adjustment that community college faculty members have had to make
within the last half century has been described by Cain (1999) as demoralizing.
Faculty members accustomed to teaching upper division courses have often found
those courses dropped from the curriculum as a result of greater demand for remedial
courses. Finding the new “conditions uncomfortable and [trying] to maintain the
more comfortable status quo” (Cain, 1999, p. 51), community college faculty
members have been resistant to change with some arguing that change needs to come
from the students and not from themselves.
To protect themselves from the enormity of change and the awesome
responsibilities connected to fulfilling the open door mission of the community
college, London (1980) suggests that faculty members may intentionally sabotage
their own pedagogy. Reisman (in Cohen & Brawer, 1972) explains, “One might
even contend that a certain amount of poor communication and distorted feedback
may be necessary if faculty are to maintain their morale in the face of an enervating
59
environment of mediocrity” (p. 114). This “phenomenon of personal withdrawal”
(Cohen & Brawer, 1972, p. 114) can be viewed as an attempt by faculty members to
protect their sense of identity and abay their feelings of self-doubt.
Seideman’s (1985) study of community college faculty reveal the
complexities of teaching in remedial courses. The salvaging role (Cohen & Brawer,
2003) assigned to the community colleges in regards to low achieving students has
considerable implications for faculty members. The demands placed on faculty
members to teach all students seem daunting, nearly impossible to achieve. On the
one hand, they attempt to adhere to the standards of the discipline and what is
expected of a college course. Yet, on the other hand, they are confronted with the
daily reality of their students not meeting those standards and either failing their
courses or dropping out completely from the college. Seideman (1985) says,
“Trying to maintain collegiate standards makes faculty not only susceptible to
rejection by students but also, albeit ambiguous, pressure from the administration”
(p. 76). Thus there is confusion that develops among faculty members about what
are appropriate expectations of students. Moreover, faculty members working with
low achieving students have to reconcile their own past histories and present desires
with the realities of their students. One faculty member comments,
I think that in teaching in a community college a big problem is
understanding the differences in the situations of the students that I am
teaching and my own situation as a student, and simply figuring out how to
reconcile the need for academic standards the very complicated commitment
of the students outside of the college…Since the education I received was
terribly important to me, I have the natural desire to perpetuate it. I am
always having to come to terms with the difference between what my
students want and where they are and where I was (p. 111).
60

The same faculty member remarks that she has had to learn how to devoid herself of
the “disdain for very average students” (p. 111) that she developed as a graduate
student in order for her to function well within the ethos of the community college.
In her role, she is continuously torn between two halves: the half that wishes to
adhere to the strict educational standards of a collegiate education and the other half
that understands and empathizes with the challenges facing students and her desire to
help them succeed at whatever cost to her own academic beliefs.
In a more recent, large-scale study on teaching at the community colleges,
Grubb and Associates (1999) further uncovered the perceptions and attitudes held by
faculty members. Remedial education, as previously noted in chapter one, is
conceived as second-rate, an activity usually reserved for new or part-time
instructors at specific institutions. The researchers note that while some faculty
members may be “sympathetic” to the plight of remedial students, “a few seem to
think the task of teaching underprepared students is hopeless” (p. 172).
Consequently, comments such as “These students are the most needy,” (p. 172) and
“I didn’t want to be a junior high school or high school teacher, dealing with
grammar, dealing with basic sentences and paragraph-level writing skills…” (p. 172)
reverberate throughout their findings on remedial education. According to Astin
(2000), the shunning of students in remedial education is seen as a way of protecting
the individual’s and institution’s “sense of excellence” (p. 137). As he says, “If our
students are not so smart, then this reflects poorly on us…if our students are getting
smarter, then we are reassured about our own smartness; but if they are getting
61
dumber, our sense of our own smartness is threatened” (p. 134). Therefore, many
faculty members within the community colleges see their role as that of gatekeeper,
“performing quality control in a flawed production system that [has] led too many
unqualified students pass too far down the line” (Grubb & Associates, 1999, p. 173).
Remedial math classes at the community colleges, as found by Grubb and
Associates (1999), are similar to the classes that students experienced as they
progressed through the K-12 context. In these classrooms, learning new
mathematical concepts consists of the instructor presenting – via lecture – a new skill
that builds on a skill presented (and presumably mastered) during a previous lesson.
Once the lecturer has concluded his or her presentation, students are directed toward
a set of homework problems that are begun in class and finished at home. These in
turn are returned to class for review in order to prepare for the quiz or test that will
undoubtedly follow immediately after the acquisition of a set number of skills. The
instruction that takes place in the remedial mathematics classroom varies little from
the methods employed in K-12. The techniques that have failed before are repeated
at the community college level with little awareness or thought given to how these
methods are contributing to the continued failure of students in remedial
mathematics. Grubb and Associates conclude, “Some of the most lifeless teaching
can be found in remedial math classes, where students continue to repeat the same
errors that have carried them through elementary and secondary schooling” (p. 194).
Roueche and Hurlburt (1968) comment, “The open-door concept of
admissions has validity only if [low achieving] students are able to succeed in their
62
educational objectives” (p. 454). As can be seen by the literature described herein,
community college faculty members have difficulties reconciling their academic
identities with the challenges posed by the low achieving students. Faculty members
who have been socialized by an academic tradition of “disinterested inquiry,
scholarship, research, and the worth and efficacy of working with ideas” (London,
1980, p. 70) are more likely to experience disillusionment, self-doubt and resentment
of their present academic position. This is turn leads to one’s withdrawal from the
student, resorting to behaviors that may (un)intentionally cause students to
prematurely leave the institution (Roueche & Kirk, 1973). In such an environment,
the community college faculty member is no longer a facilitator of knowledge, but a
gatekeeper of opportunity.
The amount of frustration reported by faculty members concerning the
teaching of students enrolled in remedial education courses at the community
colleges (Seideman, 1985) leads one to see the incompatibility between the
discipline and the ethos of the community college. The tradition of mathematics and
the historical mission of the community colleges are akin to tectonic plates
underneath the earth’s crust, silently pushing against one another until the
tremendous pressure that builds forces one of the plates to yield, resulting in an
earthquake whose seismic waves are felt far and wide. Applying this metaphor to
our reality, the presence of remedial education has become too great a challenge for
most institutions of higher education, and an even greater challenge for the
community colleges. Although the community colleges have primarily been
63
responsible for the teaching of remedial courses, a seismic shift has occurred in
which most if not all of remedial mathematics courses have been relegated to the
community colleges. This seismic shift not only has a tremendous impact on
students in regards to access and opportunity, but also impacts faculty members who
see the growing numbers of students requiring remediation in mathematics as an
exercise in futility.
Experiences as classroom instructors
The previous sections alluded to the challenges faced by community college
faculty members in regards to their teaching roles. As noted throughout, faculty
members are not socialized within a “teaching profession” but rather socialized into
an “academic discipline.” Thus, teaching as an act is not given specialized attention;
rather the thought is that teaching will naturally evolve from one’s mastery of the
content (Grubb & Associates, 1999). In the early years of the community colleges,
most community college faculty members emerged from the ranks of high school
teachers and thus had training in teaching methodologies (Cohen & Brawer, 1972).
However, beginning in the 1970s, more and more community college faculty
members were hired directly from graduate programs, the trades and other
community colleges, thereby diminishing the number of faculty members with actual
preservice training.
As can be seen from the previous sections, teaching in the community
colleges comes with special challenges, many of which faculty members are
unprepared to assume. Working within a framework of “salvation” requires
64
community college faculty members to have “teaching skills of a high order”
(Moore, 1970, p. 64) that many graduate programs simply do not provide. As Cohen
and Brawer (1972) note, “[F]ew community college instructors were prepared in
programs especially designed for that level of teaching. Few had even taken a single
course describing the institution before they assumed responsibilities in it” (p. 78).
As a result, the teaching that emerges among community college faculty members is
an amalgamation of their individual experiences as students (although some have the
benefit of serving as teaching assistants during their graduate training) in
undergraduate and graduate programs within the traditional academic environment of
the university. Moreover, their “teaching pedagogy” is further shaped and reshaped
by their actual classroom experiences, interactions with students, and the institutional
context of the community college.
Ernest (1989) suggests mathematics faculty members hold espoused models
of both teaching and learning mathematics. However, these models are tempered by
the realities of the classroom and individual practice that seem to drive a wedge
between an individual’s intentions and ultimate actions. He proposes the following
model (see Figure 3) to illustrate how faculty members’ beliefs of mathematics are
shaped and reshaped by the context of the instructional environment.

65
Figure 3: Relationship between beliefs and the impact on practice

View of Mathematics
(personal philosophy)
Espoused Model of
Learning Mathematics
Espoused Model of
Teaching Mathematics
Enacted Model of
Learning Mathematics
Enacted Model of
Teaching Mathematics
Use of Mathematics
Text
Constraints and opportunities provided by the social context of teaching

Source: Ernest, 1989, p. 252
According to Ernest (1989), the social context of the institution has a
powerful effect on individual faculty members such that they soon adopt behaviors
and practices that may not be aligned to their personal beliefs. The socialization
effect of the social context may come in the form of expectations from students,
peers, or administrators; the curriculum adopted by the institution and implemented
by the department; the system of assessment utilized for placement of students; and
the overall perception of mathematics and the acquisition of basic skills.
In a study conducted by LaBerge, Zollman, and Sons (1997), the math faculty
members interviewed by the authors emphasized their desire to use in- and out-of-
class activities that required students to engage in more critical thinking, problem
solving, and real world application. However, these faculty members shared with the
researchers that their goals were unattainable given that students “haven’t been
66
taught to be self-sufficient” (p. 12). For these faculty members, the students’ lack of
knowledge as a result of their earlier schooling served as a barrier that prevented
them from utilizing more effective, reform-oriented teaching methods. Only two
faculty members amongst 26 cited their own “conservatism” as a barrier to learning.
Cooney (1985) presented the case of a high school teacher confronted with
the realities of everyday instruction. Through the use of qualitative interviews,
Cooney described the experiences of Fred as he forged through his first three months
of teaching. For Fred, “solving problems [was] the essence of mathematics” (p.
328). Thus his approach to teaching would include many examples of problem
solving which he felt would incite the curiosity of the students and motivate them to
want to learn more and become more involved in their learning. However, once in
the classroom, Fred was confronted with the difficulty of teaching: from the wall of
silence that greeted his questions to the sheer lack of understanding by his students.
In one of his classes, Fred is told by his students that they reject his style of teaching
because it is so different from what they are accustomed to (routine memorization of
facts). They therefore attribute their failing grades to his lack of seriousness in
presenting the content. Fred’s classroom environment had been predicated on a
specific style of teaching – anything that differed from the norm was not readily
accepted or understood. As a result, Fred had to wrestle with his personal beliefs
about mathematics, his instructional approach and the opposing expectations held by
his students.
67
The social contexts of the classroom and institutional environment may either
constrain or promote specific conceptions into the nature of teaching. Grubb and
Associates (1999) recognize that community college instructors are required to teach
up to five classes a week, with as many as 40 students enrolled in each class. They
are required to follow and complete a specified syllabus within the 18 weeks of
allotted instructional time. In cases where students do not understand the content
when it is presented, faculty are confronted with the dilemma of staying on course
with the syllabus or falling behind in their schedule to accommodate the learning
needs of students. The previous two studies by LaBerge et al. (1997) and Cooney
(1985) emphasized the reliance on teaching methods that were perhaps not
conducive to student learning because the perception of instructors held that students
could not understand or were not interested in the subject matter. In mathematics
specifically, learning and engaging in mathematics requires a foundation of certain
competencies that are often lacking in remedial mathematics courses (Seideman,
1985). In these instances, instructors are required to deviate from the curriculum and
instruct on concepts that should have been previously learned but often were not.
The reality of the educational environment wields a forceful influence over
teachers such that teachers are led to “internalize a powerful set of constraints
affecting [their] enactment of the models of teaching and learning mathematics”
(Ernest, 1988, p. 3) that may most resonate with their personal beliefs. Teachers
may adopt models that have “proven” to be successful by their colleagues within the
specified context even though they may be unresponsive and ineffective in meeting
68
the needs of students. Thus, as Ernest concludes, “The socialization effect of the
context is so powerful that despite having differing beliefs about mathematics and its
teaching, teachers in the same school are often observed to adopt similar classroom
practices” (p. 3).
Incongruity between mathematics and the community college
The culture of mathematics, and the context in which it is learned and taught,
leads one to believe that there appears to be a lack of congruence between the
discipline and the historical mission of the community colleges. According to
Ladson-Billings (1997), mathematics is a “feared and revered subject in our culture”
(p. 698). People are more readily willing to admit that they don’t know math before
admitting they can’t read. Hence, the notion that math is restricted to a few, select
individuals permeates throughout the process of schooling. Further promoting this
notion is the cumulative nature of mathematics, wherein understanding one level of
mathematics is highly dependent on knowing the previous level. So while the
community colleges are based on the premise of “second chances” the reality is that
many students will not attain success due to their lack of preparation prior to their
enrollment in the community colleges (Seideman, 1985). Thus there is a duality in
mathematics – on the one hand mathematics occupies an illustrious and elite plane of
privileged knowledge (Stanic, 1989) only achieved by a select few. On the other
hand is the recognition that mathematics is a critical component for the social and
economic advancement of particularly disenfranchised groups (Oakes, 1990a).
69
As such, “mathematics [becomes] an enabling force and a critical filter”
(Anderson, 1990, p. 260) within education and beyond. Mathematics is an enabling
force for it provides individuals with the “ability to compete for employment, wages,
and leadership positions” (Oakes, 1990a, p. 154) in a knowledge economy
increasingly dominated by technology. It becomes a critical filter for it sorts through
and designates which individuals will attain those few positions that will promote
greater economic and social standing. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the research,
African Americans and Latino have been found to be sorted out of the mathematical
pipeline.
Yet, the beliefs about mathematics held by community college faculty
members are rarely questioned or examined by institutional actors or within the
research. Because success is premised on previously developed mathematical
knowledge, instructors of mathematics often see themselves removed from ensuring
success. Or rather, instructors do not see how they can promote success among
students who come to the community college context with extreme deficiencies
(Seideman, 1985). Fennema & Franke (1992) suggest that faculty beliefs about
mathematics are “structured into a set of rules and principles…that the teacher uses
to justify his or her actions” (p. 159).
The continued failure of students in remedial mathematics courses may
confirm the faculty members’ assumptions about teaching underprepared students:
that it is a hopeless endeavor. These innately held “rules and principles” prevent
faculty members from understanding or recognizing their role in a students’ ability
70
or inability to grasp the concepts presented. An instructor of mathematics may not
fully grasp the notion that the manner in which she is teaching may to some degree
contribute to student failure. Instead, all she is able to see is that students are not
being successful and her beliefs about students’ potential and/or capacity to learn
may become calcified over time and resistant to change.
Summing up the Importance of Beliefs
The previous sections articulate the varying influences that both negatively
and positively shape the belief systems of community college faculty members.
Beliefs are formed from the early training and socializing experiences of the
discipline to one’s experience as a classroom instructor both within and outside the
remedial context. The community college has a specific mission, a particular ethos
that provides its raison d’etre (Cohen & Brawer, 1972). Successful socialization into
that ethos (London, 1980) suggests that faculty members have internalized the
comprehensive mission of the community college, committing themselves to the
teaching and learning of diverse student populations. For many faculty members,
acquiring this new ethos calls for an extensive amount of change that asks them to
reevaluate their traditional training in light of the nontraditional environment they are
now a part of (McGrath & Spear, 1991).
Yet change (in teaching beliefs, teaching practices, understanding of
students) is difficult to attain because the change required for success within the
community college context necessitates almost a complete overhaul of an
71
individual’s belief systems and the identity associated with those beliefs. Cain
(1999) explains,
To affect a change of the magnitude the system demand[s] is to literally ask a
person who has spent his adult life becoming the person he is to become
someone else. No one throws over his identity easily, especially when a
natural hardening of the professional arteries and a certain level of
conservatism has set in (p. 51).

To become an expert in one’s field of choice entails an extensive amount of study
and preparation. Asking an individual to change what seems a lifetime of effort “can
be viewed as the undermining of those years of effort. It is akin to being asked to
throw over a lifetime’s work” (Cain, 2001, p. 51). Accordingly, the beliefs that
emerge from this “lifetime’s work” are precisely that which are the most resistant to
change (Deegan, Tillery, & Associates, 1985).
For mathematics faculty members, change may be especially difficult given
they come from a disciplinary culture that is hierarchical in scope and views learning
in very specific ways. The beliefs fostered by faculty members’ enculturation within
the hierarchical ethos of mathematics is in many ways incompatible with the
historical mission of the community colleges to “provide instruction and support
services to students who are not prepared to succeed in college-level work” (The
Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges, 2004). Like two shifting
plates in the earth’s crust, these opposing belief structures occupy the same plane in
wary co-existence, exerting pressure on one another until such a point that one must
yield to the force of the other. Unfortunately, students are the ones who will be
caught in the epicenter of the ensuing earthquake.
72
The numerous influences articulated above significantly impact the formation
and calcification of faculty members’ internally held belief systems. As noted in the
review, belief systems are tacitly held conceptions based on prior experience that are
not easily observed nor recognized. Yet the impact of these beliefs reverberate
throughout faculty members’ thoughts, actions and behaviors in and out of the
classroom and in their interactions with their students. Making explicit these belief
systems will provide the necessary conditions to effect change among community
college mathematics faculty and within the remedial mathematics classroom. Stanic
(1999) noted that the beliefs (and the assumptions that form as a result) of
mathematics professors are rarely challenged or made visible. These beliefs are
primitively held and generally unaltered for they are directly experienced and upheld
by the reference group of mathematics. To challenge these beliefs would, in the
words of Rokeach (1970), “lead to a serious disruption of beliefs about self-
constancy or self-identity…[and] would lead one to question the validity of many
other beliefs within one’s belief system” (p. 7).
In the chapter that follows, I will describe how a collaborative inquiry
process facilitated the exploration of beliefs in a manner that was non-threatening to
faculty members. As is evident in the vignette, faculty members already felt under
attack for the continual underachievement of students enrolled in remedial
mathematics at California Community College. The collaborative nature of the
project ensured that the exploration of issues would not unduly cast blame on faculty
members specifically. Instead, the inquiry would raise awareness, engender critical
73
reflection, and facilitate the consideration of alternate explanations for student
underachievement that are not premised solely within student deficit.
74
CHAPTER THREE: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
“A lot of time we make judgments. A more in depth inquiry will help
understanding the issue better.” The research associate from the Center for Urban
Education who convened the meeting is attempting to explain how a joint venture
between CCC and the Center for Urban Education will lead to greater awareness and
understanding of the issues affecting students enrolled in remedial mathematics.
More importantly, the research associate is trying to convince the mathematics
faculty members of the important role they play in the success of their students.
However, they don’t seem to be very engaged. Perhaps they are still reeling from the
comments made earlier by the student or perhaps they just don’t see themselves as
the instruments of change that the research associate says they are. Whatever the
reason, their lack of engagement is painfully evident as some faculty members
shuffle through paperwork, others walk in and out of the room, and one attempts to
fix her glasses with a plastic knife. A great deal of silence permeates the fluorescent-
lit room while a few faculty members casually exchange notes with another.
When the researcher concludes his remarks about the project he is proposing,
a few faculty members express the opinion that the research process is simply a
waste of time. “Why spend the time trying to see if the issues exist when we know
they do. Why not spend time focusing on the problems. We know what they are.”
Before the researcher can reply, the female faculty member who was indignant over
the student’s earlier comments elucidates what it is they want and do not want to do.
She says, “We want to do action; that is what mathematicians do. We keep hanging
75
on until we get rid of the problem. You don’t want to go through all this other stuff,
you want action.” The research associate tries to convey to the two individuals that
the process he suggesting is a form of action – programs are not remembered, but the
teachers who engage in action are what make the difference. Still, the faculty
members do not look convinced and the researcher is left with the question: Will you
participate?
In the vignette, the mathematics faculty members don’t see themselves as
agents of change. Rather, they see the process of engaging in inquiry as a waste of
time and instead seek programs that will lead to immediate, discernable action. This
tendency is not surprising given that educational institutions place a high premium
on programs promising institutional improvement (Bensimon, 2005). What is being
proposed here, however, is a different type of action. The collaborative inquiry
project is a kind of faculty development that prominently features faculty members,
assuming the role of researchers, working together to understand the reasons behind
student underachievement in remedial mathematics. In this process of engagement,
faculty members have an opportunity to dissect the problems uncovered in addition
to challenging one another’s assumptions concerning the poor educational outcomes
of students in remedial mathematics. Unfortunately, the faculty members sitting on
the hard wooden chairs in Johnson Hall 205 do not see the benefits of research and
collaboration as a viable intervention for changing the status quo.
In this chapter, I describe with greater depth the collaborative inquiry process
that is the focus of this dissertation. The Math Project, as referenced earlier in
76
chapter one, was designed with the intent to raise awareness about minority students
enrolled in remedial mathematics. Most importantly, this faculty development
opportunity veers from the traditional development opportunities these faculty
members are accustomed as they are not asked to learn new strategies, techniques or
programs. Rather, they are asked to reflect upon their individual beliefs about
students with their colleagues in order to fully appreciate both external (which are
typically attributed for lack of student success) and internal factors (faculty
members’ beliefs) that shape success (and/or failure) within the remedial
mathematics context (Bensimon, 2005; 2006). To fully understand the nature and
scope of the project, I will continue with a brief review of the professional
development literature to describe how traditional forms of professional development
are inadequate to change the belief structures of community college faculty
members. Following, I will describe how the theories of collaborative inquiry and
action research inform the conceptual framework for this study.
Through a contextualized process of group research and collegial dialogue, I
believe that faculty members develop a more conscious awareness of the role they
play within the educational outcomes of minority students enrolled in remedial
mathematics courses. This enables them to reflect on the nature of the problem – not
from a deficit perspective (Bensimon, 2006), but rather from a more equity-minded
6

perspective that accounts for institutional and personal variables (such as beliefs) that
may indirectly contribute to the success or failure of African American and Latino

6
Bensimon (2006) suggests that to be “equity minded” is to be cognizant of both “institution-based
dysfunctions” (p. 5) and the roles of institutional actors in the production of inequities.
77
students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses. The study, therefore, takes note
of how these variables emerge throughout and the extent to which they change as a
result of the collaborative inquiry process.
Evolution of the Math Project
Large-scale demographic changes and social movements within the last 40
years have radically changed the postsecondary institutional environment,
particularly that of the community college. This country’s emphasis on access to
greater postsecondary educational opportunities has paved the way for minority
students to enroll in large numbers in institutions of higher education. As a result,
the face of higher education has changed and now sports a more diverse hue.
California Community College (CCC) is no exception to the changes and it is an
institution characterized by its diversity. Students who enroll at CCC are a reflection
of the large, urban metropolis in which the college is located: 11 percent of students
are African American, 20 percent are Asian
7
, 38 percent are Latino, 24 percent are
White, and 7 percent include Native Americans and other unknown ethnic
designations. Figure 4 shows the enrollment percentages for CCC disaggregated by
race and ethnicity for the 2004 fall term.

7
I use the category “Asian” in this study to be inclusive of Filipino and Pacific Islanders.
78
Figure 4: Enrollment by race and ethnicity at CCC, Fall 2004

African American
11%
Asian
20%
Latino 38%
White
24%
Other
7%

Source: California Community College, 2004.
The mission of CCC is to foster an environment that develops within all
students the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to lead successful personal
and professional lives. Despite CCC’s avowed commitment to students, data
examined in 2000 indicated that African American and Latino students had not
attained a commensurate level of success as their Asian and White peers in critical
pathway mathematics courses. However, institutional policies and structures were
not in place at CCC that would enable institutional decision makers to undertake a
systemic investigation into the persistent disparities between ethnic and racial groups
in these courses. To address the unknown factors that yielded these inequities, CCC
became involved with the Diversity Scorecard Project in December 2000.
The Diversity Scorecard Project (DSP) is a partnership between the Center
for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California and 14
institutions of higher education. Funded by The James Irvine Foundation, the DSP is
premised on the tenets of institutional accountability and organizational learning. As
79
noted by Bauman et al (2005), higher education decision makers have traditionally
favored interventions that look to change the student so they are better able to adapt
to the processes and structures that govern postsecondary institutions. The DSP
seeks to reframe the discussion from student responsibility to institutional
accountability and place the static processes of higher education center-stage to bring
about change at the institutional level. This is accomplished through the in-depth
examination of existing institutional data, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, to
examine the effectiveness of individual institutions to promote equity and excellence
in the educational outcomes of minority students (Bensimon et al, 2004).
Unique to the project is the formation of “evidence teams” that promote
organizational learning and serve as a prerequisite for institutional change. The
evidence teams are comprised of faculty, administrators and other university
personnel who come together to critically examine and discuss routinely collected
data in order to reach a measure of understanding as to why inequities persist on their
campuses. Members of the evidence teams assume the role of researcher, whose job
it is to “hold up a mirror to their respective institutions and reflect the status of
underrepresented students on basic educational outcomes” (Bauman et al, 2005, p.
17). Participation in the evidence teams enable various members of the university
community to transform raw data (usually seen only by institutional researchers and
stored in ambiguous reports) into simplified, yet compelling “stories” that are
accessible to a wider audience. Organizational learning occurs when new knowledge
is constructed by evidence team members and is used to induce institutional change
80
for the improvement of educational outcomes for minority student groups
(Bensimon, 2005).
The DSP is divided into two phases. The first phase of the project involves
the examination of institutional data to attain an in-depth, holistic and realistic view
of the institution. Evidence team members begin by analyzing available data,
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, in the following four perspectives: access,
retention, institutional receptivity, and excellence. The initial analysis of the data
leads evidence team members to question and focus on specific educational
outcomes by student groups for further analysis. These questions then become the
goals and measures by which institutional effectiveness will be evaluated by the
evidence team. The result is the creation of a “Diversity Scorecard,” (see Figure 5) a
self-assessment framework that evaluates the current status of equity within the
institutions.
Figure 5: Diversity Scorecard framework

Source: Bensimon, 2004
81
The scorecard highlights areas in need of further attention and establishes
performance goals in the four perspectives as a means to attain equity
8
.
The second phase of the DSP is concerned with taking the constructed
knowledge from the first phase and engaging in a course of action that address the
most pressing issues raised by the data and agreed-upon by members of the evidence
teams. In short, phase two of the project is not the same across all campuses; rather,
the projects that evolve from the first phase are uniquely tailored to the specific
needs of the institutions and are guided by the evidence team members.
Accordingly, DSP institutions have focused on a variety of issues, some of which
include:
• The articulation and communication efforts between community
college English and math faculty and their corresponding peers at
feeder high schools; and
• The experiences and perceptions of minority students in a private,
four-year liberal arts institution and how these inform university
faculty about the challenges and opportunities students face in trying
to attain academic success (Peña et al., 2006).
While researchers from CUE continue to be involved in these efforts, they only serve
in a supportive role, lending guidance where necessary as evidence team members
have taken ownership of the direction of these projects.

8
More detailed information on the Diversity Scorecard Project can be found in Bensimon, E.M.
(2004). The Diversity Scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change. Change, 36(1), 44-52.
82
The examination of the data by CCC’s evidence team revealed that retention
and success rates in mathematics courses required further study. In fact, members of
the evidence team discovered considerable gaps in achievement by African
American and Latino students enrolled in mathematics courses. Of particular concern
was the students’ inability to pass college algebra, a course required to either
graduate from CCC or transfer to a four-year college or university. With an
approximate enrollment of 6,000 students per semester, “the size of the department
meant that mathematics has a significant impact on the overall course success rates
for the college” (Love, Bauman, & Bensimon, 2004, p. 7). As such, members of the
evidence team determined that the issue of math required further investigation.
This dissertation is focused on phase two of the Diversity Scorecard Project
and the formation of a collaborative inquiry group with faculty members from the
mathematics department at CCC, none of whom were involved in the original
evidence team. The Math Project consisted of six mathematics faculty members,
CCC’s institutional researcher
9
, the director from the Learning Outcomes Center, a
research associate and research assistant from CUE. The goal of the Math Project
was twofold: (1) to examine inequities in educational outcomes by African American
and Latino students through the collection of qualitative data to supplement the
quantitative data made available from phase one; and (2) to develop a plan for
intervention that will help minority students enrolled in three distinct levels of
remedial mathematics. The Math Project met on a monthly basis between May 2004
and December 2005 (see Appendix A) and engaged in the following activities:

9
Original member of CCC’s evidence team from phase one.
83
• Discussed and analyzed institutional data specific to educational outcomes
within the mathematics department, disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
• Administered the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory
10
(Weinstein,
Palmer, & Sulte, 2002), an instrument that allows students to self-report their
learning strategies and study habits, to more than 100 students enrolled in
four remedial mathematics courses and two calculus courses.
• Administered a survey in conjunction with the LASSI that provided more
detailed demographic information (see Appendix B)
• Analyzed and discussed the results of the LASSI.
• Developed an interview protocol (see Appendix C) based on the LASSI
results and other issues raised during the monthly meetings.
• Team members conducted individual interviews (1-2 students per team
member) with students who took the LASSI.
• Team members read and did a preliminary analysis of interview transcripts.
• Prepared a final report to CCC’s President, detailing the Math Project’s
activities and offering recommendations for remedial mathematics.
As can be seen from the above, the Math Project was formed with the intent to
understand the low academic achievement by African Americans and Latinos
enrolled in remedial mathematics courses at an urban community college. At the

10
The Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) is an inventory created to help students
develop a better awareness of how they learn so that they can become more successful in college. The
inventory identifies students’ strengths and weakness in ten different areas as a means to help students
become more strategic and successful students. The LASI inventory diagnoses strengths and
weaknesses in the following areas: anxiety, attitude, concentration, information processing,
motivation, self-testing, selecting main ideas, use of support techniques and materials, time
management, and test strategies and preparation for tests.
84
same time, and what is the focus of this dissertation, the Math Project was formed to
uncover and address the belief structures of community college faculty members and
how these impact success among this particularly vulnerable group of students. In
what follows, I will describe the theories guiding the formation of the project and
conclude by articulating how the Math Project is not an exact representation of the
models described below, but is a hybrid of the theoretical models identified in the
literature.
Professional Development as Vehicle for Change
Educational outcomes over the last 25 years have led to increasing, more
urgent calls for change within the educational system (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999). As a result, innumerable synonyms for the concept of “change” can be found
throughout the literature on education as well as in other disciplines. Calls for
“reform,” “transformative learning,” and “critical reflection” are but a few of the
terms used to describe a similar end result: change. Yet, there are questions as to
what kind of change is being sought. Is it change in student learning? Is it change in
instructional practices? Is it change in institutional structures? Or is the change
sought a more transformative change in the way educators believe and act within the
educational context? Equally important, how does one know that change has
occurred and that the perceived change is sustainable over time?
In the previous chapter, I suggest that numerous influences affect and shape
the belief systems of community college faculty members. These ultimately affect
the degree to which change can occur within the educational context of the remedial
85
mathematics classroom. Briefly, I propose that the beliefs of community college
faculty members are a reflection of (1) the historical context and mission of the
community college; (2) the early training and socialization into a particular academic
discipline; (3) their experience with remedial education; and (4) the institutional
context and classroom experience.
Because belief systems are tacitly held, faculty members are not fully aware
that they espouse and act upon these belief systems. For this reason, it is important
to note how these belief systems impact students particularly within an educational
context aimed at providing students a second chance. Block and Hezelip (1995)
note,
Teachers’ beliefs and belief systems are grounded in their personal
experiences and hence, are highly resistant to change. Typically, though,
these experiences are a byproduct of the school context in which they work.
If school practitioners are not given outside information about this context
that can help them be critical of their past experiences or about new contexts
that portend some new experiences entirely, then the risk is that research will
actually reify that context rather than reform or restructure it (p. 27).

Nespor (1987) suggested that a “gestalt shift” (p. 321) must occur for individuals to
recognize and change their implicitly held beliefs, particularly when they are
working to the detriment of student success. Researchers from the Center for Urban
Education (CUE) provide the “outside information” that is critical for raising
awareness. Unlike traditional professional development opportunities, which offer
“packaged approaches” to faculty members, researchers involved within a
collaborative inquiry process are engaged in a long-term process in which gaining
understanding of both the context and its actors is paramount. As the “outsiders,”
86
CUE researchers take on the “devils’ advocate” approach, providing the critical
voice that forces the discussion to move in different, previously unconsidered
directions.
Educational institutions, from K-12 to postsecondary bodies, structure
professional development activities to provide instructors with the opportunities to
develop new knowledge about the instructional strategies they employ, the students
they teach, and the educational contexts in which they work (Borko, 2004).
Professional or faculty development is a purposeful endeavor “designed to improve
faculty performance in all aspects of their professional lives – as scholars, advisers,
academic leaders, and contributors to institutional decisions” (Nelson, 1983, p. 70).
However, there is a general consensus in the literature that the type and mode of
professional development offered to educational professionals is woefully inadequate
for the needs of the educational environment and, more specifically, the needs of
students. Borko comments,
Each year, schools, districts, and the federal government spend millions, if
not billions, of dollars on in-service seminars and other forms of professional
development that are fragmented, intellectually superficial, and do not take
into account what we know about how teachers learn (2004, p. 3).

In fact, traditional professional development models utilize the services of external
“experts” who have little to no knowledge of local conditions and who present
“irrelevant, sometimes amusing, often boring prepackaged information” (Wilson &
Berne, 1999, p. 174).
Prepackaged professional development units have been criticized for offering
the same solutions to unique problems within varied contexts. Kember and McKay
87
(1996) suggest that these types of professional development programs are based on a
positivist orientation that presupposes “a simplistic delivery system view of
education [and] assumes that there are universally applicable recipes for good
teaching” (p. 531). On the other hand, in instances when professional development
opportunities do provide educators with sound, research-based advise, the particulars
of the solution offered may be too difficult to implement within the “swampy ground
of the classroom” (Kember & McKay, 1996, p. 531). As a result, educators tend to
be cynical of professional development opportunities, only taking away knowledge
and/or strategies that most closely apply to their local context.
Professional development reconceptualized
The literature therefore calls for a reconceptualization of professional
development opportunities offered to instructors so as to foster a greater probability
for change – change in beliefs, change in strategies, change in the way they view and
approach the educational context and the students within. There is agreement in the
literature that a top-down approach will not meet the diverse needs of educators nor
of local contexts (Louie, Drevdahl, Purdy, & Stackman, 2003). Professional
development should be contextually based and developed by local actors who will
most benefit from the intervention (Ball, 1996). “New” models of professional
development should not just develop strategies and techniques to address persistent
educational problems. Rather, the new models of professional development seek to
attain greater insight into how educators learn, understand what processes are
necessary for educators to engage in effective learning, and recognize those critical
88
factors that need to exist in order to foster this learning. As Wilson & Berne (1999)
articulate, “Teacher learning has traditionally been a patchwork of opportunities –
formal and informal, mandatory and voluntary, serendipitous and planned – stitched
together into a fragmented and incoherent ‘curriculum’” (p, 174). Professional
development opportunities must therefore be purposefully developed for inquiry and
learning about discrete problems within specific educational contexts.
Professional development needs to be organized within a social milieu,
enabling individuals to engage other practitioners with diverse perspectives to
construct new knowledge (Borko, 2004). If changes in beliefs are to occur, Little
(1988) and Abdal-Haqq (1995) propose that professional development models
should contain certain features. They should be collaborative in scope, bringing
together the education community (instructors and administrators) to identify the
needs of the local context. There should be recognition that all individuals are
integral members of the professional community, making their commitment to the
process essential. The crux of professional development is the improvement of
student learning with a focus on vital topics of curriculum design and instructional
delivery. They are not “one-time” deals, but are continuous, ensuring that
knowledge is attained and absorbed by each participant. Lastly, professional
development opportunities must adopt standards of collegiality such that all
individuals have the opportunity to raise questions, challenge assumptions, and
promote experimentation. Table 8 summarizes the features of meaningful and
effective professional development.
89
Table 8: Features of effective professional development
Feature Description
Collaborative Teachers have an opportunity to interact and engage in discussion with their peers.

Situated Professional development is embedded within the local context, drawing upon the
work and needs of students and instructors.

Focus on
learning and
instruction

The focus of the professional development is on improving both student learning and
the delivery of instruction for greater achievement.

Ongoing Opportunities are not restricted to a few sessions; rather opportunities are extended
until such time that learning has been attained and absorbed by the educator and
visible changes are evident in practice and student outcomes.

Experimental Educators are encouraged to explore innovative and experimental solutions to issues
raised by the community.

Professional The model assumes standards of professionalism, establishing norms of collegiality,
is accessible and inclusive of all diverse perspectives.

Reflective Educators are asked to be self-reflective, considering their own assumptions in
regards to practice and the manner in which they affect student learning and
educational outcomes.

Sources: Abdal-Haqq, 1999; Little, 1988

Given the above features, there is a sense that change can occur so long as (1)
educators are given the opportunity to actively construct their own knowledge; (2)
educators are treated as professionals; (3) the professional development is drawn
from the local context; and (4) educators have a conscious awareness of the norms of
collegiality and respect for others (Putnam & Borko, 1997). Development
opportunities, according to Camblin Jr., and Steger (2000) are
…intended to initiate, infuse, and sustain change in targeted faculty (Sullivan,
1983); and furthermore, such strategies better enable the faculty and
institution to create an enriched environment which expands faculty
“awareness of new emerging information” and is directed at “understanding
the complexity of higher education” (Hubbard & Atkins, 1995, p. 118) (p. 5).

However, there continue to remain significant impediments that must be
acknowledged and worked through if sustainable change is to be achieved.
90
Action Research and Collaborative Inquiry: Impetus for Change
Calling for change amongst the community college faculty ranks is difficult.
Requiring academic faculty members to change, whether it be teaching practices or
their general belief systems, is difficult because it is akin to “throw[ing] over a
lifetime’s work” (Cain, 1999, p. 51). Change is difficult and can be demoralizing for
faculty members because they are placed in the uncomfortable position of
reevaluating their personal identities and purpose (Rokeach, 1972). Given the rapid
changes faced by the nation’s community colleges – greater student diversity,
inconsistent academic preparation across student groups, recruitment and retention
issues – community college faculty members are faced with the arduous task of
educating a student population they are not and were not prepared for. In other
words, the traditional training received by most faculty members does not
complement the student population typical to the community college. Faculty
members are therefore resistant to change because maintaining the status quo is a
form of protection against despair, fear, and the unknown of a new student body
(Cohen & Brawer, 1972). At the same time, they are resistant to change because it is
not something they intuitively seek, but rather is imposed upon them by outsiders to
the community college system. Cain (2001) explains,
The sources of the change are a major factor in the demoralization of the
professorate. For the academic faculty, those changes originated from
outside; most of the time, they were imposed upon the faculty without the
benefit of teacher input or consultation. Few academic professors [make] a
conscious decision to change: that decision was made for them by a large
variety of factors that they perceived as being beyond their control (pp. 51-
52).

91
Professional development opportunities must take note of these two important
factors: (1) faculty members are resistant to change because their identities and
purpose are placed at risk; and (2) the change that is required is often top-down with
little regard to their needs or desires. Professional development opportunities must
therefore seek to not only minimize the threat to their identities but also lead faculty
to believe that whatever change occurs is guided by them and within their control.
Two forms of professional development stand out as having the capacity to
propel long-lasting change among faculty members. Action research and
collaborative inquiry are forms of professional development that aim to “not only
improv[e] outcomes and improv[e] the self-understanding of practitioners, but also
assist practitioners to arrive at a critique of their social or educational work and work
settings” (Kemmis, 2001, p. 92). Within these contexts, educators are provided with
opportunities to construct knowledge about teaching and instruction in a forum
where they can question the historical, social and cultural components that frame
their practice and the institutional contexts in which they work. Most importantly,
these two theories of inquiry enable faculty members to not only look at issues from
a researcher’s perspective, but to satisfy their desire to engage in action.
Action research
Action research has been identified as the process through which educators
can systematically examine their instructional practices for the purpose of
improvement and bringing about increased student achievement (Ferrance, 2000).
Another definition comes from Kember and Gow (1992), stating that action research
92
is “a process of social research leading to social change, characterized by active
participation and democratic decision making” (p. 297). Carr and Kemmis (1986)
offer a definition of action research that perhaps most resonates with the
requirements for change. They say,
Action research is…a form of self-reflexive enquiry undertaken by
participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice
of their own practices, their understanding of these practices, and the
situations in which these practices are carried out (p. 162).

Largely used in education, management, and social work (Kember & McKay, 1996),
action research is premised on the following assumptions: (1) Individuals work more
diligently on problems identified for themselves; (2) Individuals can be more
effective if encouraged to examine their own practices and the ways to change them;
(3) Individuals are more apt to lend assistance when working in collaboration with
others; and (4) Individuals learn more from colleagues and gain better outcomes in
their ongoing professional development (Watts, 1985).
Action research is considered “a rigorous systematic inquiry…that
incorporates systematic observation and evaluation…[that] are made public and
subject to normal criteria for scrutiny and acceptance…[and] contributes to both
social practice and the development of theory” (Kember & McKay, 1986, p. 533).
The benefits to action research include the relevance of research to practice; provide
teacher development in that they empower teachers to develop their thinking skills,
increase their sense of efficacy, promote a willingness to collaborate with others, and
develop an awareness of the need for change; enables teachers to reflect on their
individual practice; individual contribution to the field may impact school change;
93
and improve educators’ patterns of collegiality, communication, and networking
(Ferrance, 2000). Table 9 below itemizes the unique components of action research
and provides a brief description for each of these components.
Table 9: Components of action research
Components Description
Social practice Action research is concerned with a social practice that impacts a wide
range of individuals.

Participatory While action research can be conducted by individuals working alone, it is
typically a group activity. Individuals come together to investigate a topic
that concerns all members involved in the research process.

Self-selection of topics Practitioners are encouraged to participate and select topics for research that
are most important to their work as professionals. These topics can range
from things that are merely interesting to them as practitioners or actual
problems they wish to solve.

Cyclical process It is a process that never truly ends, but rather a process that continually
informs practitioners in an iterative process, which involve numerous cycles
of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.

Systematic inquiry Practitioners, while not participating other, more paradigms of inquiry,
nonetheless are subject to rigorous standards of research, which include
observation, evaluation, and review. The findings of action research both
improve practice and contribute to the development of theory.

Reflective process Practitioners become involved in action research with the intent of
understanding problems and the role their practice plays within the scope of
those problems under study. Self-reflection leads to changes amongst
individual practices and assumptions.

Source: Kember & McKay, 1996

First introduced by Kurt Lewin in 1946, action research was seen as the
instrument for conducting social science research that led to both the generation of
theory and to change of a social system through action (Bray, Lee, Smith, Yorks,
2000). This form of research, according to Lewin (1946), was the way in which
institutional contexts could address such pressing social issues as racism (Susman &
Evered, 1978). The introduction of social science research with a focus on
producing change yielded a movement of action-oriented social scientists who
94
“embraced the value of being in the field and building knowledge and theory from
solutions to ‘real world problems’” (Bray et al., 2000, p. 32). Yet, throughout the
early years of action research, there was a tension between conducting research and
actively working in the field as action research continued to be influenced by
conventional scientific thought in regards to what was considered valid knowledge
(Bray, et al., 2000). At the same time, questions arose as to the relationship between
the researchers and the participants, particularly as they related to the manipulation
of the context, which was a standard feature of social science research.
The early years of action research, in its attempts to link social science
research with social action, was fraught with the need to forge methods that would be
honored as scientifically valid. In the ensuing years, researchers worked to address
the schism between addressing practical issues in the field and contributing to
scientific theory. Action research saw a decline in the 1960’s as more traditional and
experimental approaches to research dominated the social and behavioral sciences.
However, there was a revitalized interest in action research in the 1980s as
researchers gravitated towards its emphasis on collaboration and its potential for
sustainability long after the researcher had left the context. There was a rejection of
and a challenge to the “elitist” and “top down” approach of traditional methods of
research (Whyte, 1991 cited in Bray et al., 2000). Likewise, there was a greater
recognition by researchers of individual’s social construction of knowledge through
collective interaction, thus arguing that traditional models of research evaluation
could not apply to action research. As Susman and Evered (1978) state,
95
Action research constitutes a kind of science with a different epistemology
that produces a different knowledge, a knowledge which is contingent on the
particular situation, and which develops the capacity of members of the
organization to solve their own problems (p. 601).

Action research has evolved over time, leading to a number of variations of action-
oriented research that prominently feature collaboration as one of its guiding
principles (Reason, 1994). Figure 6 below provides an illustration of the action
research cycle.
Figure 6: Action research cycle

Source: Ferrance, 2000

Carr and Kemmis (1986) point out three distinctive features, or rather
conditions that point to the existence of action research. First, action research is
focused on addressing some issue of social action. Second, the project goes through
an iterative cycle of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting, all with the intent of
being “systematically and self-critically implemented and interrelated” (p. 165).
Last, all members of the project are deeply involved at all stages of implementation
and analysis, “maintaining collaborative control of the process” (p. 166).
96
In action research, educators assume the role of researchers wherein they gain
a greater understanding of their local context so as to bring about change at the
individual, local, and institutional level (Bensimon et al., 2004). It is most powerful
when it leads participants to become aware of their often unconsciously held
constructions and inspires them to change. As Carr and Kemmis (1986) point out,
“[Action research is a] deliberate process for emancipating practitioners from the
often unseen constraints of assumptions, habit, precedent, coercion and ideology” (p.
192).
Premised on Jürgen Habermas’ theory of knowledge-constitutive interests
11

(1972), Kemmis (2001) asserts that knowledge is constructed around the need to
satisfy technical, practical, and emancipatory interests. Action research satisfies
individual interests in technical, or instrumental concerns that are geared “towards
functional improvement measured in terms of its success in changing particular
outcomes of practice” (2001, p. 92). It is practical in that it informs practitioners’
decision-making, leading to the self-education of the practitioner. Action research is
emancipatory for it leads individuals to recognize and question “habits, customs,
illusion and coercion which sometimes frame and constrain social and educational
practice” (p. 92) and which produce results that are contrary to the intent of the
participants.

11
Jürgen Habermas’ theory of knowledge-constitutive interests posits that knowledge is constructed
as a result of particular human interests and is shaped by historical and social conditions, thus refuting
the claims of positivism (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). For a more thorough explanation, see Habermas, J.
(1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. Translated by J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.
97
Action research projects described in the literature may or may not address
all three knowledge- constitutive interests proposed by Habermas. Action research
projects that solely address the technical form are insufficient for they take on a
highly pragmatic and narrow view of the problem to be addressed. Kemmis (2001)
comments that while success is attained when “outcomes match aspirations” (p. 92),
he nonetheless critiques the technical form of action research for it does not question
or address the goals to be reached nor does it question the context in which the goals
are situated. The practical form “aim[s] not only to improve [practitioners’]
practices in functional terms, but also to see how their goals, and the categories in
which they evaluate their work, are shaped by their ways of seeing and
understanding themselves in context” (p. 92). This form of action research accounts
for the topic under investigation as well as accounts for the practitioners themselves
and the changes that need to occur within the particular context in order to change
the outcomes of their practices. It promotes self-reflection and inspires the
dissemination of stories and histories that document the planning and making of
change.
The third form described by Kemmis resonates most with changing not only
practices, but also working to change individually and collectively held assumptions
about the social context. He notes,
[Critical action research] aims not only at improving outcomes, improving
the self-understandings of practitioners, but also at assisting practitioners to
arrive at a critique of their social or educational work and work settings. This
kind of research aims at intervening in the cultural, social and historical
processes of everyday life to reconstruct not only the practice and the
98
practitioner but also the practice setting (or, one might say, the work, the
worker and the workplace) (p. 92).

Critical action research empowers practitioners to reflect on their practices such that
they become conscious of past influences and constraints in order to recognize that
these must be addressed before they can move forward to implement change
(Kember & McKay, 1996). Participants are led to be much more self-critical of their
situations and that of their students so that they may become more consciously aware
of how their conceptions are “shaped and re-shaped discursively, culturally, socially,
and historically” (Kemmis, 2001, p. 92). Kember & McKay conclude that
participants engaged in critical action research projects are therefore more aware of
the unconscious conventions that influence their actions, making them “explicit,
and…evaluate their merit” (p. 534).
Most importantly, critical action research is connected to social action and
the aim to improve conditions within the social world. This type of research is
essential for it continually works to understand how the world is and how it could be
made better through action. Thus, for Kemmis (1993), critical action research is
“activist” in that “it aims at creating a form of collaborative learning by doing…and
aims to help people understand themselves as the agents, as well as the products of
history” (p. 4). Critical action research, as a collaborative process involving the
participation of others, ultimately has the potential to engage individuals in what
Mezirow (2000) describes as “transformative learning.” Transformative learning is
the process through which individuals, involved in collaborative discourse, assess
their taken-for-granted assumptions and evaluate them alongside the assumptions of
99
others. Engagement in this process asks individuals to evaluate the merit of their
assumptions and the justifications that sustain them, utilizing the insights gained
from the perspectives of others.
Collaborative inquiry
The development of action research gave rise to other action-oriented
research methodologies, one of which is collaborative inquiry. Collaborative inquiry
aims to engage individuals in new and innovative ways of improving practice by
engaging in a participatory and democratic process of research and inquiry. In
contrast to traditional models of conducting research in which there is a sharp
separation between researcher and researched (Bensimon et al., 2004), the
collaborative inquiry process attempts to demystify the research process by making it
accessible to lay audiences in order to promote a better understanding of the world
around them (Bray et al., 2000). Influenced by the ideas grounded in cooperative
inquiry (Heron, 1981) and participatory human inquiry (Reason, 1988), cooperative
inquiry “assumes that understanding and improving the human condition requires an
approach that honors a holistic perspective on what constitutes valid knowledge”
(Bray et al., 2000, p. 3).
Heron’s cooperative inquiry model (1988) rests on the phenomenological
notion that human experience cannot be understood through traditional research
methods. Experiments and control groups cannot capture the essence of the
authentic experience. Consequently, data collected under the guidelines of
traditional research methods provide unreliable information about people. Because
100
individuals placed under experimental conditions are “behav[ing] according to a
unilaterally imposed protocol…subjects are not fully present as self-determining
persons. They are subjects acquiescing to the research design” (Bray et al., 2000, p.
6). To attain true insight into the human condition and experience, research needs to
evolve from the practitioners/researchers own experiences, as they are better able to
convey the authenticity and richness of the lived experience. Individuals
participating in cooperative endeavors are empowered to incorporate within the
design of the research their own values and interests.
Several definitions have been proposed in the research to articulate the nature
of collaborative inquiry. Bray et al (2000) define collaborative inquiry as a process
“consisting of repeated episodes of reflection and action through which a group of
peers strives to answer a question of importance to them” (p. 6). Weinbaum, Allen,
Blythe, Simon, Seidel, and Rubin (2004) provide a more substantive definition,
describing it as
…the process by which colleagues gather in groups to pursue, over time, the
questions about teaching and learning that the group members identify as
important. Groups develop their understanding of an issue through framing a
question, identifying artifacts or “evidence” that help respond to it, sharing
perspectives on the evidence, reflecting on the partial or provisional answers
that emerge, and revising the question in light of experience and discussion
(p. 2).

Collaborative inquiry facilitates the sharing of personal experiences (in and out of
the classroom) and engaging in discussion such that all individuals involved attain a
measure of insight from the differing experiences and perspectives of their
colleagues (Bray et al, 2000; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). This in turn has the
101
effect of impacting not only individual perspectives and practices, but has the
potential of eliciting both departmental and institutional reform.
Three distinct features distinguish collaborative inquiry: peers as co-
researchers, cycles of reflection and action on lived experience, and shared
commitment to the question of inquiry (Bray et al., 2000). Table 10 below
summarizes the primary features of collaborative inquiry.
Table 10: Features of collaborative inquiry
Feature Description
Peers as Co-Researchers Peers serve as both co-inquirers as well as co-subjects.

Reflection and Action Learning occurs through repeated cycles of reflection and action; also
serves as a valid method for inquiry.

Inquiry Inquiry results from a question devised by a shared commitment of the
collaborative inquiry group and will determine the parameters of the
inquiry.

Source: Bray et al., 2000

The first feature, peers as co-researchers, is indicative of the importance of
learning in collaboration with others. According to Heron (1996) and Reason
(1988), this is the defining principle of collaborative inquiry as the research
conducted is focused on the experience of individuals involved within the project.
The collaborative inquiry model doesn’t look to delve into the experiences of outside
individuals, rather its lens of interest lies within the group, exploring the distinct
experiences of each member. Because participants in collaborative inquiry projects
serve as both co-inquirer and co-subject, all members of the group are involved in all
facets of the research process. As co-inquirers, participants are involved in “shaping
the question, designing the inquiry question, participating in the experience of
exploring the inquiry question, and making and communicating meaning” (Bray et
102
al., 2000, p. 7). As co-subjects, participants share their experiences with the inquiry
group “to provide a collective pool of experience and insight for analysis and
creating meaning” (Bray et al., 2000, p. 7). The roles that participants assume
throughout the inquiry process support the belief that a more thorough and valid
understanding of the experience under study emerges because researchers are
contributing to the experience and not merely researching it from afar.
By relying solely on the experiences of the inquiry group for study of a
particular problem, collaborative inquiry not only separates itself from more
traditional methods of inquiry largely practiced in the behavioral and social sciences,
but it also distinguishes itself from qualitative approaches to inquiry. According to
Heron (1996), qualitative approaches such as case study, ethnography, and grounded
theory still subscribe to some elements of the traditional research paradigms.
Specifically, individuals pursuing this type of research select subjects for their study
who they will then go and observe in their natural settings, obtaining insight into
what the subject is thinking and feeling primarily through recorded observations and
interviews. Yet the researcher is still significantly removed from the experience.
The interpretations that result, despite the collection of data and personal insights
from the subject, cannot possibly be construed as rich and valid as that of an
individual fully immersed in inquiry and reflection. Accordingly, Heron concludes
that this type of research is akin to “a halfway house between exclusive, controlling
research on people and fully participatory research with people” (p. 27).
103
The second distinguishing feature of collaborative inquiry is the repeated
cycles of reflection and action on the lived experience. Two models of learning
influence this feature, namely the work of Jarvis (1992) and Mezirow (1991; 2000).
Jarvis proposes there are three different learning responses to experiences in addition
to there being three different reflection types that people naturally engage in. In
regards to learning, Jarvis points out that people can engage in nonlearning, where no
learning occurs as a result of an experience. There can also be nonreflective learning
in which people learn but it is usually along the lines of memorization and rote
learning. Last, there is reflective learning, which can be contemplative, reflective
skill learning, and experimental learning, which typically involves the incorporation
of theory in practice so as to gain new knowledge. These different learning paths are
central to collaborative inquiry as they provide a new model to understand and
facilitate adult learning (Bray et al., 2000). This new model, for proponents of
collaborative inquiry, can lead to substantive change amongst individuals.
Mezirow (1991, 2000) views reflection as a form of action that can lead to
transformative learning. He distinguishes between “mindful learning,” which is an
individual’s ability to be open to new information, new experiences and new
perspectives, and “mindlessness,” which results when individuals resort to prior
assumptions, categories, and actions to understand experience. Mezirow further
distinguishes an adult’s awareness capacity, notably suggesting that there are
different degrees of awareness. He says, “In adulthood, informed decisions require
104
not only awareness of the source and context of our knowledge, values, and feelings
but also critical reflection on the validity of their assumptions or premises” (p. 7).
So while awareness, or rather reflection, makes it possible for individuals to
amend any distortions in their thought processes, critical reflection is what enables
individuals to critique the world around them and the suppositions they hold as a
result of the context in which they reside (Bray et al., 20000). Transformative
learning thus occurs when individuals are able to “transform [their] taken for granted
frames of reference…to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open,
emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and
opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide action (Mezirow, 2000, pp. 7-
8). This type of transformative learning, Mezirow acknowledges, is difficult,
perhaps even threatening as it challenges deeply held assumptions that guide
people’s thoughts and actions. Participation in collaborative inquiry, while not being
any less threatening, nonetheless engages individuals in “constructive discourse” that
allows them to reassess their assumptions in view of the insights of others.
The final distinguishing characteristic of collaborative inquiry is the nature of
the inquiry, specifically the focus of the group. As previously mentioned by
Mezirow (2000), involving oneself in reflection that ultimately has the potential to
challenge deep-seeded beliefs and assumptions is a difficult process. Developing a
question for inquiry that addresses the needs and interests of all participants can not
only ensure the commitment of all those involved, but can certainly provide
justification for the challenges that will undoubtedly materialize. The inquiry group
105
can develop the initial question with the hope of inducing others to join. However,
members of the final formation of the inquiry group ultimately refine and reach
consensus on the question that will guide the inquiry.
The importance of the question that will frame or guide the question cannot
be stressed enough. The question is what will determine (1) the actions to be
undertaken by the inquiry group; (2) how data will be collected for reflection and
analysis; (3) what “validity checks” will be followed; (4) how many cycles of action
and reflection will be undertaken by the group; and (5) the length of time that will be
spent on the inquiry (Bray et al., 2000). It should be understood that the
collaborative inquiry process is not static and unmoving once the primary parameters
have been established by the group. Rather, the parameters are flexible and can be
adjusted or changed completely as dictated by the process itself. Similar to design
research (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992; Cobb, 2001), the question is typically
modified when greater insight is attained from a particular experience, or simply as a
result of participants being able to fully elucidate their interests.
Bray et al (2000) suggest that the question needs to follow two essential
principles. The first principle requires that the question be one that all participants
can explore through their own experiences. In other words, participants in the
inquiry project need to have the ability to take some sort of action in regards to the
question posed by the inquiry group. This ensures that, in the final analysis, the
experiences of all participants will contribute to the interpretations of the group, thus
ensuring the validity of the inquiry process. According to Bray et al, and
106
emphasized by Heron (1996), “This is one of the key differences between
collaborative inquiry and many forms of action research in which the researchers
seek to capture data from the experiences of other people who are essentially the
subjects of the research” (p. 12).
The second essential principle insists upon the equality of the participants in
the inquiry, namely that all individuals have an equal opportunity (relative to others)
to address the question being posed by the group. This ensures that, irrespective of
knowledge, experience or expertise, all individuals are peers within the construct of
the group. According to Bray et al, “Their experience becomes the mechanism for
unlocking or resolving issues” (p. 12) thus ensuring that the existance of equality
becomes one of the foremost obligations of the group.
In sum, collaborative inquiry has the potential to create and sustain change
within the educational context because of its deep focus on participants and their
experiences. The opportunity to engage in inquiry, in collaboration with one’s peers
is indispensable as together they are able to analyze their individual experiences and
gain insight into the experiences of others. The multiple perspectives that are part of
collaborative inquiry ensure that multiple points of view will be shared, thus
facilitating learning among all participants (Zech et al., 2000). Most importantly,
holding up one’s experience for analysis and interpretation means placing one’s
beliefs and assumptions under a microscope, open to challenge and critique. Yet
because the inquiry is premised on the group’s commitment to a shared interest, the
107
dialogue that ensues comes “from a platform of trust, so that assumptions and
evidence can be held up to critical examination” (Zech et al., p. 214).
Transformative learning, or change, occurs when previously held
assumptions and beliefs are modified and justified in accordance to new insights
gained from one’s participation in inquiry. Because this can be a painful, even
traumatic process in the sense that one’s fundamental beliefs are challenged and held
under scrutiny, participating in a collaborative inquiry group makes this process a
much more productive endeavor. As Mezirow (2000) says,
[Recognizing] the crucial role of supportive relationships and a supportive
environment [makes] possible a more confident, assured sense of personal
efficacy, of having a self – or selves – more capable of becoming critically
reflective of one’s habitual and sometimes cherished assumptions, and of
having the self-confidence to take action on reflective insights (p. 25).

The supportive, yet critically reflective environment inherent within collaborative
inquiry makes this a realistic possibility – thus ensuring the probability for change.
Bringing It All Together: The Math Project
The Math Project at CCC is a professional development model that
incorporates the theories of action research and collaborative inquiry in a new hybrid
model. The Math Project is guided by the notion that faculty members, as
practitioner-researchers, have the capacity to influence change at the “individual,
organizational, and societal level” (Bensimon et al., 2004, p. 108) through the
production of knowledge that is relevant to specific educational contexts. This
production of knowledge results from faculty members’ involvement in a
collaborative research endeavor that is facilitated by external university researchers.
108
Yet, unlike traditional professional development models that bring a “pre-packaged
program” to a particular setting, the knowledge that occurs emerges directly from the
setting. As such, the question guiding the inquiry of the Math Project emerged from
the first phase of the Diversity Scorecard Project and continued with the questions
faculty members still had concerning the data presented.
As more complex questions were asked pertaining to the inequitable
educational outcomes of minority students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses,
the faculty members began to develop “deeper knowledge about the
problem…problematiz[ing] their assumptions about the nature of the problem as
well as their attitudes, beliefs, and practices vis-à-vis minority student groups” (Peña
et al., 2006, p. 50). Throughout this process, researchers from CUE were intricately
involved in facilitating, sometimes coercing, the direction of the inquiry and the
direction of the group.
In a very real sense, the Math Project is not a true action research or
collaborative inquiry endeavor as defined by the literature. Rather, the interest for
the project emerged from CUE researchers and the original participants of phase one.
The math faculty members were given the “evidence” that would hopefully whet
their appetite into wanting to delve deeper into the reasons for the persisting
inequities. However, as can be seen by the vignettes throughout, this was a difficult
and laborious process. As such, the Math Project was a result of CUE researcher’s
dissatisfaction with the status of equity in regards to the mathematical achievement
at CCC (Confrey & Lachance, 2000) and the desire to understand how faculty
109
members’ beliefs about students influenced educational outcomes. From the
perspectives of the faculty members, their agreement to participate in the project was
a result of their interest in understanding how external forces (i.e., family and work
obligations, study habits, preparation) were preventing students from succeeding in
mathematics.
The Math Project occurred on two levels. On one level, it incorporated the
theories and actions of collaborative inquiry and action research in that the project
was collaborative, focused on dialogue, challenged assumptions, and involved
practitioners in research. On the second level, researchers from CUE facilitated the
direction of the group by proposing specific research questions and research
activities that would challenge faculty members’ individual assumptions and beliefs
about students and the remedial mathematics context. Thus, when faculty members
engaged in dialogue that was premised on a student deficit perspective, CUE
researchers would raise questions or make comments that would challenge faculty
members to think of low achievement rates and poor educational outcomes as a
result of what they did or what they could do. This type of questioning and
reframing of the problems enabled faculty members to develop new knowledge and
awareness that they could not have developed on their own. The effect of the
“outsider” looking at “inside problems” had the effect of “increase[ing] members’
awareness of a problem, mak[ing] them more conscious of their capacities for action,
and empower[ing] them to use their newly acquired expertise to influence others
(Bensimon et al., 2004).
110
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The meeting with the CCC mathematics faculty culminated with the reluctant
agreement by a small group of faculty and other institutional members to embark
upon a collaborative inquiry project. The emphasis placed by the meeting facilitators
on institutional responsibility for eradicating inequitable educational outcomes has
left a somewhat strained pall within the room. As chairs are pushed back and away
from the tables where handouts and scribbled notes rest, new scrapings on the floor
etch the ending of yet another meeting in the dimly lit classroom. Voices echo
throughout the graffiti-marked room as faculty members exit through the open doors.
Evidence of grumblings, doubt and restrained excitement are all that remain of the
two-hour meeting. At the front of the room a doctoral student powers off the
PowerPoint presentation that only recently told a dire story of inequitable outcomes
for minority students in remedial mathematics. Replacing the presentation is a
desktop image of a black Labrador retriever with a ball to his side and his front paws
crossed as he rests on a wooden floor. Off to the side of the room remains the
student who so boldly questioned the faculty. With a smile on her face, she looks at
the image projected on the wall and waves goodbye before she too leaves the room.
The collaborative inquiry project was not heartily welcomed with open arms,
but rather was looked upon with skepticism and in some cases, outright scorn. This
dissertation traces the experiences of the mathematics faculty members who elected
to participate in this project and the degree to which change occurred. In this chapter
111
I will describe my research approach, articulating the relevance of applying
qualitative methods to this study.
Research Approach
Studying beliefs and the processes used to change the nature of beliefs is
inherently challenging. Because beliefs are acknowledged in the literature as being
tacitly held by individuals, the use of such research methods as surveys,
questionnaires or other inventories would not be appropriate (Kane et al., 2002).
According to Richardson, (1996), these types of instruments “often do not represent
teachers’ beliefs” (p, 107) because they are not fully conscious of what they
inherently believe (Rokeach, 1972; Argyris & Schön, 1974). An inquiry into beliefs
requires the use of multiple data sources and research methods, particularly those
offered by qualitative inquiry. Qualitative inquiry methods allow researchers to not
only “capture the complex, multifaceted aspects” (Kagan, 1990, p. 459) of beliefs,
but they allow for “richer and more accurate inferences to be made” (Pajares, 1992,
p. 327). Most importantly, qualitative inquiry enables the researcher to leave an
“audit trail” which provides readers with a step-by-step explanation of the
researchers findings and analysis. Thus, to understand the complexity of belief
systems and how they change over time requires the collection of highly descriptive
and in-depth data sources that are the hallmark of qualitative inquiry (Shavelson,
Phillips, Towne, & Feuer, 2002).

112
Qualitative inquiry
Numerous definitions and stated purposes have been posited in the literature
to describe qualitative inquiry. Cresswell (1998) defines it as being uniquely suited
to the exploration of human or social problems. Hoepl (1997), invoking Cronbach
(1975), supports Creswell’s statement when she states, “Qualitative inquiry accepts
the complex and dynamic quality of the social world” (p. 48). For Schwandt (2001),
qualitative inquiry allows for an exploration into the human lived experience, paying
particular attention to how it is “lived, felt, undergone, made sense of, and
accomplished by human beings” (p. 84). Merriam (1998) articulates that qualitative
research methods enable researchers to understand and explain the socially
constructed meanings individuals formulate of social phenomena. According to
Polkinghorne (2005), this mode of research facilitates the process of describing and
clarifying the particular characteristics of the human experience within a specific
context. Patton (1985) notes that qualitative inquiry “strives for depth of
understanding” (p. 1), not for the express purpose of predicting future actions, but
simply to understand the unique interactions and derived meanings from within a
unique context. Because qualitative inquiry applies an “interpretive, naturalistic
approach to the world” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003, p. 5), the perspective of the emic
comes through as the voices of the participants are privileged throughout the
research endeavor.
Given all the definitions supplied by various authors, qualitative inquiry can
be summarized as having the following unique features that distinguish it from other
113
research methods. First, qualitative research is situated within a natural setting,
allowing researchers to observe, describe and interpret interactions as they occur in a
real-world context. Second, the data collected are supplied by the informants
themselves, providing richly detailed accounts of their experiences and the
perspectives that shape them (Patton, 1990). Third, the interpretive nature of inquiry
facilitates the discovery and understanding of meaning made by individuals as they
respond to specific situations and experiences. Fourth, the qualitative researcher
serves as the “human instrument” through which data are collected, synthesized and
interpreted (Merriam, 1998). In this unique role, the researcher can be much more
adaptive to changing circumstances and explore new and emerging areas of inquiry
(Guba and Lincoln, 1981). Last, the data collected are presented in storied form,
providing a “situated, narrative account” (Banan-Ritland, 2003) whose “level of
detail makes the work come alive…transporting the reader directly into the world of
the study” (Creswell, 1998, p. 170). Hence, qualitative research methods that are
naturalistic (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and interpretive (Smith, 1981) bridge the world
of the research study with that of the intended audience, eliciting a more intimate and
meaningful response by the reader (Stake, 1978).
Rationale
The use of qualitative methods is acutely relevant for this study for a number
of reasons. To start, qualitative inquiry is primarily useful for studying individuals
114
within their natural settings
12
. Projects grounded in collaborative inquiry and action
research methods take place within socially driven contexts that are populated by
faculty members, administrators, and university researchers, whose specific roles
oftentimes blur over time (Banan-Ritland, 2003). Complex interactions and
heightened awareness of internal and external belief structures and practices
characterize the experiences of the mathematics faculty members involved in the
Math Project. Qualitative data methods enabled me to capture the complexity of the
participants’ involvement as their individual and collective voices shed light on the
phenomenon under study (Hoepfl, 1997).
Lastly, and most importantly, the narrative generated by this qualitative study
will illuminate a project that has neither been implemented at another site nor has
been previously researched. Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggest that qualitative
methods are best employed when very little or nothing is known about a particular
phenomenon under study. The thick description (Geertz, 1973) provided by the
project participants (as a result of individual interviews) combined with my personal
observations and reflections (as a result of fieldwork) will provide a comprehensive
and highly detailed analysis of the collaborative inquiry.
Methodology
Qualitative inquiry offers a rich collection of research methods that facilitated
the collection of in-depth data sources. For this study I use an ethnographic

12
Although the Math Project cannot be construed as a “natural setting” because it is a specifically
arranged grouping of individuals that meet for a pre-defined purpose, the group is nonetheless
composed of individuals who work within the same context, serve the same populations of students,
and are working towards similar goals.
115
descriptive case study to illustrate the experiences and document the changes of the
six mathematics faculty members involved with the Math Project. Case studies are
defined in the literature as the deliberate and intensive study of a bounded system
(Smith, 1978) or of a phenomenon occurring within a bounded context (Miles and
Huberman, 1994). Case study research is the process through which a specific entity
is both analyzed and described, drawing attention to the complex, qualitative
variables that are endemic to the case and emerge over time (Wilson, 1979). Interest
in case studies emerges not from the testing of hypotheses or issues previously
generated by investigators, but rather by interest in what is occurring within the
bounded context (Stake, 1978). Centralizing the experiences of the emic, case study
research makes possible the in-depth understanding of the particular so as to
“uncover the interaction of significant factors of the phenomenon” (Merriam, 1998,
p. 29).
Some of those “significant factors” noted by Merriam are what forms the
basis for CUE researchers’ interests in the collaborative inquiry project. As noted by
Stake (1978), our interest in the belief systems of faculty members materialized as a
result of team discussions throughout the research meetings. Over time, we became
aware of some of the tacit assumptions (Argyris & Schön, 1974) made by faculty
members in regards to students enrolled in remedial mathematics classrooms. Some
of the comments made throughout the course of the meetings – “students don’t know
how to study,” “students aren’t prepared,” and “students don’t see the relevance of
math” – supported our growing understanding that mathematics faculty are more apt
116
to point out perceived student deficiencies rather than critically examine their own
individual practices. What we did not know was, “Why?” What we did have was a
growing understanding of the importance of belief systems within the change
process.
While faculty members shared their personal thoughts on the reasons why
minority students were not achieving in remedial mathematics courses, I began to
wonder how it was that faculty members came to their understanding of students.
Was it a result of their experiences within the classroom, either as students or
instructors? Was it a result of the nature of the community college? Or was it a
result of a greater pattern of socialization within the mathematics environment?
Stake suggests that these “naturalistic generalizations” (1979, p. 6), which are a
result of an individual’s experiences, inform expectations and guide action often
without conscious awareness. Understanding how these “naturalistic
generalizations” came about required my knowledge of the participants’ individual
histories and the contextual factors that shaped their experiences over time, from past
educational experiences to present institutional realities. These were critical areas of
investigation that provided a more thorough understanding and interpretation of the
impact of the collaborative inquiry project. Case study methods were therefore
invaluable as they illuminated hidden variables within the case and thus facilitate
“insight, discovery, and interpretation” (Merriam, 1998, p. 28-29) of varying
experiences.
117
In short, case study research was an appropriate research strategy for this
dissertation for several reasons. First, my intent was to document the experiences
and changes of individuals involved within a specifically bounded system – the Math
Project. Within this bounded system, a specific culture – mathematics – was a
critical component informing the beliefs, expectations and actions of the individuals
present. Utilizing ethnographic techniques allowed me to “recreate for the reader the
shared beliefs, practices, artifacts, folk knowledge and behaviors of some group of
people” (LeCompte and Prissle, 1993, pp. 2-3).
Second, the unit of analysis in case study research is the experience of
participants rather than the individual (Polkinghorne, 2005; Yin, 1994).
Polkinghorne writes, “Findings from qualitative studies provide an enriched
understanding of an experience itself rather than how different individuals or groups
vary in their [experience]” (2005, p. 141). The purposeful selection of individuals
facilitates the transmission of experiential description (Stake, 2005) as they can
provide rich accounts of the experience from multiple perspectives (Merriam, 1998).
Thus, the narrative account that emerges will “parallel actual experience” (Stake,
2005, p. 454) as the stories of individuals will echo throughout the analysis.
Last, case study research emphasizes the use of numerous research
techniques for the collection of multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 1994). According
to Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble (2003), the collection of multiple
sources of data will “ensure the [analysis] conducted when the experiment has been
completed will result in rigorous, empirically grounded claims and assertions” (p.
118
12). Thus the use of interviews, observations, and document analysis, combined
with the small number of participants, will enable me to triangulate the experience
(Polkinghorne, 2005) and offer a text that provides a comprehensively descriptive
narrative account of the case in context (Yin, 1994). In sum, case studies facilitate
the understanding of a “complex social unit” through the collection of a
comprehensive record that is “anchored in real-life situations.” Moreover, as
Merriam 1998 points out, the use of case study “offers insights and illuminates
meanings that expand its readers’ experiences” (p. 41).
Site and Participant Selection
California Community College (CCC) is the site selected for the proposed
study as it was one of 14 institutions participating in the Diversity Scorecard Project
and was engaged in an inquiry project in phase two. CCC is approaching its second
century of delivering instruction and services to approximately 18,400 students each
year, many of whom are representative of diverse student groups. The college is one
among nine community colleges comprising the Los Angeles Community College
District (CCCD), which is by far the largest community college district in the United
States for it educates students across 882 square miles within Los Angeles County.
As budget cuts severely curtail fundamental resources and restrict class offerings,
CCC is faced with the daunting task of educating scores of historically
underrepresented students who are most often underprepared for the rigors of
postsecondary education.
119
Evidence team members from phase one of the project analyzed data specific
to the retention and success rates of students enrolled in mathematics courses. When
the data were disaggregated by race and ethnicity they uncovered disproportionate
numbers of African American and Latino students enrolled in remedial mathematics
courses as opposed to enrollment in college mathematics courses. More current data
from CCC suggest that the disproportionate enrollment numbers continue today.
Figure 7 below illustrates the enrollment percentages in college math and remedial
math courses at CCC for spring 2005, disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
Figure 7: Enrollment in college math vs. remedial math spring 2005

22.0%
70.3%
36.9%
40.6%
45.8%
78.0%
29.7%
63.1%
59.4%
54.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
African
American
Asian Latino White Other

Source: CCC, 2005
As can be seen by the data, significant gaps exist within and between groups.
Asian students have the highest enrollment percentages in college level mathematics
courses (70.3%) and the lowest enrollment percentages in remedial mathematics
(29.7%). African American students demonstrate the inverse of Asian students as 22
percent of students enrolled in college level mathematics courses while 78 percent of
students enrolled in remedial mathematics. Latino students show similar enrollment
120
patterns as more students are enrolled in remedial courses (63.1%) as are enrolled in
college level math courses (36.9%). White students likewise show a high enrollment
percentage in remedial mathematics courses (59.4%), however, a somewhat larger
percentage of students are enrolled in college level mathematics courses (40.6%)
than by African American and Latino students. The inquiry project was formed to
address these inequities at California Community College.
Participants
Rubin and Rubin (1995) suggest that participants in a research study should
be individuals who can provide the researcher with completeness, or “an overall
sense of the meaning of a concept, theme, or process” (1995, p. 73). As such,
convenience sampling was used to select participants for the study (Merriam, 1998)
as all participants were accessible due to their involvement in the Math Project.
Although other sampling methods are considered to be more desirable
(Polkinghorne, 2005), convenience sampling is the best method given the unique
nature of the project, as these individuals were the only ones who could provide a
detailed account of the experience.
The Math Project consisted of 10 individual members, six of which were
mathematics faculty. Given that the focus of the proposed study is the impact of a
collaborative inquiry on the beliefs of community college mathematics faculty in
regards to remedial mathematics students, all six mathematics faculty members were
asked to participate in the study. Table 11 provides a break down of the six
individuals who were invited to participate in the study, with additional information
121
provided as to their ethnicity, gender, title and the number of years teaching at
California Community College. Following the table, I provide brief descriptors for
each of the six faculty members involved in the study.
Table 11: Faculty members involved in CCC’s Math Project
Name
13
Ethnicity Gender Title Years Teaching
Michael White Male Instructor 10
Sandra White Female Instructor 6
Yuri Armenian Male Instructor 10
Rachel
African-
American
Female Instructor 4
Alejandro Latino Male Instructor 10
Max White Male Department Chair 26

Michael obtained both his undergraduate and graduate degrees in
mathematics from the California State University system. During his graduate
work, he was a teaching assistant in several math courses and worked on a research
project with Uri Treissman. Michael was employed for a time in the aerospace
industry and before becoming a full time instructor at CCC, he worked at a private
liberal arts college and worked part time at several community colleges.
Sandra took a far less traditional route to her present position at CCC. After
high school, she briefly attended college before leaving to raise her three boys full
time. After a 20-year hiatus, Sandra returned to school to finish her postsecondary
degree. Along the way towards her master’s degree in mathematics, she received her
teaching credential and spent some time teaching high school mathematics. At the

13
The names of all the individuals have been changed to ensure confidentiality (Rubin & Rubin,
1995).
122
same time she taught part time at a local community college before making her
permanent transition to CCC six years ago.
Yuri was sent to Paris, France by his parents to attend an Armenian boarding
school. He remained there until he earned his high school diploma. He completed
his undergraduate degree in engineering in the United States. Yuri worked for a
major California city as an engineer while at the same time tutoring students in math.
His friend (a community college professor), hoping to entice him into teaching full
time, allowed him to substitute teach his class whenever he was absent. In the last
ten years, Yuri became a full time instructor at CCC, continued to teach at other local
community colleges, and completed his coursework for his doctorate degree in
education.
Rachel is among the newest instructors in CCC’s math department. She too
is a graduate of the California State University system and earned her bachelor’s and
master’s degrees in mathematics. Similar to her colleagues, Rachel did not set out to
become a teacher. Instead, she sought out employment in industry and actually
secured employment while still working on her undergraduate degree. Although she
was laid off, she believes this change allowed her to put her career in perspective and
motivated her to complete her master’s degree and go into teaching.
Alejandro completed the equivalent to a master’s degree in mathematics in
Argentina. During his tenure at the university, he worked as a teaching assistant in
various math courses. He began his career in the United States as a systems analyst
and over time, made the switch to teaching in the community colleges. He often
123
talks about his desire to understand students and to work with his students in a more
effective manner. As such, he returned to school, completed coursework and earned
a master’s degree in psychology.
Max is the chair of the math department and has been a community college
instructor for the last 26 years. He enrolled in West Point as an undergraduate,
served his country in Vietnam, and believed his career would be spent in the army.
Upon realizing that he did not like his original career choice, Max returned to school
and earned his Master’s degree from the University of California. While there, he
did some teaching in K-12 and worked part time as an instructor at a local
community college. His decision to pursue a career in the community colleges and
not K-12 largely resulted from his unfavorable impression of the education program
where he would have obtained his teaching credential. He has completed the
coursework required for a Ph.D. in mathematics but has yet to return to complete the
dissertation phase.
These six individuals were most suited for this project, not only because they
were able to provide me with a comprehensive description of their experiences with
the Math Project (Polkinghorne, 2005; Rubin & Rubin, 1995), but they were able to
supply the requisite background information (i.e., conceptions of the discipline,
socialization as mathematics faculty, perceptions of remedial education) that is
pertinent to the framework guiding this study. The remaining individuals in the
Math Project were excluded from this study as they were not mathematics faculty
124
and therefore did not have the same historical experiences and socializing influences
as the six mathematics faculty members.
Data Collection
Data collection for this study necessitated the seamless interaction between
my dual roles as research assistant on the Math Project and my role as a doctoral
student studying the impact of the collaborative inquiry project on the beliefs of the
mathematics faculty involved in the project. In my role as research assistant for the
Center for Urban Education, I was responsible for the collection and coordination of
all field notes taken during each of the Math Project’s meetings. Field notes include:
• Transcribing all audio recordings taken during the monthly meetings;
• Recording my impressions and observations of the meetings; and
• Conducting interviews with all math faculty members and transcribing the
audio recordings.
The collection of data in this instance was done with the intent to faithfully record all
that which took place during each specific meeting so as to keep CUE abreast of the
group’s progress and to inform future action.
As a doctoral student, the collection of data was done with the more
purposeful intent of recording the experiences of faculty beyond what is shared in the
monthly meetings. These experiences (whether good or bad) were implicit in the
monthly meetings and were gleaned from my impressions and observations as an
integral member of the group. However, these experiences became much more
explicit through the use of qualitative techniques. Below I articulate the strengths
125
and weaknesses of each data collection method proposed and explain how each
benefits my study.
Data collection and analysis is an iterative process. Data collection does not
conclude at a specific point in time, nor does analysis begin at the conclusion of data
collection. Rather, analysis occurs throughout the collection of data and prompts the
collection of new data until such a time that the description of the case is
comprehensive (Polkinghorne, 2005), or has reached saturation (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). Thus, my responsibility as the researcher was to select from a wide array of
data sources that would “render a refined and rich description of the experience
under study” (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 139). To accomplish this I utilized participant
observations, individual interviews, and reflexive field notes. Table 12 provides a
summary table outlining the frequency of each method and the timeline of
completion.
Table 12: Data collection methods used
Method Frequency Timeline
Focus Group
One-time focus group at the
completion of project
involvement, 60 minutes
January, 2006
Interviews
Three interviews per faculty
member, 45-60 minutes each
July 2005 – March, 2006
Observation
Ongoing observations of
monthly collaborative inquiry
meetings, 1-2 hours each
July – December, 2005

Participant observations
Observations provide the visual effects while interviews provide the text of a
story. Observations have the potential of enhancing an individual’s understanding of
126
actions and behaviors alluded to during interviews (Becker and Geer, 1961).
Participant observation is among the most fundamental starting points for research in
both the social and behavioral sciences (Angrosino, 2005) for it enables a researcher
to record behavior as it is occurring within its natural context (Merriam, 1998).
According to Potter (1996), “observation is the technique of gathering data through
direct contact with an object – usually another human being [in which] the researcher
watches the behavior and documents the properties of the object (p. 98). The use of
observations allowed me to observe events, actions, and behaviors within a natural
context, observing things that have perhaps become routinized by participants over
time (McCall & Simmons, 1969).
The use of observation in research can best be described as being on a
continuum of involvement (Spradley, 1980; Creswell, 1998; Wolcott, 1999). From
one side of the continuum, the observer can be an outsider to that which is being
observed, providing a completely objective perspective to the research. On the other
side of the continuum, is an observer who assumes the role of “participant observer,”
one who is intimately involved with the study in question (Jorgenson, 1989). Since
the start of the Math Project, I have been an integral member of the group. While my
role was to initially support the group, over time, my role expanded such that I began
to offer comments and/or suggestions as warranted. As such, I assumed what Adler
and Adler (1994) describe as an “active membership role” (p. 380) that required my
involvement in the group’s central activities.
127
Throughout my involvement with the group, I recorded my observations of
the group, ranging from comments made to subtle body language demonstrated
during times of heated debate. Over time, as I grew to know the members of the
Math Project and they grew to know me, the level of attachment I had to the group
changed, often provoking an internal conflict within myself. Patton (1990) observes,
Experiencing the program as an insider is what necessitates the participant
part of the participant observation. At the same time, however, there is
clearly an observer side to this process. The challenge is to combine
participation and observation so as to become capable of understanding the
program as an insider while describing the program for an outsider” (p. 207).

My personal interest in advancing the project (Angrosino & Mays de Perez, 2000)
often times conflicted with my role as researcher as I was required to move between
personal involvement and objective detachment (Gans, 1982). Balancing this
“schizophrenic activity” (Merriam, 1998, p. 103) is recorded in the field notes taken
to date and will be articulated throughout the finished text.
Observational notes were taken throughout the 17 months that the Math
Project was in effect. As previously noted, I took field notes of the monthly
meetings, carefully recording specific actions or items for future discussions. These
notes were supplemented by the transcription of the audio recording of the meetings
that took place. Transcription took place within 24-48 hours of the meetings,
allowing me to provide a more accurate depiction of the meeting and provide a
context for my personal observations. In sum, participant observations and ensuing
notations ensured that explicit references were made in regards to participants, their
interactions, routines, interpretations and other temporal elements (Denzin, 1989).
128
These notations facilitated the collection of additional data as they directed my
attention to other unexplored variables (Spradley, 1980) and were used as points of
reference in subsequent interviews (Merriam, 1998; Polkinghorne, 2005) with the
mathematics faculty.
Individual interviews
As previously noted, interviews supply the text of a story while observations
provide the visual stimulus. Tierney and Dilley (2002) suggest that utilizing
observation alone within a qualitative endeavor is like watching a silent movie
without the subtitles. We see the action occurring, but we know little about why the
action is taking place. As such, the interview enables the researcher to understand
the setting from the participants’ perspective. Thus, interviews are “an intentional
way of learning about people’s feeling, thoughts and experiences…encouraging
people to describe their worlds in their own terms” (Rubin and Rubin, 1995).
To understand what is on someone’s mind (Patton, 1990) or to fully
understand the past and present experiences of the participants within the
collaborative inquiry, interviews and the process of listening to the words of
individuals allowed me to “fully, equitably, and honorably [represent]” (Guba and
Lincoln, 1981, p. 142) the stories of each individual involved in the study. The
interviews facilitate the understanding of individuals’ independent realities and
experiences (Tierney and Dilley, 2002) and how it is that they are enacted vis-à-vis
their conceptions of students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses. To
accomplish this aim, Seideman (1991) suggest that a series of three interviews take
129
place such that the garnered accounts be of sufficient breadth and depth to inform
this dissertation. Most importantly, subsequent interviews ensured that I was able to
“[unpack] an experience and [gain] access to deeper levels and more nuanced
descriptions of the experience” (Polkinghorne, 2005, p. 143).
I used a semi-structured interview protocol as the rules of engagement are
flexible and the interviewee can have some input into the direction of the interview
(see Appendix D). In many respects, interviews are like conversations in which
individuals commonly ask questions, listen to answers, know when to ask follow up
questions, know when to probe for further information, and know when to change
the subject. The key difference between semi-structured interviews and
conversations lies in the fact that semi-structured interviews are utilized to gather
specific data on people’s thoughts, feelings and experiences. As the researcher
conducting these “conversations,” I introduced questions to elicit responses that
would shed light on a particular subject. Moreover, my intent was to “gently guide
the discussion, leading it through stages, asking specific questions, and encouraging
the interviewee in depth and at length” (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 124). Above all, I
wanted to ensure that the mathematics faculty member felt at ease and knew that I
was interested in what she or he had to say and that their contribution was valuable
to the overall scope of the study. This was a critical step in building a relationship, a
rapport between me and the faculty, such that it promoted openness and trust and the
data gathered would be much more meticulous and insightful.
130
While interviews are a valuable research tool in qualitative inquiry, I must
caution that interviews are a socially-constructed and negotiated event between two
individuals. Fontana and Frey (2005) note, “Interviews are not neutral tools of data
gathering, but rather active interactions between two (or more) people leading to
negotiated, contextually based results (p. 698). As such, interviews are intentionally
guided by the researcher through the introduction of specific questions that asks the
participant to recall and reflect on specific experiences. The meanings that ensue are
therefore a carefully constructed interpretation of relayed experiences by both the
researcher and the participant (Jarvinen, 2000). It is important to remember, as
Polkinghorne (2005) cautions, that while the researcher is primarily responsible for
eliciting the response, the participant “remains the author of the description [while]
the function of the researcher is more like a supportive editor whose assistance leads
the author to produce a fuller and deeper account [of the experience]” (p. 143).
Focus group
The use of focus group, or rather the group interview, is beneficial to the
overall scope of this dissertation as it enabled me to observe a group dynamic within
specific “conversational encounters with a research purpose” (Powney and Watts,
1987, p. 413). Moreover, the group interview allowed me to triangulate the data
collected and determine if there is a consensus view of the project experience, or
rather if explanations and interpretations change given the unique dynamics of the
group.
131
Another consideration for the use of the focus group is a result of the
dynamics involved in the individual interview. As Wilson (1997) says, “Generally
speaking, the social situation of the research interview imposes certain constraints on
the nature of data collected and demonstrates the disparity in the power relationship
between interviewer and interviewee” (p. 217). The focus group, as an informal
conversation among peers (albeit guided by the researcher) “democratizes” the
process such that participants may respond to other within the room and not just
solely to the objectives of the researcher.
Thus, focus groups can illuminate a dynamic process of development in
which “understanding how respondents develop concepts, how their concepts
withstand the challenges from other people and how these may be modified in light
of discussion with peers” will add greater depth and understanding to the study. The
focus group with Math Project team members took place at the culmination of the
project, drawing questions from both the group observations and individual
interviews to guide the focus group process.
Analysis of the Data
Analysis of the data occurred throughout the project, summatively evaluating
(Patton, 1990) participants’ responses and interactions to see if the project was
having its desired effect to elicit and change beliefs. What the transcript revealed
was frequently discussed between CUE’s director, George (the research associate)
and myself, in order to determine next steps for subsequent meetings. These
discussions were guided by the (1) personal reflections attached to the transcript by
132
both George and myself and (2) memos (Maxwell, 1996) generated to highlight
particular themes evident in the transcript. This process of immediate transcript
analysis and reflection provided us (the research team) with immediate feedback into
our approach to the Math Project.
I employed a similar process with my interviews with the faculty members in
that I conducted preliminary analysis of the first round of interviews in order to
guide all follow up interviews. My analysis of these interviews were discussed with
the director, who was then able to suggest additional questions that would lend
greater depth and complexity into my understanding of the faculty members’
experiences with the project. Similar to my preliminary analysis of the transcript
data of the meetings, I often wrote personal reflections or made notations in the
margins of the text to remind me of particularly salient points for future discussion.
At the start of my “formal” analysis of the data, I saw that I had transcript
data from 19 meetings, 18 interviews, memos, reflections, observations, and email
communication between George, the director, and myself. The infrequent email
communication between myself, George and project team members also served as a
kind of data – notably indicative of the kinds of professional practices and methods
of communication used (or not) at CCC. Attempting to solve this “jigsaw” of data
meant that I needed to provide order to data that “have no initial intrinsic
organizational structure or meaning” (LeCompte, 2000, p. 147). To do so, I
followed Romagnano’s (1991 cited in LeCompte, 2000) suggestion to “tidy up” the
varying types of data collected. This involved making copies of all of the data,
133
sequentially ordering the data into a three-ring binder with the dates prominently
displayed, and properly categorizing the data according to type (i.e., interviews,
meeting transcripts, reflections). This process, while time-consuming, provided a
much-needed sense of structure to a seemingly disordered collection of facts.
My initial analysis of the inclusive record was both inductive and deductive.
Analysis of the meeting transcript data was inductive so as to determine any patterns,
themes, and categories that were naturally voiced by the participants (Attanasi, Jr.,
1989). My analysis of the interview data was much more deductive, in that I
applied the framework of beliefs to the information supplied by the faculty members
(Patton, 1990). In both distinct situations, analysis of the data began with a content
analysis of all transcripts, field notes, observations and all other compiled forms that
had the dual effect of re-familiarizing myself to the data as well as getting an
overview of the embryonic themes and concepts. All of the data were then coded
and sorted into numerous categories that were then pared down to form an analysis
that was thematically driven. These primary themes served as the signposts for all
relevant quotes and observations of the Math Project.
As I began to draft my results chapter according to the themes identified, I
was disturbed by my initial attempts. Although what I was doing was correct in the
sense that I was making linkages between distinct voices and experiences, I was
nonetheless left cold by the categorization of a lived experience. As researchers, we
are asked to be objective, to report what we see and hear. We are not asked to report
on what we feel or what our subjects might be feeling or experiencing. We can
134
document a particular facial expression, but cannot suggest what that facial
expression means without substantiation from the individual himself. As researchers
struggling with deep-seeded notions of what it means to be “scientific” or trying to
follow established standards of reliability, validity, and trustworthiness (Tierney,
1993), we succeed in draining the “life blood of experience [in] conventional
ethnographic accounts that reduce the findings of research to a set of categories”
(Frank, 1997, p. 86). The Math Project was a complex, demanding, emotionally-
laden experience for both participants and researchers alike. To reduce this
experience to categories, I felt, would limit the extent to which I could document the
senses, feelings and interactions of faculty members during specific points in time.
These critical elements and their consequences were the driving forces behind the
project and its final outcome.
Equally important, the use of categorization would not allow me to examine
my own involvement and experience with the project and the faculty members. The
notion of neutrality, that is “the degree to which the findings are a function solely of
the informants and conditions of the research and not of other biases, motivations,
and perspectives” (Kriefting, 1991, p. 216 as cited in Frank, 1997) is a key criterion
for rigor. Yet, as Frank (1997) aptly points out, “Is it possible [and] is it necessarily
desirable?” (p. 88). As the researcher recording the events in progress, my own
biases and experiences (as explained in the following section) color the interpretation
of the data. Because I was not merely a detached observer in the process, my
response to the faculty members is perhaps much more understanding, empathetic
135
and even critical as they relay their individual and shared experiences. In this I am
guided by Frank’s (1997) observations of her 20-year collaboration with Diane
Devries. She says, “From a reflexive point of view, the challenge is not to eliminate
‘bias’ to be more neutral, but to use it as a focus for more intense insight” (p. 89).
In the resulting analysis, I took into account all of these elements as I crafted
a storied narrative that recounts the story of the Math Project and the individual
stories of the faculty members. Polkinghorne (1995) describes storied narrative as
“the linguistic form that preserves the complexity of human action with its
interrelationship of temporal sequence, human motivation, chance happenings, and
changing interpersonal and environmental contexts” (p. 7). Language and sentence
structures are deliberately used to create a series of images that invite the reader into
the world of the faculty members, leading him or her to share in the experiences so
as to better understand the positions and actions undertaken by the them (Langness &
Frank, 1978; Tierney, 1993). In storied narrative, all of the disparate data are
organized into a “coherent developmental account” (p. 15) driven by plot point that
bridge distinct experiences and outcomes as shared by the faculty members. These
events may occur sequentially in time, or may have taken place decades apart. The
use of plot weaves these seemingly independent events to plausibly explain the
actions of the characters. Moreover, the use of story and the careful development of
characters involved within the story reveal the degree to which “people are caught up
in life’s conflicts, difficulties, and moral contradictions” (Bochner, 2001, p. 140),
136
providing insight into the struggles they wage between personal, cultural, and
contextual meanings (Bochner, 2001).
In the final presentation and analysis of the data, the story was developed
around four specific plot points: resistance, buy in, motivation, and uncertainty.
These emerging plots determined what elements of the data would be included into
the story and what would be left out (Polkinghorne, 1995). This process, known as
narrative smoothing, allows for a “carefully crafted, congruent story” (p. 16) that is
unlike the messiness of human experiences. Throughout each of the plot
developments, I incorporated the individual stories of the faculty members to
illustrate a particular point made, or to lead the reader into a greater understanding as
to why faculty members spoke or acted in specific ways. This was especially
important given the ephemeral quality of beliefs that are most likely to be inferred
from action than they are from spoken words (Pajares, 1992). As such, the
description of events occurs sequentially, providing a beginning, middle and end to
the story of the Math Project (Polkinghorne, 1995). Within this retelling are
independent moments in time, vignettes if you will, into the individual lived
experiences of the protagonists of the story. The inclusion of these events resonates
with Polkinghorne’s assertion regarding the “historical continuity of the characters”
(p. 17). He says, “People are historical beings retaining as part of themselves their
previous experiences. Past experiences manifest themselves in the present as habits
and are partially available through recollection” (p. 17). So, what was revealed
137
during the project meetings took on considerable depth when explicated further
during the individual interviews.
In the following chapter, I hope to bring clarity and understanding into the
evolution of the Math Project and the influence it had on each of the faculty
members who participated. To say that the project had this effect or that effect, and
separate actions into specified categories, would too easily simplify a far more
complex endeavor. Through plot, character, and evocative language, I hope to
convey a compelling portrait of a process that was neither a huge success nor an
abject failure. Each individual involved responded to the project in distinct ways, all
of them experiencing different moments of euphoria and frustration. Because I am
acutely conscious of my own “authorial consciousness” (Langness & Frank, 1978, p.
20) providing as faithful a recreation of events would allow the reader to not only be
drawn into the world of the Math Project, but would, as Langness and Frank suggest,
be “more equipped to assess the character’s attitudes and choices” (p. 20). In doing
so, I emphasize the possibility for multiple interpretations (Tierney, 1993), such that
alternative explanations and discussions may ensue long after the final page of this
story has been turned. Below I articulate with greater depth ethical issues
concerning this study and my individual role as a researcher in this endeavor.
Ethical Concerns
In all research endeavors, steps must be taken to safeguard the experiences
and integrity of the individual participants. Researchers conducting case studies, as
with all other qualitative inquiry methods, “[share] an intense interest in [the]
138
personal views and circumstances” (Stake, 2005, p. 459) of the participants. Such an
interest into the experiences of human beings constitutes research that “pries into the
lives of informants” (Spradley, 1980, p. 22). To ensure my treatment of participants
adheres to the code of ethics outlined by such organizations as the American
Psychological Association, I took considerable steps to inform the six faculty
members of their rights as participants in this study.
Institutional Review Board approval was secured and permission was sought
from the participants to audiotape and transcribe all of the teams monthly team
meetings. Everyone involved in the project were made aware of my dichotomous
role within the research meetings. First, I was there to lend support to the team in the
retrieval and organization of pertinent information as needed. Second, I was also
there to document the progress of the group, researching the experiences and changes
resulting from the participants’ involvement in the Math Project.
Prior to interviewing each mathematics faculty member, I provided them with
an informed consent form that explicitly detailed the purpose of the study, their
rights as participant, the terms of confidentiality, and any foreseeable risks that may
occur as a result of their participation. They had the option to approve or disapprove
the use of an audio-recording device throughout the interview as well as have the
opportunity to see the transcripts of the interview once they had been completed. I
encouraged the faculty to ask questions if any confusion remained regarding the
form so that I would be able to address any lingering doubts concerning their
participation.
139
Role of the Researcher
My unique placement as researcher within this qualitative research study
requires that I acknowledge my own “subjective perceptions and biases” (LeCompte
& Preissle, 1993). As already noted, my role within the project is complex as I had
to figuratively wear a number of hats that represented different roles throughout the
remaining months of this proposed research study. Among them were my roles as
research assistant, doctoral student, and former mathematics student. Each of these
roles and my attendant experiences evolving from each one yielded biases and
interpretations of the world I studied which added a unique flavor to the narrative I
ultimately constructed. Merriam (1998) notes that qualitative researchers are human
instruments limited by their human fallibilities. We are predisposed to interpreting
and analyzing events through a lens that is shaped by our experiences, values, and
perceptions of the world around us. Merriam states,
The researcher thus brings a construction of reality to the research situation,
which interacts with other people’s constructions or interpretations of the
phenomenon being studied. The final product of the type of study is yet
another interpretation by the researcher of others’ views filtered through his
or her own (pp. 22-23).

What follows is a description of how I interpret my varying roles – research
assistant, doctoral student, former math student – and the effect each has on this
research design.
Research assistant
I have been involved with the project since its inception in the summer of
2004. As a member of the Center for Urban Education, I was intricately connected
140
to the success or failure of a project I was assigned to work with. As a result, I
alternately felt the frustration of the faculty member’s lack of excitement for the
Math Project and the sense of relief that the Math Project moved slowly but steadily
forward. I was consciously aware of a certain amount of handholding I had do to
ensure their cooperation as they could have elected to terminate their involvement
with the project at any time. I accomplished this by providing lunch at every
meeting, making copies and duplicate copies of materials needed, and even
providing a hole puncher so that their materials could be neatly organized in their
project binder.
I was likewise an integral member of the group as my role evolved over time.
I often remained quiet, but did not hesitate to state my opinions when I felt that they
would contribute to the discussion. In many respects, I believe that I developed a
close working relationship with the members of the group and I feel that these
individuals, while not necessarily friends, have gone beyond the scope of being mere
acquaintances. These experiences and my relationship with team members may, to
some extent, have clouded the way I represented each member in the final analysis.
Doctoral student
As a doctoral student, I was deeply aware of all that I have indicated above
and wondered if the spirit of collegiality and friendly rapport would remain once I
commenced inquiry, or “prying” (Spradley, 1980), into their individual lives. Prior
to the beginning of the interviews, all of the data collected had been done within the
relative safety of the group meeting. The discussions within the meetings had
141
largely been focused on the quantitative data from the LASSI and the qualitative data
from the student interviews. Very little attention had been focused on the individual
faculty member. When attention was drawn to a faculty member, it was usually as a
result of an explanation of a teaching strategy and was usually prefaced by the
words, “When I’m in the classroom, I do…” Thus, I believe, they had forgotten that
they were both “the researchers” and “the subjects” of this research endeavor. The
introduction of the interviews to the rapport we had developed, I feared, would cause
them to become reticent and retreat behind a wall of reserve and distance. Moreover,
the re-introduction of the informed consent form, reminding them of their wilingness
to participate in the study, at times proved to be awkward and stifling. As Rubin and
Rubin state, “To the extent that interviews are an extension of a conversation and
part of a relationship, the legality and formality of an informed consent form may be
puzzling to your conversational partner or disruptive to the research” (1995, p. 95).
The impact of these factors may have had the dire effect of suppressing trust between
the faculty member and myself as well as impeding saturation (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). While I believe they were open in our conversations, moments of awkward
silence occurred, causing me to wonder just how much they were willing to reveal.
Former math student
In the summer of 1990 I took a math course that was designed to help prepare
me for the challenges of college. As a student in the summer bridge program, I
understood to some degree that this class was being offered to me because I did not
fully meet the standards of the university upon admission. Having gone through AP
142
Calculus in high school, I believed that I had a “fair shot” of doing well in this class,
which was the equivalent of trigonometry and math analysis. Students in the
program were separated into two math sessions: those that were majoring in the
natural sciences and those who were geared towards majors in the social sciences.
During the six-week course, I along with 15 other students sat through four hours of
math instruction a week. The students in the class, including myself, rarely spoke
and the professor rarely asked us questions. When a question was directed at the
class, it was usually a rhetorical, “Do you understand?” Instruction consisted of the
professor standing at the front of the class lecturing, writing on the chalkboard, and
explaining the problem sets as he wrote. I became strangely acquainted with the
back of his head as much of his time was spent with his back to the students. We
turned in weekly homework assignments but received very little feedback. We had a
number of quizzes and tests but our review of them was perfunctory.
Despite the amount of time I spent studying and doing the weekly homework,
I performed poorly in class. Most of the time I spent in class I felt as if I was trying
to interpret a foreign language. I was too intimidated to ask questions in class and I
never considered going to the professor for help, afraid to admit that I didn’t
understand what he said in class. At the end of the six weeks, a 30-minute
conference was held between the student and all the professors who taught courses
during the six-week program. In addition to the professors, the counselors of the
program were likewise in the room. All those present were there to provide feedback
to the student in regards to her performance in class and detail areas that required
143
improvement. The math professor was sitting at the end of a long conference table
with a manila folder in front of him. When it was his turn to speak, he removed a
sheet of paper and stated that he felt I did not put forward enough effort into the
class, which resulted in my poor test scores. He indicated that although I turned in
my homework, it was not well done. He suggested that if I studied harder and paid
more attention in class he was fully confident I would perform better in the future.
Fortunately for me, my future included a degree in English and no further study in
mathematics was required.
I relay this story because I recognize that my own individual experience as a
math student colors my view of the discipline of mathematics and my perceptions of
college mathematics professors. In many respects, I am but one of the students that
is under investigation by the Math Project team. Despite my extensive background
in mathematics I struggled in college and would undoubtedly have been enrolled in a
remedial mathematics course had I been required to complete mathematics to obtain
my college degree. While my “bias,” if you will, about mathematics and professors
may unduly influence this endeavor, it is also at the same time what drives the focus
of the dissertation. Peshkin (1988) notes, “Subjectivity can be seen as virtuous, for it
is the basis of researchers making a distinctive contribution, one that results from the
unique configuration of their personal qualities joined to the data they have
collected” (p. 18). To a large degree this dissertation is guided by my curiosity into
the minds of math professors, how it is they construe the discipline of math, and how
these understanding influence their perceptions of students. Thus, the research
144
question guiding this dissertation “In what ways…” involves more than just tracing
the experiences of faculty members involved in this project and the changes that
have occurred over time, but requires a deeper and thorough understanding into their
world as math professors and the experiences that have shaped their knowledge to
date.
Tracing Change
The purpose of this dissertation is to explore faculty members’ beliefs about
students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses. At the same time, my intent is to
likewise understand the ways in which a collaborative inquiry process yields change
within these belief structures. Utilizing a research approach that is framed by the
theories of action research and collaborative inquiry, change is traced through the
collection of extensive data sources that document the evolution of learning as it
occurs throughout the project. Shavelson et al (2003) suggest that change can be seen
when researchers take into account and understand the “desires, beliefs, goals,
reasoning processes, and so forth,” (p. 27) of participants over time. Yet, despite the
claims of these researchers, can change truly be traced?
In certain ways change can be seen in the manifested behaviors of
individuals. Participants involved in the Math Project have changed in subtle yet
observable ways over the course of the collaborative inquiry. Those who were at
first quiet throughout the project meetings became increasingly vocal over time.
Others who were at first critical of the project became its most ardent supporters.
Still others who were chronically late to the meetings soon were among the first to
145
arrive at the meetings. One faculty member, who in the early stages always reacted
on the defensive concerning her teaching practices, quickly became the one to
challenge others to rethink their individual teaching practices. While these small
changes were evident, other changes have been more difficult to document.
Guiding my interest in the math project is the nature of beliefs. Specifically,
I posit that faculty members’ belief systems impact, to some degree, the achievement
of African American and Latino students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses.
In the Math Project, faculty members were brought together in monthly meetings so
that they can engage in self-reflective dialogue with their peers to discuss the myriad
factors that impede student success in mathematics. In interviews with individual
faculty members, they were asked to reflect on their beliefs and experiences and
discuss how these may potentially impact student learning vis-à-vis their
instructional strategies and interactions with students. Throughout the course of
interviews and observations of the collaborative inquiry, the evidence demonstrates
that change has indeed occurred – albeit in small, discernable ways. Yet, there are
times in which certain words or certain actions by team members seemed to belie the
evidence. This begs the question, is the record accurate?
The research on belief systems denotes that beliefs are, for the most part,
constant and resistant to change (Kagan, 1992). Beliefs are constructs that are not
easily observed in human behavior, nor can beliefs be verbally articulated as they are
predominantly tacit and removed from one’s consciousness (Cooney, 1985;
Thompson; 1984; Argyris & Schön, 1974). As a result, engaging in research that
146
seeks to uncover beliefs among educators is seen as a formidable, if not impossible
task. Pajares (1992) comments, “As a global construct, belief does not lend itself
easily to empirical investigation. Many see it so steeped in mystery that it can never
be clearly defined or made a useful subject of research” (p. 308).
However, understanding the role beliefs play within the educational context
and what impact they may have on student learning is an important object of
scrutiny. Given the complex nature of belief systems, researchers have used a
“variety of indirect methods” (Kagan, 1992, p. 66) to elicit beliefs. Some of these
methods include experimental tasks, asking individuals to think aloud as they engage
in the task. Other methods include interviews in which individuals are asked to
recall specific events, thoughts and actions. While no one method is deemed most
effective by the literature, the conclusion reached by researchers is that belief
systems will need to be inferred from what individuals share with the researcher
(Pajares, 1992). Moreover, the researcher must also infer if any changes have
occurred within an individual’s belief systems as a result of any direct action (i.e.,
reform, innovation, etc.). Because the changes documented are inferences made
from observable behavior or actual language used by the individual under study, a
careful record must be kept to ensure the trustworthiness of the inference.
The use of qualitative data methods such as open-ended interviews, responses
to dilemmas or vignettes, and observation of behavior provide the researcher with a
wealth of information that lend richness to the inferences made (Pajares, 1992).
Kane et al (2002) suggest that the collection of numerous data sources secure the
147
trustworthiness of the inference, as it leaves an audit trail that demonstrates to
outside reviewers the path that led to the inference. Moreover, as Kane et al (2002)
comment,
An audit trail provides the reader with evidence of trustworthiness in that she
or he can start with the raw data and continue along the trail to determine for
her- or himself if, in fact, the trail leads to the outcomes claimed by the
researcher (p. 199).

The analysis of the Math Project, therefore, must provide an easily followed audit
trail that clearly makes transparent the evidence to ensure the trustworthiness of the
claim of change among participants in the Math Project.
To conclude, qualitative methods are the means through which the nature of
beliefs and the changes to beliefs can be documented. The use of interviews,
observations, and field notes provided the necessary evidence for the analysis such
that any claims made are grounded and empirically sound. Change is documented as
a result of inferences made from the language and observable behavior of group
participants. Inferences will be considered trustworthy so long as the analysis clearly
makes transparent the path the research took to make those inferences regarding
change.

148
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA PRESENTATION
The Math Project at California Community College (CCC) began in May
2004 and concluded in December 2005. As has been suggested in the previous
chapters of this dissertation, the Math Project was a venture initially fraught with
pessimism, curiosity, ambivalence, and a cautious willingness to try. Over the
course of this nearly two-year endeavor, the mathematics faculty members who
participated in the project exhibited an array of behaviors and hinted at individual
beliefs. From subtle resistance to collegial banter to delayed action, CCC faculty
members traversed through four different stages of involvement and investment in
the Math Project. These stages are described as follows: (1) pessimism and
resistance; (2) engagement and buy-in; (3) discovery and motivation; and (4) delayed
action and uncertain ownership. Although team members in time demonstrated their
investment in the Math Project, at time’s end they did not seem to know what they
would do with their profits once their investment reached maturation.
In this chapter, I will pen the story of the Math Project from beginning to end,
infusing throughout the voices of the faculty members during critical junctures in the
storyline. Though the story (and the stages depicted) is chronologically ordered, the
words and images illustrating the experiences and stated beliefs of the faculty
members move back and forth in time. Like a movie reel playing at the local
Cineplex, this is done with the intent to bring to life the distinct personalities and
experiences of the actors involved. Although not all of the actors will be given equal
“screen time,” what is portrayed will nonetheless convey the delicate balancing act,
149
between the abstract and the deeply personal, the faculty members assumed while
engaged in this process. Above all, my hope is enable the reader to understand how
the beliefs of this particular group of individuals either assisted or impeded change,
thus allowing the reader to determine for her or himself the effectiveness of this
collaborative inquiry project.
Stage 1: Pessimism and Resistance
May 2004 – November 2004
May 7, 2004
Max enters Johnson Hall 305 proudly sporting his CCC t-shirt. An older
white gentleman with a smattering of gray hair, Max appears as another casually
dressed professor, however he is in fact the chair of the math department. With
coffee cup in hand and a genial smile, he approaches the director of the Center for
Urban Education (CUE) and speaks with her for a few minutes before commencing
the meeting. This is to be the first meeting between CUE and faculty members from
CCC’s mathematics department. Although it is early on a Friday morning, a day in
which most faculty members are not to be found on campus, a significant number of
the department are present at this retreat. They are there to hear members from the
original Diversity Scorecard Project (DSP) team present their research findings on
the status of equity of African American and Latino students enrolled in math
courses on their campus.
Although summer is officially still a month away, the sunshine poring
through the slats of the mini blinds covering the windows in the room indicates
150
otherwise. As faculty members slowly trickle into JH 305, the light shining through
makes obvious the benign neglect of the classroom. No one intends for a school to
fall into disrepair; however, it is evident that JH 305 has been the unintended
beneficiary of limited resources and the passage of time. With fading green walls
and a smattering of uncoordinated furnishings, CCC is a far cry from the “luxuries”
evident on my own home campus. I can’t help but wonder how such an environment
can promote, let alone sustain, the motivation to learn. Despite the dreariness of the
room, the meeting begins with the excited chatter of the faculty members who are
eager to see and hear the project team’s findings.
As the data are presented, a range of emotions is triggered within the faculty
members. As I described in the vignettes opening the first four chapters of this
dissertation, faculty members are not altogether pleased to hear what DSP team
members have to say. Because the data are focused on the success rates of students
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, commentary is launched at the presenters
concerning student designations. Michael says, “You have white as one group, but
you know many white students at CCC are Armenian and Russian immigrants and
they have advanced degrees.” Max comments, “There is a difference between
students native to this country versus students who moved to the US before high
school.” With these comments, both Michael and Max suggest that the data are
artificial and cannot be used for comparison given the variety of students lumped
into four specific ethnic designations
14
.

14
African American, Asian, Latino, and White.
151
As the meeting continues, evidence of faculty members’ beliefs concerning
learning, achievement and their role in the educational process emerge. A highly
vocal faculty member who comments frequently throughout the meeting remarks:
Research shows that instructor and instruction and educational process in the
classroom affect 25 percent of the student outcome. 50 percent comes from
who they are including genetics and the rest of the 25 percent depends on the
socio-economic status of the students. This means that some students are
doomed to failure when they come in. They have no motivation in them to
succeed and they have no background in the first place. We affect such a
small amount.

There are no visible reactions to his comments, neither from the faculty members nor
from the original DSP team members. What is made clear, however, is the belief
that faculty members influence very little the degree of success a student will
experience while under their purview. Because no one responds either affirmatively
or negatively to his statement, I am left wondering: Do all faculty members believe
what he just said? If so, what would lead them to believe this?
Yuri
I meet with Yuri in his office located on the 3
rd
floor of Johnson Hall. A few
doors down from the Math department, his office is painted a drab cream color and
much of the overhead piping is exposed. In one corner of the office sits a portable
air conditioner/heater with a long, slightly curved metal tubing that connects to the
piping on the ceiling. Catching my attention are the two desks prominently
displayed in this spartan and bleak office. They are big, cherry wood bankers’ desks
with coordinating bookshelves. Having been in the offices of the other faculty
members within the department, this set up is quite extravagant. Noting my look of
152
surprised admiration, Yuri comments that his office mate has received numerous
grants and these are the spoils of one of those grants.
Yuri appears to be one of the more popular instructors within the math
department. I meet with him a total of three times throughout the course of the Math
Project and each time he is either busy with students during our appointed time or he
has students standing beside his door, waiting for our conversation to end. Perhaps
his students identify with him, as he is one of the younger instructors within the
department. Or perhaps it is his infectious personality, as he is usually seen smiling,
laughing or sharing a story with his colleagues or students. Yuri is Armenian and
was educated in France. Trained as a civil engineer, Yuri worked for city
government for a brief period before becoming a full time instructor at CCC.
In talking to Yuri I was able to understand his deep commitment to his
students. When asked why he chose to participate in the Math Project he says, “It’s
to help students.” The depth of his commitment comes from his own experience as a
student in a foreign country. At the age of twelve, he was sent to “a very disciplined
boarding school” in Paris. Not knowing the language, he was unable to either
communicate or understand his teachers. Moreover, Yuri believed that many of his
French instructors were biased against him because he was a foreigner in their
school. He recalls an incident with his math instructor who incorrectly graded one of
his exams. The teacher, upset with Yuri for showing him the error, threw his paper
on the ground and told him that he didn’t want to see his exam. Yuri shares,
He said, “I don’t want to see this paper.” And I couldn’t understand French.
So I looked at him, and he said, in French, “Take your paper.” I couldn’t
153
understand. And I said, the only thing I could say [was] “Sorry.” And I
walked to sit, and he’s like, “Take your paper from the floor.” And I didn’t
know what…and [I] was panicked too, you know? ‘Cause I wasn’t expecting
it. And I looked at him. And then he’s like, “Do you want to fight with me?”
in French. I was, like, all red. And so there is this guy, he was my cousin,
said, “Yuri, go take your paper.” I said, “Oh, that’s what he wants.” But you
know, I was, like, shaking, too, when I went, I took my paper. So the entire
class was very silent, all the attention on me. So he’s like, “If you want to
fight with me, we can fight.” So, after the class, I was so worried, “Oh, my
God, what’s going to happen to me? They’re going to, like, throw me out of
this school.” I went to his office and I said, again, the only thing I could say.
I was there for two months, I say, “I’m sorry” in French. And he’s like, “Go,
go, go.” So that was bad. I still remember. I mean I was intimidated in front
of all the students. That was very bad.

His experience with his teacher makes him cognizant of his own behavior with his
students. Even though he may become frustrated with his students at times, he says,
“I can’t be rude to the students…I’ll never do that to someone.” Because he
remembers what it was like when it was done to him.
As a result of his experience and the intimidation he felt in the presence of his
teacher, he recognizes the power he holds within the classroom. Yuri believes that
he can channel that power in a positive way and motivate his students to do better in
his classes. So contrary to the statement made above by the other professor, Yuri
feels that instructors “have a lot of impact” on the outcomes of their students. He
comments,
I think you can save students. I mean you can, if you talk to them, you bring
them in…a professor can do that…I have had students that I’ve talked to
them, without even me doing it on purpose. And later on they come to say,
“Oh, you said this and I did that.” Because I think it does have an effect, we
can make changes.

Yuri says that he tries to make his students feel comfortable in his presence knowing
that they are probably intimidated by him and his position as a math instructor.
154
Because he believes that students have a measure of math anxiety, he cracks jokes in
class and encourages them to call him by his first name. This would allow him to
appear more human and not some sort of “math God.” He therefore tries to motivate
his students to do better in his class by taking chances, by making mistakes, all the
while telling them that they will do better and that they will improve. He says, “I get
very close to the students and so far it has worked…I use more psychology than
mathematics and it helps. With some students they really get motivated.”
May 7, 2004
Hoping to unearth more of their beliefs about the reasons underlying minority
students’ lack of success in math, the director of CUE directs everyone’s attention to
the large charts posted on the wall of the classroom. Centered on each chart is one
word written in large block letters: individual, interpersonal, and institutional.
Faculty members are given post-it notes in a variety of hues and are asked to write
down their thoughts on why the math performance gaps between groups persists on
their campus. With post-its in hand, and engagement quite high, faculty members
emerge from their seats and post their notes on the chart paper that accurately
characterize their stated reasons. When all the notes are tallied, 10 distinct reasons
are attributed to the individual, 5 are attributed to the interpersonal level and 12 are
attributed to the institutional level (see Appendix E).
Echoing the remarks made earlier, faculty members believe that either
student deficiencies or institutional issues contribute to the lack of math achievement
among African Americans and Latinos. The director randomly picks one post-it note
155
off the chart and reads it aloud. “Students don’t know how to learn,” is written on
the post-it. The director looks up from the note and asks the group, “How many of
you agree with this?” Although there are no verbal responses, many of the faculty
members nod their heads in agreement. Yuri comments,
I see students studying and studying for hours and hours, but they still fail.
They come and tell me, “I did the homework, why do I still fail?” Or, some
students think, “If I take the test, I deserve a B.” If a student has been
studying for two hours, I wonder, after the two hours, how much learning
occurred compared to two hours ago?

The faculty members begin to discuss the issues about student learning, essentially
coming to the conclusion that “students don’t realize that math is not like history,
that they have to do their homework every night and cannot wait until the night
before the test to study.”
Additional comments are made in regards to student learning, some
articulating students’ lack of preparation and the impact on the community college
system: “Community colleges were regarded as the first two years of college, but
now they are becoming the last two years of high school.” Another faculty member
believes students don’t know how to learn as a result of their home environments.
He says, “If a student has a dysfunctional family, he will do worse…that is an
important factor.” He suggests that because the data are only disaggregated by race
and ethnicity, the data are not accounting for the unique backgrounds of students,
and thus the picture of student underachievement is incomplete. Max believes
students are taught to hate math by the very individuals who are supposed to teach
them. He says,
156
The issue is many of the elementary teachers themselves don’t like math.
They hated math when they were kids, and they transmit it unconsciously to
their students. Some of the teachers make math as a punishment – if the kids
are not following the rules, the teachers make them do math. Now, you
expect students to like math and can do math well?

A female faculty member makes the comment, “Sometimes you have to baby
students. But if you do too much [of that], they drop.” Although the faculty
members state they have incorporated different instructional approaches, Max
acknowledges his ignorance as to their effectiveness. Commenting on the use of
computer based instruction by the population of students in question, one faculty
member says,
For those students using computers, those are the elite of the traditional
students. We are talking about minority students who don’t perform well in
math. These are the students who don’t know how to use computers. I have
students who are worried about turning on the computer rather than the math.

As the debate continues, the director plucks another post-it off a different
chart and reads aloud: “What are the expectations of the students from the
instructors? If the instructors expect poor performance from certain groups of
students, do they create a self-fulfilling prophesy?” The debate comes to a standstill
and all eyes are trained on the director. The individual posing this question is one of
two students invited to attend the meeting. Bravely, she challenges the faculty
members’ assumptions about why students fail to succeed in math and forces them to
think about their own roles in that failure. She comments that she has observed
instructors making judgments about students, based on race, that ultimately affect
and prohibit student advancement. This comment prompts a flurry of discussion and
a great deal of disagreement, as has been detailed in the earlier chapters of this
157
dissertation. One faculty member states that he “treats everyone the same,” while
another believes that any faculty member making pejorative remarks about particular
groups of students should be “reported to the department.”
The meeting is drawing to a close and there is some sense of discomfort in
the room as the faculty members digest the experience shared by the student. The
director takes this opportunity to share her own experiences, commenting on her
sometime inability to recognize how she deals with students. By sharing her story,
the director hopes to engage faculty members in personal reflection, wherein they
can begin to examine the problem of student underperformance as a potential result
of their own stated beliefs and classroom practices. Thus, she proposes to the faculty
present that they consider committing themselves to further research that would
enable them to understand why African American and Latino students are
performing poorly in math.
A number of individuals indicate their willingness to participate, although
questions and a certain amount of pessimism still remain. One is about the emphasis
on race and ethnicity to the exclusion of other factors. Another concerns money,
with one faculty member noting, “Do we have money? If we don’t have money, we
can’t do anything.” Last, is a question of time: Will they have the time to devote to
such a project given all their other responsibilities? Alejandro, the designated liaison
between the Math Department and CUE says, “I think the process of going through
[this project] will be beneficial…we normally don’t have time to talk about those
158
kinds of stuff. We need communication and exchange of ideas inside the
department.”
The meeting comes to a close, with Max saying, “We are going to pursue the
problem further to achieve our goal. We want to be the best math department we
can.” CUE’s director informs the group that the post-its will be typed up and sent to
them via email and will serve as the basis for their next meeting. She hopes that they
will review the notes and send her an email with any additional thoughts they may
have on what took place today. Plans are made between the director and Alejandro
to meet sometime in the summer to plan the agenda for the following meeting.
Once the faculty members have left, the room is extremely quiet. The only
sound evident in the room comes from us putting away the laptop computer and
projector used to show the data to the faculty members. There is a feeling of
checked optimism among us as we comment to one another the group’s interest and
willingness to discuss the issues, even those that were uncomfortable. As we leave
the room, the lights are turned off but the sunlight streaming through the blinds
continues to illuminate the dreary green walls and the mismatched wooden
furnishings in Johnson Hall 305.
September 17, 2004
We are back in Johnson Hall for the follow up meeting with the math faculty.
Unlike the previous meeting, this time we are experiencing a degree of nervousness
and uncertainty as to where this meeting will take us. Throughout the summer
months, very little to no communication took place between us and the math faculty
159
members. In July, we held a phone conference with CCC’s institutional researcher
to discuss the May meeting and plan next steps. When it was commented that no one
from the math department responded to the typed up notes sent to them, the
institutional researcher replied, “That’s just the culture. It doesn’t mean they don’t
care.” Despite her reassurances to the contrary, our uncertainty remains and is
reaffirmed in August. When we hold a planning meeting to prepare for today’s
meeting we are surprised to see Alejandro is the only representative from the math
department. Two others were invited, including Max, but he and the other faculty
member were unable to attend. Max is critical to ensure the continuation of the
project. Is this project a priority?
Our feelings of doubt are confirmed as we wait outside JH 305. We are a
group of five individuals, CUE’s director, the new research associate who will head
the project, and three research assistants including myself. Each one of us has
something in our hands, from the laptop computer and projector we will use for
today’s presentation to the food and beverages we have brought in response to the
faculty members’ promise that they will “work for food.” When we finally enter JH
305, we are 30 minutes behind schedule and I am disheartened to see faculty
members exiting the room, giving us a clear indication that they will not be staying
for the meeting. Among those who do choose to attend the meeting are Michael,
Sandra, Rachel, Max, and Alejandro, all of whom will ultimately form the nucleus of
the Math Project. In addition to them are Richard and Nikolai
15
, two faculty

15
Their names have been changed to ensure confidentiality.
160
members who attended the previous meeting but, as we discover at the conclusion of
this meeting, will not take part in the Math Project.
As Max welcomes everyone to the meeting, I get the sense that he is not as
enthusiastic about today’s event as he was about the previous one. He remarks that
he doesn’t know what has been planned for the meeting but hopes that they will “do
something productive today.” When she is given the floor, CUE’s director recaps
the previous meeting and shares once again the data analyzed by DSP team
members. She outlines the objectives for the day, one of which is to explore the
possibility of engaging in a collaborative inquiry project with elements of action
research to better understand minority student outcomes in math.
While the director talks, I am disturbed by the obvious negative body
language displayed by Rachel, Richard and Nikolai. Both Rachel and Richard
appear as if they are reluctant to be there, sometimes slouching in their seats or
sitting rigidly with their hands crossed over their chests. Richard’s discomfort
becomes even more apparent when the director asks to tape record the session.
When those in the room nod their assent, Richard remarks, “I just won’t talk a lot,”
demonstrating his uneasiness with her request. The director states she will not use
the tape, indicating that she wants him to be able to talk freely and without fear.
With a hint of laughter in his voice, Max sarcastically asks, “Are you running for
president or something?” Although the rest of the group laughs, Richard does not
crack a smile.
161
George, the new research associate who will head the Math Project, is
introduced to the group to share his vision for the project. He says,
It is critical to identify problems that you find important. The work is done
collaboratively, it is completed over a long time. Over that time, we can see
results and change what we are doing. It isn’t like traditional research. We
bring something to the table, and you bring something to the table, and we try
to collectively problem solve.

Throughout much of his presentation, I take note of the faculty’s lack of engagement.
This becomes acutely evident when silence greets the end of George’s presentation.
Although his concluding remarks are inspiring – “Hopefully [the research] will lead
to a better life for you and a better life for your students” – the group does not
respond in kind. Instead, faculty members appear to be more interested in the
information sheets residing within the folder provided at the start of the meeting or in
each other’s whispered conversations. Even when Alejandro introduces the
possibility of utilizing this project for their “flex time” requirements, they all remain
unmoved.
As their first activity of the meeting, they are asked to rank, in order of
preference, which of the reasons articulated in the previous meeting they would like
to research further (see Appendix F). Initially, Rachel, Richard and Nikolai do not
participate in this exercise. At one point, I see Rachel and Richard writing notes to
each other. When the sheets are collected and the answers tallied, the results indicate
that faculty members retain the same opinions they expressed at the September
meeting. They continue to maintain the belief that their students’ lack of
achievement in math result from issues external to the classroom.
162
Michael comments,
As far as effort goes, it isn’t always that the students think they will fail,
sometimes the student thinks they are going to pass, not fail. They say “I
took this class 3 years ago, I am going to pass.” So it isn’t always because
they think they are going to fail.

Richard makes the comment that not all students are mature enough to take on the
responsibility for their own learning. He sees that there are things that can be done
from the level of the instructor, yet he believes that many “things need to happen at
the student level.” Essentially, what the faculty members are saying is that the
responsibility for learning cannot be attributed to them, but rather has to come from
the student. Michael concurs with this assessment, noting his own experiences with
students. He says,
Well I know for me several of my tests are examples right out of the book. I
tell them, ‘I won’t change anything’. I mean I may change minor words, like
if it says factor this, I may change a word or something, and uh, some
students don’t do any better on the example test, which leads me to believe
they won’t invest the time that some of the better students would. I even have
quizzes on the top five missed questions from the test, and they don’t do any
better on those. I think that is a student maturity issue, a motivational issue.

Michael further says that his experience in the classroom is such that he can give the
students an open book test and they would still perform poorly. Michael implies
because students aren’t devoting the necessary time to studying outside of class they
are unable to benefit from an open book exam because they do not understand the
concepts and can’t apply them.
Michael
As I walk down the hallway, heading towards Michael’s office for our
interview, I take note of the students milling around the hallway and hanging outside
163
classrooms. There is a mixture of ages; those that appear to be out of high school or
in their early 20’s are all dressed alike. They wear tattered jeans, colorful t-shirts,
and tennis shoes that are a throwback to when I was their age. A few young women
are a little more dressed up as they wear skirts and heels that “click clack” as they
walk down the hallway. Interspersed among this sea of faces are a few older ladies
and gentleman, much more conservatively dressed, books in hand and purpose to
their gait. I see one of the faculty members entering a classroom. He is dressed in
what appears to be the uniform of most professors: jeans, t-shirt (or in some cases a
button down shirt), and durable shoes. The image conveyed is one of comfort and,
dare I say it, indifference to one’s appearance.
I hear Michael’s voice coming from down the hall and I turn to greet him.
Expecting to see the uniform of the day, I am surprised to see Michael sporting jeans,
a button-down shirt, cowboy boots and an enormous, silver belt buckle gracing the
front of his jeans. I imagine him wearing a Stetson and almost ask where his is, only
to find out later that it is carefully lying on a specially designed hook prominently
displayed over his desk. When he comes near, he greets me with a smile and asks
how things are going. I say that I am fine but busy with all of my work. We walk
into his office, I take out my digital recorder and we begin the interview.
In a number of our meetings he has mentioned the work he did with Uri
Treisman while in graduate school. I ask him to talk about his experience, what it
was like working with students, and how he thinks the work he did may be beneficial
to the students of CCC. Michael says,
164
My job was to bring workshops from Berkeley to Cal State...and the idea was
that minority students and commuters studied alone, and we tried to bring
workshops to them. What we saw was that students weren’t studying,
communicating math concepts, they were just opening their books…you
know. They were studying 7 hours a week, and 14 hours are needed for
Calculus.

He goes on to say that the math workshops allowed students to have a structured
time in which they were forced to meet with other students and form a group in order
to do the work assigned in the workshop. The result of working in a group, he saw,
was that students were more willing to ask for assistance when they encountered
roadblocks. He says,
[The students] needed to spend 4 hours a week to discuss. If you worked in a
group, and no one could get a problem, you will go and ask for help. If you
are working alone, you won’t…you may be embarrassed.
He goes on to further say that students involved in this type of workshop gained
more from their math experience than they did if they were in just a traditional
classroom environment. He explains,
I think the immeasurable component of, uh, of doing that – of having a
solution, owning that solution, explaining it to other people, um, increases
your, you know, ability to communicate, your fluency in, you know, the
language of mathematics, and, and just everything else.

Bringing a program of this caliber to CCC, he feels, will help students improve their
understanding of math and provide them with a better sense of how to be effective
students.
September 17, 2004
A student who was present at the previous meeting appears to be upset by
what she is hearing. She says, “The way I see it, you are saying, ‘students aren’t
doing their work, they aren’t practicing. What should you do to help the student
165
solve the problem?” Michael refers back to what he did with Uri Treisman, how
they examined study habits, and what he learned from that experience. He begins to
mention the possibility of bringing the MESA program to the campus, which
facilitates these types of learning groups. However, the student is dissatisfied with
his response. She asks him, “But is there any way you can teach me, instead of just
saying one plus one equals two and that’s it?” The gauntlet has been thrown.
Sandra steps in, and unlike the previous meeting, she comments on how she
can potentially influence student behavior. She says,
We as teachers are going to have influence on working habits. My husband
still talks about one science teacher he had, and he says that is where he
learned how to study. We may not see the influence ourselves, but we may
have that impact. There are some things that we can do. If we approach this
problem as [the] number one problem, there are things we can do to help.

People are encouraged by Sandra’s comments. Alejandro makes the observation that
mathematics is not an exciting topic to learn. Or rather, it isn’t an exciting topic
based on how it is currently being taught in the schools. He remarks,
But how exciting is it to learn mathematics? In the way I present it? And in
intermediate algebra, jumping from matrices to inequalities. None of it is
tangible. What I see as a problem is that what I teach is not related to
students’ experiences. In my case, maybe, yeah, there is stuff related to
students, but to teach math itself, that could be done differently. And in the
relationships between teacher and students, that could be different. It isn’t
just that, it isn’t just that students aren’t ready. There are issues about how
we teach math, and how we make it exciting.

The director notes that what Alejandro just commented are things that can be
researched in the project. By doing the research the group can attain more concrete
answers, which will enable them to be more purposeful in their interventions.
166
Richard isn’t convinced and his pessimism appears to affect Rachel. The following
exchange takes place in response to her commentary.
Richard: But we know. We know that there are some students that
aren’t studying.

Director: How do you know?

Rachel: We are assuming that.

Richard: There are only so many possibilities.

Nikolai: There are some students who ask, “How much homework is in
this class?” There are students who blatantly say, “I am not
doing the homework, I am not studying.”

Richard: Why spend the time trying to see if the issues exist when we
know they do. Why not spend time focusing on fixing the
problems? We know what they are.
The faculty members appear to think that conducting research into why students are
not learning, or rather the specific of study habits are a waste of time. They feel that
their experiences in the classroom working with students have provided them with
sufficient background knowledge to understand the problems confronting their
students. What they feel they need at this point in time are concrete samples of
strategies that work – that will make their students more successful. Yet Rachel is
clearly frustrated and does not know in which direction they will go. She states,
We have a lot of issues that people aren’t successful. And the big one is that
math is not interesting. There are a lot of pieces of the puzzle that we have
to…we learn techniques and then apply it. We can’t apply it if they don’t
know how to do it. They are here because they want to be here. I don’t think
there is a motivation issue. There are some students who do study, and put in
time but they are studying incorrectly. They just may not know how to study.
When I was at Cal Poly Pomona, I took chemistry and my teacher would just
look at my work and said, “This is wrong,” and didn’t explain it. There are
so many issues, how do we tackle all of them? My teacher thought I wasn’t
167
doing anything, but I was putting in the time. You don’t know – you don’t
know what is going on with students.

Rachel’s experience as a student herself leads her to understand that there is much
she does not know about her own students. However, here experience as a faculty
member likewise leads here to understand that her students “just aren’t getting it”
and does not know what else to do or what to believe.
The meeting is quickly coming to a close. George and the director have
asked the group repeatedly throughout the meeting if they are interested in pursuing
this project; however, no definitive answers have been received. Instead, the faculty
members continue to voice their opinions concerning student underachievement. A
comment is raised concerning different cultures and the value each culture has for
education. Michael says, “There are differences in study habits [and] differences in
the number of hours people are studying…research isn’t necessary to make that
point.” Max, who has remained relatively silent throughout the meeting, says,
I want to say that, there are probably multiple reasons why certain groups
don’t do well, and some are compounded. Let’s take Latinos…they come in
with lower preparation than the better schools. People might argue Asians go
to those same public schools. I don’t know if that is the case, but there are
cultural issues. Asians place a higher priority on education. In the Latino
community, in a lot of cases, none of them go to school. If you are an able
body you go to work to help the family.

Max suggests that if differences do exist between groups and the relevance they
attach to education, then that would be something they can research. Rachel believes
that this type of research may help them “grab” the interests of their students and
make their experience a more palatable one. Richard, however, is not of the same
opinion. He suggests that not all people are going to perform well in math, nor
168
should they expect it. Different temperaments will yield different interests. He says,
“My goal is not to grab the audience. I don’t want to make the artists love math. We
don’t want the whole world to be mathematicians.”
With that last comment, the director once again asks the group if they will
participate. Sandra says she will but is unwilling to give up her Fridays for meetings
– she has a cabin in the mountains that she retreats to on the weekends. Alejandro
suggests they have their next meeting “somewhere exciting,” which hopefully will
prompt others to attend. No agreement is reached about the group’s participation, a
meeting place, or a meeting date. Max therefore suggests that we return to talk to the
faculty members during their next department meeting in October. Only then will
they be able to see if the Math Project will become a reality.
As I leave the room, I wonder what went wrong. While Michael clearly
shows an interest in research, probably stemming from his background with the Uri
Treisman project, this group does not appear to be open to a collaborative process of
inquiry. Throughout the meeting, they were very insistent on delving right into
“action,” or asking that we “give [them a] program,” and even “tell [them} what to
do now.” Because the director acknowledged that we did not come to the meeting
with a specific plan of action for the project, I cannot help but think that perhaps this
approach hurt us more rather than promote the project. Given that they are math
faculty members, with very specific beliefs about students, a linear way of thinking
and wary of research, should we have taken a different approach?

169
Stage 2: Engagement and Buy-In
December 20, 2004 – March 11, 2005
December 20, 2004
“The next step is trying to contextualize the world of our students,” says
George at the start of today’s meeting. CCC is located in urban Los Angeles in an
area dominated by heavy traffic, clusters of residences, and blocks of retail stores.
The vicinity in itself mirrors the age and neglect of the campus: streets marred by
potholes and loose gravel; residences in need of fresh paint; and store front windows
coated in dust, concealing the “Closed” signs that are indicative of another failed
business venture. Vehicles of different hues and standards of luxury form a tight
grid around the perimeter of the campus. All are subject to the much-too-quickly
ticking clock of the parking meters and the watchful eyes of the ever-present parking
meter attendants. What an unpleasant sight to see the white and red envelope
fluttering in the breeze, held in place by the vehicle’s windshield wiper, informing
one of the thirty-five dollar fine owed to the city within sixty days. I’ve been the
recipient of two since the start of this project.
Students attending CCC come from homes where the annual household
income is approximately $31,000; $11,000 less than the median income for Los
Angeles County and $17,000 less than the median income for the entire state. The
unemployment rate within the school’s service area is 11 percent, two and three
percentage points higher than the county and state, respectively. The lack of
disposable income and high unemployment rate within CCC’s service area denotes
170
the challenges students cope with on a daily basis. However, the context of student
lives appears to be lost amidst talk of their motivation for school. A recent lunch
outing with George and CUE’s director revealed that certain faculty members
perceive students in remedial math courses to be “ignorant” and “boneheads.” These
comments, when paired with earlier remarks, portray students as indifferent, even
flippant about their education. Yet, the reality of student action in a time of crisis
contradicts these perceptions.
On October 14, 2003, 2,500 mechanics for the Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transit Authority went on strike. For 35 days, Los Angeles was paralyzed, as buses
remained stationary at bus depots throughout the city. It was estimated that over
400,000 residents were impacted by the strike, many of whom were students of all
ages. Newspaper and media reports during those 35 days documented the impact of
the strike on students, relaying images of them waking up at dawn to walk the one,
five, ten or more miles to get to their schools. CCC was no exception to the drama
unfolding outside its gates, as many students were seen sleeping on school grounds
in order to maintain attendance in their classes. For many of CCC’s students, the
lack of transportation was devastating, forcing them to devise alternative strategies to
continue attending school.
The purpose of today’s meeting is to uncover these hidden issues and reach
consensus as to how the group, with its limited resources, will “invest the time in the
problems [they] have to fix.” The context of the environment and the problems
students face on a daily basis are an important subtext to this story. While it is not
171
known precisely how many of CCC’s students slept within the school’s hallways or
walked 20 miles to be in class, it is clear that students went to extraordinary lengths
to attend school. At the same time, it is clear that faculty members present at today’s
meeting have a vague understanding of students’ lives outside the classroom.
Nonetheless, the faculty members who have chosen to participate in the Math Project
seem to be hopeful that this process will yield new and useful information.
Alejandro, the group’s de facto leader comments, “I hope this can lead us to
information about, from the student’s point of view, of what’s going on and what we
can do.”
Alejandro
The importance of the Math Project is not lost on Alejandro. He has been a part of
the project since the very beginning, serving as the faculty representative during
phase one of the project. Alejandro is an older gentleman, small of stature but large
in passion. His constant good humor makes me wonder if he ever has a bad day.
His speech is peppered with the words “great,” wonderful,” and “extraordinary,” all
of which are followed either by a smile, a chuckle, or a laugh. The fairness of his
skin emphasizes the pink tinge of his cheeks, especially after hearing a particularly
funny joke or tale. He reminds me of “Jolly Ole Saint Nick” with his crop of
white/gray hair only minus the belly and the bright red suit. When he speaks, I hear
the sincerity in his accented voice and the earnestness of his goals: to see all students
succeed. Yet I’ve learned over time that he can be disorganized, does not always
follow through, and his good intentions do not always reach fruition.
172
During the meetings Alejandro does not hesitate to express his opinions on
what they, as a department, are doing well and what they are not doing enough of.
The Math Project is particularly dear to him because it provides him and his
colleagues with the opportunity to simply talk about the issues that concern them all.
Commenting on the benefits of the project, Alejandro says,
Well, first of all it’s very important for us to look at what we are doing. And
I think that the project provides some time and space for us to look in
addition to the information that we gather, okay, from the students. But in
addition to that we, at least we spend some time looking at what it is that
we’re doing, what is going on also because we never get to talk about that
unless we do a retreat as we did a couple of years ago.

The retreat in question is one where faculty members met at Max’s house to discuss
learning outcomes, which was a new addition to the community college accreditation
requirements. Despite the mandate “to look at the outcomes,” Alejandro
acknowledges as a group they “didn’t follow up.” Thus, to have structured meeting
times where the only task is to identify and discuss issues related to student
underachievement in remedial courses is “great!” He comments,
We don’t get to talk about that, and then you keep doing the same old thing
and getting, of course, the same results, okay? And, and if you don’t spend
time with the, so I think that one of the, one of the benefits or maybe a
byproduct of the, of this project is that it gives us the opportunity to talk
about things.
The department meeting is the only structured opportunity faculty members have to
talk to one another. Unfortunately, “so many procedural things” they need to discuss
as a group dominate the monthly meeting that other worthwhile discussion items,
such as classroom teaching techniques, are rarely broached.
173
What Alejandro wants to talk about has nothing to do with new textbooks or
which faculty member is assigned to which course. He wants to talk about students:
how they are faring within their classes and what they, the faculty members, are
doing or can be doing to make mathematics more relevant for them. He states,
What I want to talk about is the way we teach mathematics today and how it
can be done differently because the times have changed, and I know that I am
teaching mathematics the same way that I learned it, and that was 30 years
ago, okay?

While he recognizes his own limitations, he is not all too sure how to proceed. He
clearly has his beliefs about what is going on at CCC: that not all students are
“prepared to focus” on the work required by their classes; that many students come
with liabilities, namely that they are saddled with external responsibilities that
prevent them from “showing their talents”; and that faculty members are lowering
their standards – “Right now, it seems that things have been relaxed” – to such a
degree that students ill-prepared in the basics are moving forward in the math
continuum. At the same time he acknowledges his lack of credible information
about students, noting the multifaceted nature of underachievement. Alejandro
reflects,
I don’t, I don’t get the feeling that I have a solid indication of what is going
on with the students. I don’t. And I think that the issue is more complex…I
can point out the people that know how to study, yes. I can point out that. I
can point out that the way we are teaching math could be improved, and not
because we are not good enough teachers. We are good teachers but we need
to teach differently…I do believe that we have talented students, and for one
reason or another they cannot show their talent. It’s not a matter [of] the
students [being] dumb. It’s not. It’s how we teach and, you know, in the
environment they are – they will have a hard time performing better.

174
He goes on to suggest that faculty members collectively have very “low
expectations” of their students, which in his opinion only seems to encourage
students to abdicate responsibility and not perform to their utmost potential.
Despite these negatives, he believes faculty members have the capacity to
improve things for students and initiate change. He goes on to offer suggestions that
will make math more relevant to students’ everyday experiences, such as using math
to understand interest rates on one’s credit cards. By providing a context, he
believes, students will become more engaged, be more apt to study with purpose, and
have a more thorough understanding of abstract mathematical concepts. This,
Alejandro feels, is particularly important for Latino students because as he says, “If I
were to provide a context, they would really relate, but if I take things out of context,
they do not relate.”
As a Latino, he does not believe “the ability to think in the abstract” is
prevalent within his culture. It is up to the instructors to provide the experiences that
will generate both meaning and enthusiasm for the content. Therefore, he cannot
emphasize enough the importance of dialogue and the sharing of tips and strategies
of what works in the classroom. As he says, “We have a lot of talent in this math
department you know, great talent, but each one is [in] their own reality. They’re
separate. We are not, I believe, that we are not using all the resources we have.”
The Math Project is the vehicle, he believes, that will bring faculty members together
to initiate change for the better.
December 20, 2004
175
Six faculty members are present at today’s meeting and they are all eager to
talk. At times, they trip over each other’s words as they all attempt to infuse their
thoughts and opinions within the scope of the conversation. Most succeed in voicing
their viewpoints; Yuri, however, is not quite as successful. While everyone jumps
into the fray, Yuri sits back, raising his hand, hoping that someone will call on him to
speak. Each time he is passed up, he self-consciously lowers his hand and waits for
the next opportunity. Unfortunately, no one really seems to take notice and the
conversation proceeds without his input. Although at times the group continues to
reference student deficiencies, the conversation floating around the two trapezoid
shaped tables begins to encompass some issues related to classroom teaching, faculty
responsibility, and the “appeal” of math to lay audiences.
Rachel remarks that students in remedial courses “are not trained in the
proper way of thinking,” suggesting that their creativity “is just stripped from them.”
She goes on to say that the department’s emphasis on prerequisites stymies student
enthusiasm and their ability to retain critical concepts. Alejandro echoes her
sentiments going so far to say that they, the faculty members, do not do enough to
make math relevant to students’ everyday lives. He says, “The higher courses in
math have a purpose, but in these beginning classes, everything is unrelated. Is it a
reasonable expectation asking people to learn all this without giving them a sense of
where this leads?” The lack of relevancy to students and the focus on prerequisites
yield little time to focus on “critical thinking,” a skill of absolute necessity in the
higher-level math courses.
176
The direction of the conversation leads others to make additional comments
about how students are taught and what they learn, or rather, do not learn in their
math classes. Max believes most students “are memorizing types of problems but
they are not learning how to think.” On the news, Sandra shares, it was reported that
high school graduates “are learning the technique but not why it is being done.” As
such, when students are asked to apply the “technique” to other tasks, they are
unable to do so because they have not grasped the concept underscoring the
technique. Because there no longer exists a factory system in which rote and
memorization are perhaps appropriate, students are losing out on the jobs presently
available. To address this, Sandra recommends, “Since the state is the one that
makes the curriculum, they are the ones to be approached and the teachers, to not just
teach the technique.”
Sandra
Sandra understands technique, or rather she understands the importance of
differentiated instruction to meet the learning styles of different students. Unlike
most faculty members on the team, Sandra followed a significantly different path
towards her present position at CCC. She came from what she describes as “a fairly
dysfunctional family.” Her father was 30 years older than her mother and they lived
in extreme hardship. In high school, she worked two jobs to help make ends meet,
and as a result, only went as far as Intermediate Algebra in her math education.
Upon graduating in the mid-1960’s she attended a bible college for two years but did
177
not graduate. She says, “I just went part-time the second year because [I] got
married and had to work and keep my husband in school.”
For the next 26 years, Sandra was a stay at home mom and moved to the
different parishes where her husband served as pastor. Similar to her upbringing,
making a living on a pastor’s salary was a challenge. This led her to obtain a job at
the parish school, driving the “school bus because [they] needed the money.” I never
took the bus as a child, only on school field trips, so I ask her if the horror stories are
true about students and busses. She laughs and comments, “Yes it is. Egg throwing
and slashing the seats!” However, it wasn’t the students in the bus that drove her to
return to school, it was her own family who gave her the motivation. Sandra recalls
with a great deal of laughter,
So I was without a math class for about 26 years, and I had decided when our
youngest one was two-years old, I was sitting there at a dining room table in
my – there were four – there were four men, you know, including my two
year old, and they were trying to gross each other out and stuff, and I said,
“You know what guys? I think it’s time for me to go back to school.”

With the support of her family, Sandra enrolled at a community college in the same
spring her son celebrated his second birthday. Because she had been out of school
for many years, she decided to take two courses – a history class and a math class.
She describes her math instructor as “just the perfect teacher for me at that
point in my life.” She recalls that he was “a funny math teacher” but one who
challenged her to excel. He was encouraging of her burgeoning skills and often used
humor to mediate his critiques and/or reprimands. She remembers a particular
178
incident in which she followed the advise of a friend that did not work very well in
her favor. Sandra shares,
When I first met my friend who was taking [the class] at the same, the same
class with the same instructor, but she took it at eight o’clock and I took it at
nine. She says, “Don’t read the textbook.” So of course I didn’t read it and
then one class I was totally embarrassed because I raised my hand and asked,
“Well how do you know which is the x-coordinate and which is the y-
coordinate?” And he goes, “Well, I see my student hasn’t read her material
ahead of time.”

Rather than be discouraged by his public comments to her, she says he did all he
could to encourage her, to challenge her, and to motivate her to not give up.
The techniques this influential professor used in class are ones that Sandra
has incorporated into her own classroom. Her professor would pass out Hershey’s
kisses to students who would get perfect scores on their exams and would use rubber
stamps with little sayings, such as “Welcome to the A-Team, ” a reference to a
popular 1980’s sitcom. Along with the words of encouragement, her professor
would also be cognizant of future learning opportunities, reminding Sandra to be
proud of what she did well while at the same time reminding her to go back and
review the problems she missed. She received a B in the class, but was okay with it
because the overall experience was a good one. She comments, “I have wonderful
anecdotes that I tell my students because I went through this process of going, you
know, after a lot of years away from math.”
After completing her coursework at the community college, she went on to
the University of Redlands where she received her degree and her credentials to
teach at the secondary level. This experience, she feels, prepared her to teach
179
students enrolled in remedial courses. The classes she taught at the high school level
– pre-algebra, algebra, geometry, and intermediate algebra – are all the equivalent of
the lower level courses at CCC. To a large extent, she believes it was her experience
at the secondary level that set her apart from other applicants when she was
searching for positions at the community colleges. She says she learned many of her
“tricks” from observing her colleagues at the high school. She says, “That’s one of
the things in high school that you get. You know, you get a lot of interaction
between the high school instructors because at the meetings they talk about problems
they’re having and how they solve them.”
The techniques she learned during her high school teaching experiences are
also ones she presently incorporates into her classroom. She says she is “motherly”
with her students and tries to make her class “as fun as possible.” She utilizes
worksheets that are just “silly little things” with funny little sayings or surprises for
students. She says,
We’ve just had this worksheet in the algebra class that I taught on Tuesday
and it was one of those “Algebra with Pizzazz” that I got when I was teaching
in high school. It had, “Why did the hunter get hurt when he was looking
down at tracks?” The answer to it is “A train hit him.” But what they did is
they had to do their long division polynomials and then they crossed out the
ones the answers matched and then the left over letters were the ones they
filled in. They’re just silly little things.

She likewise utilizes small group activity, because as she has learned, “It’s important
with students, talking with students individually…to find out what their goals are and
make sure that they don’t take a class that they don’t need [or] necessarily need.”
She brings in her “color pencils” and her “straight edge” because she knows students
180
will often forget to bring their tools to class. She says she is trying to “get a little
tougher” but she sees that her classroom technique seems to work with students and
is appreciated by them. She remembers,
Well, a student was just observing me in class the other day, and he had come
in early because the other class was coming in, and he was watching me at
the end. He was just, “You know, I was watching you,” and he says, “I was
watching how you interact with the students. And he says, “What is your
name so I can make sure I take you if you’re offered.”

She believes that one way faculty members could be effective in the classroom is to
spend some time learning from one another, observing each other in the classroom to
learn some of those “tricks” that make certain faculty members so successful.
Unfortunately, this “training of teachers” was voted low on the list of priorities at
their last faculty retreat.
December 7, 2006
By “technique,” the group refers to instruction that is often basic, utilizing a
step-by-step approach, which seems to promote the greater use of memorization and
hinders the building of relationships between math concepts. These “relationships”
are what the faculty members are referring to as “critical thinking” – the ability to
build upon mathematical knowledge and devise a “framework” that can be called
upon at will. Max says,
When you say critical thinking I agree with [Alejandro]. It’s pervasive all
over and especially in the developmental courses. We teach procedure
exclusively. Looking at linear regression the other day…I have a framework
and the ability to think, that I was able to put together and that’s what we are
trying to teach them. Not memorize this formula, but what are the
relationships. There is a similar connection to doing word problems and a
method of looking at things. That process, the framework, is not necessarily
a math process but a thinking process.
181

Max receives some ribbing for his comment about linear regression – “Just for fun,
right?” – but overall, there is general agreement in what he said.
Sharon, a member of the English department who has joined the group,
shares some statistics about students graduating from the Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD), one of CCC’s feeder districts. She has learned (from a
series of articles written in the Los Angeles Times) that approximately “85 percent of
LAUSD graduates are functionally illiterate.” She believes this factor, in addition to
other external responsibilities students have, prevent them from seeing the relevance
of course work. She says, “We tell them that they have three hour classes and we
expect them to do six hours of homework. They look at me and say, ‘Are you
kidding me?’” Sandra concurs, saying, “Students have the moment of euphoria,”
when they establish their goals for the semester and what they intend to do. But, as
Sandra further says, “I remember being a student and being committed to typing my
notes every day, but that only lasted a few days.” She says this is not because
students don’t care, but because “reality sets in” and their external obligations appear
to compete and prevail over their good intentions.
Returning to the issue of technique and step-by-step instruction, Max ruefully
shares aloud his wife’s missteps with the mathematical process. He says,
I hate to admit this, but my wife calls me and asks me for percentages and I
have to go through the math with her. It doesn’t matter if they forget what a
percentage is, but not being able to apply it – therein lies the problem with
our educational system.

182
Max’s comments lead Rachel to pose a question in regards to the evaluation of
students. If they know step-by-step instruction does not lead to critical thinking and
the application of concepts, is it fair to evaluate them based on a technique that
doesn’t work? Somewhat exasperated, she says,
I guess where I’m having a problem is that there has to be other methods of
evaluation rather than step-by-step. I have conversations with students where
they know the steps, but when it comes to the test, they forget everything.
I’m having a hard time accepting that because I know something, they should
know it as well. I’m at the point where I have to try different things, but
there has to be a different way of evaluating students other than the final
exam. The final exam should not define them. It’s like we’re setting them up
for failure if they can’t retain that information over a 15 week time period.

As one of CCC’s newest teachers, Rachel is open to adopting new techniques and
strategies that can yield greater success among her students. In fact, she along with
another faculty member, are pioneering the use of new technology tools that create a
more interactive environment for their students. However, she is visibly agitated and
is looking for answers to the dilemmas she faces in the classroom.
Yuri suggests, because technique is important, they need to be more proactive
in placing students in classroom settings that provide instruction in specific ways.
He says,
There are some students that are motivated by deadlines, by being nice, by
the instructor, etc. I think we have to know and be able to distinguish those
students. For a person who likes the instructor, that person is not going to
succeed in front of a computer. Students who love to sit in front of the
computer will do well because they don’t have to ask questions. We have to
know our students.

Yuri believes that matching students to like-minded professors will generate greater
success within the student body. George, the research associate, picks up on what
183
Yuri is suggesting and recommends they use the LASSI to “to get to know their
students.”
George follows this comment by spending some time describing the LASSI
and how it may help the team identify some of the issues impacting student success.
The LASSI is a self-administered and self-scoring diagnostic assessment of students’
strengths and weaknesses in 10 areas. These include anxiety, attitude, concentration,
information processing, main ideas, motivation, self-testing, study aids, time
management, and test strategies. At the start of the meeting George suggested that
there may be a number of things that could be negatively affecting students. He said,
“It could be curriculum, self-efficacy – all those things require a different approach.”
The LASSI would provide faculty members with the means to delve into the world
of their students and devise a focused research agenda that would maximize the
limited resources they have at their disposal. According to George, “The LASSI
would be that concrete step that could get us started.”
All appear to be in favor of administering the LASSI to students, however,
Michael appears not to be swayed. Throughout the meeting he has been doubtful,
inserting comments that seem to negate or challenge what the others in the group are
saying. Whereas Alejandro mentioned the importance of providing a real world
context for their students and Sandra discusses her success with different teaching
methods, Michael comments, “I remember students asking me about computer
programs, but I tell them that it is not a substitute for studying. So they’d have to
buckle down at some point.” In response to the “step-by-step discussion” he
184
remarked, “One student insisted that all students are visual. No, you can’t assume
that all students are visual. You can’t grab the flavor of the week. I just think that
we might be taking this in a direction that is a dead end.” In regards to the LASSI,
he wonders as to the reliability of the instrument, asking, “I wonder, in student
success, the self-report, is there a correlation?” George assures him that the
assessment has “pretty good reliability.”
At the conclusion of the meeting, the group decides to proceed with the
LASSI. Michael, while in agreement with the decision made, nonetheless has his
doubts. He says, “I want to go forward with this but I’m afraid that we are going to
find things that others already found.” Max counters his comment, saying, “But just
because you are saying it doesn’t mean that [the students] are saying it.” Alejandro
concludes the meeting, remarking, “The important thing for us is to start moving. If
this is the starting point, then this is the starting point. We can adjust, refine, but the
point is to get started.” Sandra walks out of the meeting room making one final
comment, “One is embarrassed to admit they can’t read, but there is no
embarrassment to admit one doesn’t know math.” Do the students feel the same
way? Hopefully the LASSI will provide answers to the many perplexing questions
that still remain and provide the context the group needs to move forward in their
efforts to assist their students.
As before, I am the last person to leave the meeting. I gather all of my notes
and put away my laptop computer where I spent the last hour and a half furiously
typing away, trying to capture the complete text of the meeting. My fingers are
185
numb but grateful to Sandra for imploring the group to allow us to record these
meetings “to make things easier” on the research assistants. Inside my mind I
perform cartwheels when nobody objects to her suggestion. As I leave the room I
am mentally preparing for the next meeting. Whereas before we could not secure the
faculty members’ commitment to this project, today Max has not only set a date and
time for our next meeting but has also outlined the tentative agenda for the day.
Taking a cue from Alejandro, I have to admit, this was a “great” meeting.
February 23, 2005
Forty pairs of eyes are looking at me, wondering who I am and what I am
doing there. Before entering the classroom, these 40 students were quietly taking a
test on the computers located in one of the math department’s computer-assisted
classes. It is 10:25 a.m. and the instructor of the course is telling me, “Go ahead, get
started.” I am there to administer the LASSI to a group of students under the
direction of a faculty member who is not a part of the project. He was recruited by
Rachel to participate, and while he agreed to “lend us” his students, he would not be
responsible for conducting the assessment nor for its scoring. That responsibility has
fallen to me and another one of CUE’s research assistants.
It has been a chaotic morning. Yesterday evening I received a phone call
from Rachel who was trying to clear up some of the confusion surrounding the
administration of the LASSI. We had met as a group two weeks before to discuss
the logistics of this day. Approximately 200 assessments, in addition to a
supplemental survey, would be given to students enrolled in both the basic skills
186
classes and the more advanced calculus classes. Faculty members who are presently
teaching a basic skills course – Yuri, Sandra, and Rachel – would administer their
own assessments. For the courses not being taught by group members, I and another
research assistant would take over the responsibility. In the two weeks between the
“logistics” meeting on February 11, 2005 and today, I sent out numerous emails
confirming the details of the day, who was responsible for receiving and passing out
the LASSI’s, who would collect them at the end of the day, and where they would go
for analysis. Last night’s phone call proved to me that faculty members do not read
their email.
To clear any confusion, Sandra called me early this morning to clarify the
room numbers of the classes we will be visiting and the times we are expected to be
there. Before hanging up, I ensure that all of the LASSI’s have been received (as I
had dropped them off last week in their offices) and that there are enough copies of
the supplemental survey to pass out. Sandra mentions that she had “forgotten the
count” and had therefore not printed any of the surveys. She is worried that she will
not have enough time to print them out as the department’s copy machine is slow and
always busy. I ease her mind and tell her that I will make the copies in my office
and will bring them along with me. Sounding relieved, she thanks me profusely for
doing this, apologizes for calling so early in the morning (7:40 a.m.) and we
disconnect.
So there I am, standing before 40 students waiting, hoping for the instructor
to say something to his class as to the purpose of my visit. When he tells me to “go
187
ahead and start,” I ask him if he is not going to say something to the class to
introduce me and the purpose of my visit. He appears almost surprised by my
request yet he acquiesces to my appeal, turns to the class and says,
Okay everyone, listen up. If you are not done with the test, pay attention for
a little bit and then you can keep working. This is a survey that you have to
do. She is a fellow doctoral student at USC and she is working on something
that she will tell you about.

With that, he turns to me and says, “They’re yours,” before walking out of the room,
presumably to return to his office where I first found him this morning.
As soon as I am left alone, I introduce myself and tell the students that I am
working with the math faculty on a special project. As I am talking, a few students
look as if they are ready to leave the class and have their books in hand. I have to
make it a point to say they will be doing one more thing before they can leave the
class for the day. I smile at them, hoping to win them over with my charm;
However, I can see the resentment in their eyes as they slowly sit back down in their
seats. As I begin to explain the purpose of the LASSI and the supplemental survey
and how the math faculty will use them, an older African American student asks me
if this is required for the course. I try to explain to him the purpose of the assessment
and how it will be beneficial to him. I say, “It will help you to understand the study
strategies you use and how you can improve or ask for assistance.” Seeming not to
care for my explanation, he asks me again if it is required. I tell him, “It isn’t
required but completely optional, but your professor would like you to take it.” He
nods his head but even so, he gathers his materials and prepares to leave. So do
several others.
188
This same scene is repeated in the afternoon when I and the other research
assistant go to the calculus class that will be completing the assessment. Walking
into this room, we see students are putting their books and notes away, preparing to
leave. This professor repeats the same words the earlier professor did, “They’re
yours,” before walking out of the room. Only problem is he didn’t explain to the
group who we are or why we are there. As the 16 students began to leave, we have
to stop them and tell them that the reason their professor ended class early was so
that they could take this assessment. Hearing this, they do not look happy. One
student, a young white male asks us if this is required and asks if the chair of the
math department is aware of what we are doing. We assure him the chair is involved
in this effort and we pass out the assessments.
Once all the assessments have been completed, I walk towards my car
reflecting on what took place today. My thoughts first turn to the administration of
the LASSI itself, the lack of faculty involvement and the reception we had by the
students. In the first class I went to, I was surprised to see the instructor not in the
class with his students who were taking a test. I later found him in his office talking
to a couple of women who brought him a cake. He was happy to have received the
cake, saying to me, “Look what I got, and I’m just a math teacher.” Ten, perhaps
fifteen minutes went by before he escorted me to his classroom, again surprising me
given that his students were taking a test. He appeared unfazed by this – perhaps this
is the way things are done at CCC?
189
The reception by the students was conceivably expected, that they are likely
to be defensive and not enthused about doing things that are not requisite to the class.
Moreover, if their instructors do not demonstrate any enthusiasm for what we are
doing, then it is only fair to presume the students will not either. What implications
does this have on the assessment and will the data culled be reliable given the lack of
explanation from their instructors? The looks of doubt, annoyance, and confusion
evident in students’ faces as I set out to explain the assessment certainly rattled my
composure; might this likewise have jeopardized the validity of the assessment if my
instruction was disjointed and rushed? Would the experience and the level of student
engagement have been different had those faculty members stayed in the room?
Last, I think of the chaos of the morning, which indicated to me that faculty
members did not read the emails sent in advance of this day. This was confirmed at
the end of the day when I tried to give the completed LASSI’s and supplemental
surveys to Alejandro. He looked almost surprised to be receiving them, asking me
what he was supposed to do with them. I reminded him that he was to give them to
the institutional researcher who would cull together the data and prepare it for
analysis. I was surprised by his question given that we had discussed this in detail at
our planning meeting two weeks prior. Nonetheless, he accepted the assessments,
promised to immediately take them to the institutional researcher and thanked us for
helping them out.

190
March 11, 2005
My legs are trembling from the effort it takes me to rush up the three flights
of stairs to get to JH 305. My shaky legs and my shortness of breath are indicative of
my lack of exercise over the last several months. I am running late and I need to
meet Jacques who is delivering the food for today’s meeting. Stopping at the top of
the stairs to catch my breath, I turn my head to the right and see Jacques pacing the
hallway. My three-inches high black boots hit the tile floor in a staccato melody as I
break into a brisk walk. Several disapproving stares are directed my way by students,
as the noise I am making intrudes upon the silence of their classroom and drowns out
the voices of their instructors. I finally reach Jacques who is distressed over the fact
he is unable to set up the food due to the still-in-progress department meeting. The
consummate professional, he wants to set up but he is pressed for time and cannot
wait for the meeting to end. I thank him for bringing the food and reassure him that I
will lay it all out as soon as I am able to enter the room.
As I set up, I am reminded of a metaphor used to explain the importance of
fans in sporting events. This metaphor strikes me because it seems applicable to the
important role food plays within our project meetings. In professional football, the
fan is an important element of the game day experience. Fans have the potential of
changing the outcome of a game; they can chant cheers to motivate the home team or
they can distract the opposing team, forcing them to make costly mistakes. In the
National Football League, the fan has become the “12
th
man,” an extension of the 11
players allowed on the playing field during a game. At our Math Project meetings,
191
food has become our “12
th
Man.” The effect food has on our team meetings is subtle
yet profound. Sometimes it is distracting as the crinkly noise of the plastic wrapping
covering a chicken sandwich drowns out the words of those who are talking. It is
often motivating as faculty members appear to be more willing to be present and on
time to our team meetings. Above all, the presentation of the food is awe-inspiring,
more akin to a specially catered meal appropriate for VIP’s, rather than a simple
lunch of burgers and fries.
Today is no exception and our “12
th
Man” is having its desired effect. In
addition to the plastic wrapped sandwiches that have become a staple of our
meetings – chicken, turkey, tuna or eggplant on toasted wheat bread – Jacques has
provided us with individually packaged mixed baby green salads with small, black,
oval-shaped plastic containers holding the vinaigrette dressing. For dessert, team
members have a choice of chocolate brownies, lemon bars, or cookies. An array of
soft drinks rounds out the menu for the day. As team members approach the table
where the food is carefully arranged, I hear their murmurs of appreciation, with
Sandra exclaiming, “This is first rate!”
As we all take our seats, Audrey, the school’s institutional researcher, passes
out a 23-page document presenting a “a basic frequency of the data and a few cross
tabs of the mean of the scales” assessed by the LASSI. Because the document is still
in its preliminary format, George tells the group that he expects to provide the group
with a more complete student portrait for their next group meeting. Until that time,
they will review the preliminary data, understand the subscale definitions, and begin
192
to think about what other courses of action they will need to take to have a thorough
understanding of the remedial context and their students.
Comments are made while the group reviews the data. “There doesn’t seem
to be a lot of deviation,” states Max. Rachel makes note of the low number of
students accessing the various tutoring services available on campus. Whereas
Sharon, the English faculty member, believes this is partly due to it being early in the
semester, George suggests, “One issue will be whether or not they know about the
services or else they know about them and they are not motivated to use them – that
is a whole separate issue.” Throughout the meetings, George has assumed a
facilitative role, questioning and probing, looking for alternative explanations for
student behavior. His presence in the discussion has been quietly profound, often
guiding faculty members to think deeper about the issues, separating fact from
anecdote.
Audrey points out the number of students who took Calculus in high school
yet find themselves taking the most basic math course at CCC. Rachel doesn’t seem
to be too surprised as her own experiences while an undergraduate corroborate this
finding. She says,
You know, I see it a lot. When I was at Cal Poly, when we were in high
school we took those math classes, but then we take those placement tests
and they get placed in those lower level classes and I just…I don’t know. For
whatever reason, you cause, when you usually study for a test, you prepare,
but no one studies for your placement test.

193
Sharon tries to tell her that she herself did study for her placement test. However,
Rachel is not convinced that they are talking about the same population of students.
The following exchange takes place.
Rachel: But I’m just saying the high school students, they don’t study for
them and that’s why they are getting placed in these lower level
classes.

George: And then does it operate like tracking where they just never get
out of that track?

Rachel: And they’re stuck in that system and ugh…

Letty: And then doesn’t it also depend on the last time was that they took
math? Some students might stop taking math their junior year…
Rachel: Exactly.

Sharon: It can also mean when you are taking a course, any course that
you are taking, you can study enough to pass the test but you’re
not really learning. And so even if they graduate from high school
last June and they are now – that math is gone.

Audrey, who is responsible for administering the placement test to all students who
enroll in CCC, tells the group that students receive a kind of “test prep” booklet with
sample questions. She says, “It’s up to them whether they want to try and cram and
place higher. They know ahead of time this is what it’s going to be.” Clearly,
students are responsible for their placement outcomes, or are they?
Max
I am a little fearful of my first individual conversation with Max. Not for any
overt action or behavior that suggests he is unwilling to participate in my research
endeavors. Rather, it is my perception of him that makes me hesitate and walk just a
little bit slower down the long stretch of hallway leading to his office within the math
194
department. I have three interviews scheduled for this day, one right after the other.
These are the very first interviews I will do; as such, the interview questions I have
prepared have not yet being “tested out” and I do not know how they will be
received. As it turns out, Max is my first interview of the day. Damn.
Max reminds me of a stern grandfather, one who is more likely to tell you to
“stand up straight” rather than give you a piece of candy he has hidden in his sweater
pockets right before dinner. He is a thin man, average of height, yet his thinness
makes him appear taller. He has a thin crop of gray hair surrounding the bald spot
on top of his head. Although he does not wear glasses full-time, he does have a pair
of reading glasses that are usually perched low on his nose. He favors jeans and t-
shirts with an occasional gray sweater vest with black buttons that are rarely
fastened. I am not surprised to hear he is a graduate of West Point, nor that the
instructors in the department sometimes refer him to as the “boss.”
His responses to the first few questions I ask him are perfunctory, short of
being “yes” and “no” answers. I struggle a bit with my composure, particularly after
he suggests that the research we are doing can continue without end (“You can study
something to death”). However, as I begin to ask him questions in regards to his
students and what he perceives to be the problems affecting them, does he open up
and begin to speak without much prompting. Much of our conversation is focused
on his role as chair of the math department and what it means to be a math instructor,
within a community college environment and most importantly, within a remedial
education context.
195
“The biggest mistakes that I’ve made in my life is assuming or attributing
reasons for people doing things with, without really knowing why they’re doing it.”
Unfortunately, as Max recognizes, it’s very difficult to not make attributions because
everyone has a distinct “frame of reference” from which they draw to understand the
world around them. To a large extent, his frame of reference emergences from his
own experiences as a child learning mathematics in grade school. He says, “I
intensely disliked math up until I took geometry in high school because of the way,
because of the way it was taught. You know, ‘You do this, you do that, get this,
move this.’” Because instruction was so rudimentary, step-by-step instruction, Max
was unable to make meaning of his experiences and couldn’t see the purpose of
math. That all changed with his exposure to geometry in high school. He says,
When we got geometry, I realized that you start with a set of, a very basic set
of axioms which anybody can accept, and then you apply a logical deduction
to, to the axioms to come up with inevitable conclusions to thinks, which
everyone can do and everyone will come up with the same results if they
don’t violate the, the rules of logic and accept the axioms that they started
with.

Yet, it is his opinion that K-12 teachers do not present math in such a way that is
exciting for students to learn. As he has mentioned in several meetings, he believes
grade school teachers are responsible for instilling within students a deep aversion to
math. He says, “If I ruled the world, first thing I’d do is I’d require everyone
teaching grade school to have a minor in math or, or a degree in mathematics. That’s
where you learn that math is not important.” He goes on to say that many
elementary school teachers do not possess the skill set to competently instruct in
mathematics, let alone try to instill a love of learning the subject.
196
I tell Max that I am a former elementary school teacher and could to some
extent understand his point of view. Because I personally did not enjoy math, I
wonder how much of my own personal aversion to the subject was conveyed to my
students. Max suggests what I did not say aloud with words was probably conveyed
with my “body language” or my actions in regards to certain tasks. He shares, “My
daughter’s second grade teacher had an ‘I’ll do it later’ file and all of her math
papers were in there.” He proceeds to provide me with a brief history lesson about
mathematics, stating that in the early 18
th
and 19
th
centuries, renowned mathematics
scholars in Europe such as Carl Friedrich Gauss and Oyestein Ore were elementary
school teachers. Max suggests if the environment “is correct,” then mathematics
does not have to be the subject everyone loves to hate. To that end, he believes that
the greatest resources and the highest salaries should be reserved for the elementary
schools and elementary school teachers. Without these resources, Max suggest,
students are likely to go through school without understanding the fundamental
importance of mathematics much as he did. As he says,
If [teachers] could show [students] some, some rudimentary group theory and
maybe some typology and some, and some number games that are based on,
say you had modular counting and some folding things with, folding
problems with, with paper and typological puzzles and, you know, things like
that. They would suddenly realize that there’s a lot more to mathematics than
how to add integers. I didn’t even know there was anything to mathematics
besides adding integers until I was in the, you know, the middle school.

But because something like what he describes is not likely to happen, by the time
students reach the secondary levels of education they have developed such an
197
aversion and a deep-seeded fear of math that success at the postsecondary level
becomes questionable.
While Max believes that all people are going to be challenged by math –
“Einstein struggled with math” – he nonetheless believes students should be able to
recognize the challenges they can’t overcome and seek help. He comments,
The student has to be interested enough to ask you, and then usually, not
always, but usually, if a student asks, then they’ve already set the framework
to the point where if I tell them, they follow. They, they get it. They won’t
get it on their own, and they, you know, if they never come and try to get the,
the hang ups, they never get it. But if they actually know they’re hung up
and can ask the question, then they can see it and move on.

As an instructor, his job is to be able to understand and help students work through
the “hang ups.” In fact, one of the benefits of being an experienced instructor is
knowing “where the majority of people get snagged up and [focusing] on those
particular points.” However, as he says, there are not all that many students who
are willing to put forward the effort to do this. He says,
But the, the part that’s essentially there is that the student should be willing to
put in the work and effort and clear away the stuff that not, you know, not
holding them up so they could expose the part where they’re hung up on and
then, and then they’re ready to, to understand it and move on. But a lot of
them just won’t do the work to get to that point.

This final comment, is it based on fact, or is this an attribution made from his “frame
of reference?”
March 11, 2005
Faculty members continue looking at the data presented and begin a
discussion concerning “support techniques” which is one of the subscales tested by
the LASSI. The data show that use of support techniques falls within the 50
th

198
percentile, meaning this is an area of relative strength but still has room for
improvement. Sandra informs the group the strategies they are using in this regard,
primarily encouraging the use of learning software that comes with students’
textbooks. However, there appears to be a great deal of discrepancy as to which
professor’s are using the software and the degree to which it is beneficial to students.
Alejandro comments,
I noticed that for a lot of students they had outdated computers at home and
they didn’t have enough memory for the program to work and so they were
trying and trying and it wouldn’t work and even though we gave an
orientation at the beginning there were always some students who could [use
the software.]

Sharon believes the learning software is a great tool so long as all of the faculty
members “walk [students] through until they become really familiar with it.” Yuri
agrees with her, but concedes that not all faculty members do this. He says,
Yeah, you’re right. It depends on who the instructor is. Some of us use [our
classrooms] or we take them to the lab for the orientation and make sure they
learn. But some instructors just let them and say, “We have this software,
you can go and register…” So it depends on the instructor.

This lack of discrepancy among faculty members has serious implications for
students and is a possible topic for further exploration by the team.
The conversation around the table continues along this fashion, with
questions being raised in response to a particularly noteworthy data discovery.
Throughout the conversation, George facilitates the discussion, stating, “The idea is
that once you figure out what’s broken than you can begin to address the issues and
the strategies to use.” Sharon, speaking about the learning center and the strategies
they use to help students, says they are moving in a direction, which is “getting away
199
from covering the material to helping the students learn the material.” Specifically,
she says, “We’re trying to do a paradigm shift from a focus on the content and the
instructor to the focus on the student and what they can actually do with the
information that you give them.” This leads to a great deal of discussion about the
amount of “hand holding” required by some students and how they are not
accustomed to providing students with extensive individualized attention. Michael
shares an experience he had with a student who required constant reassurance and
continual explanation from him. He says, “I’ve never had someone who required so
much hand-holding. I don’t do that very often, where I put the question on the board
and walk them through the solutions.”
As they begin to discuss strategies in response to some of their findings,
there is a sense that faculty members are trying to understand why math is so
difficult for students and how they can go beyond the obvious aversion they have to
the subject. George suggests motivation is key, to which Yuri responds, “I think
that’s the most important thing in math.” Alejandro says math needs to be relevant
for students; they need to go beyond the academic side of math and illuminate the
practical nature of the subject such as understanding how to calculate the area of
one’s lawn in order to purchase sod. Until then, as Audrey notes, math will continue
to be the “wall…it’s what [students] bail out of, it’s what they hate…math is the
problem, it’s the thing that takes them under, that they avoid.”
Audrey apologizes for her bluntness, but it prompts Alejandro to underscore
the importance of finding strategies or problem sets that will provide students with
200
“real world” applicability. Michael says he wants to accomplish the same things and
devise new strategies, however he is doubtful they will be able to do this and still
instruct students in the fundamentals that will make advancement to the next levels
possible. Moreover, as he says, “The instructors get excited about things, we’re
going to show them why it’s meaningful and go through a lot of things, [but] the
buy-in from students is very low, they are not…their attitude is, ‘just tell me how to
do it.’”
The meeting comes to an end after a great deal of discussion and reflection.
Before the group leaves, Michael raises his concern over the self-reported nature of
the LASSI, worrying that “some people may have answered [the] questions higher.”
While his comment is taken into consideration, the group is nonetheless intrigued by
the findings of the LASSI and they are eager to move onto the next phase of the
project – interviewing students for their perspectives. In the final minutes of the
meeting they begin to brainstorm a series of potential questions for these interviews.
As they begin to trickle out the door, I am happy to hear the excited chatter of the
faculty members. Their conversations concerning the data, the upcoming interviews,
and the “hatred” of math are clearly not over. Michael wanders over to the food
table and picks up the last lemon bar remaining. With a smile, he thanks me for the
great meeting and says he is looking forward to our next meeting. We’ve cleared the
hurdle – they have bought into the project.

201
Stage 3: Discovery and Motivation
April 8, 2005 – July 19, 2005
April 8, 2005
An explosion of color greets faculty members. “Oh my God, wow!”
Alejandro exclaims when he sees the 20 plus pages of charts and graphs saturated
with color to detail the findings from the LASSI assessment. In the last project
meeting faculty members had to filter through a statistical description of students’
self-reported data; today, they have before them an easy to “read” visual description
of what students are saying with respect to math. “Last time I promised to take some
of the data that Audrey brought, see if I could put it in some friendlier format,”
George says. “I think it still needs work, but you can start to get a profile of who is
in your classes.” That said, faculty members present at today’s meeting carefully
turn each page with quiet murmurs and occasional gasps of excitement at something
newly discovered.
Putting data in a “friendlier format” is one of the objectives of this project.
Most often, data are presented in a manner reminiscent of line items in a standard
budget sheet put together by accountants or other finance professionals. Data are
typically black and white numerical representations placed in vertical columns
intersected by horizontal lines. Items of importance are usually highlighted by bold-
faced type or, the cell containing the data in question is shaded with a tint of gray.
Whatever format is used, the result is often the same: one’s eyes glaze over the
content displayed with nary an emotional response. As Alejandro made obvious
202
above, the use of color-coded charts and graphs elicited a palpable response from
project team members. While the statistical data by itself revealed students’
responses, the use of color and graphic displays revealed the “truth” about students
opinions and perceptions about math at CCC, leading faculty members to make
important discoveries about their students. More importantly, the display of data in
this way conveyed the differences that exist not only between groups on CCC’s
campus, but also differences in beliefs and expectations between students and faculty
members.
One of those differences concerns the amount of time students should be
studying. While Sandra says, “We expect 6 hours a week of math at least,” the data
reveal that only 3 percent of students spend 10 or more hours studying outside of
class. This number, however, may be slightly inflated given that students in the
higher level math courses were included to “try and see if [they] could discriminate
between students in the developmental class against students in the advanced class.”
As such, Michael suggests the number of students studying an adequate amount of
time is far less. He says,
I would say that most people spend less than four hours a week studying and
it’s probably worse than they think. If we didn’t have [Calculus in the
survey] then you would probably have 70 percent of students not spending
the time.

The implication of his remarks being that students in remedial courses spend far less
time studying than those in higher level math courses.
From my vantage point at one corner of the rectangular table, I no longer see
the dreary, green room that is JH 305. Instead, shades of black, brown, red, blond,
203
and gray hair are evident around the table as I see the bent heads of faculty members
engrossed within the colorfully imprinted pages of the “report” formatted by George.
No one is touching their food as they are all busy turning pages, pointing to bar
graphs, and murmuring to one another about the “improvements” that need to take
place “everywhere.” The din of the air conditioner turned on to ward off the heat in
the room is loud as silence permeates the room. At last the stillness is broken when
questions arise concerning the different subscales contained within the LASSI. What
becomes clear is that issues surrounding math achievement are not exclusive to
content. As George says,
A sort of generalized idea here is that these things are sort of content free. So
if we had to figure out how to get students to be better in math it might not
just be teaching math but it might be teaching them these issues that on the
surface don’t seem to have anything to do with math.

As faculty members listen attentively to George’s comments, the unspoken question
I have is: Are faculty members prepared, able and willing to go there?
Michael
It’s the start of another busy semester and a slew of papers occupy Michael’s
desk space, ready to be reviewed, corrected, and graded. His bookshelves are lined
with the numerous textbooks he has used throughout his teaching career. On his
office floor rests additional resources he is presently using, ready to be transported to
his next class meeting. Outside his office door, the buzz of activity is prevalent as
students and faculty members enter and exit the confines of the math department. I
am meeting with Michael during his office hour. At several points during our
conversation, we are interrupted either by students seeking answers to questions they
204
have, or other faculty members poking their heads in to inquire about one thing or
another. Each time, I turn off the audio recorder I am using, needing to conserve
time and space on a device with limited recording capacity.
Michael shares with me how his semester is going, particularly in his course,
“Math for Teachers.” In this course, aspiring teachers learn teaching techniques they
will use in elementary classrooms. Some of those teaching techniques involve the
use of manipulatives and other hands-on activities that will eventually help young
children learn math. This is one of Michael’s favorite courses, saying, “I like [this]
course because it’s very hands-on. We use a lot of manipulatives. And it’s, you just
have to explain why things work.” Students in this course do not always have very
strong math skills, as the only prerequisite to register is intermediate algebra.
Describing this semester’s course and the students enrolled, he says, “It’s amazing!”
Michael emphasizes group work versus lecture in the course. He says he
does “80 percent group work” whereas his algebra class only accounts for 20-25
percent group work. The greater use of group work is promoted from a set of
handouts that has significantly impacted his teaching methodology. He says,
It’s nice to have the [handouts]…it really changed the, it’s not a philosophy I
was trying to adopt, but it really changed the philosophy in the course. What
I do is I don’t give them the answer and they will never get the answer from
me. Well, I might give them the answer but I won’t give them the solution. I
tell them, “I’m never going to give you the solution…I may solve one
problem or something similar to it. But you know, this is a different
philosophy. You don’t just sit there and say, ‘Feed me.’ You and your group
have to figure out a solution that convinces everybody in the group that that
solution works…” The idea is [that] there are many paths to the same answer,
and if I provide [only] one solution, I’m doing a disservice.

205
During the five-hour time block allocated for the course, Michael encourages
exploration, dialogue and reflection. Success is achieved when students are able to
discover, explain and prove their solutions to a mathematical problem to the group at
large.
When I ask him if he has incorporated this new philosophy in his other
courses he replies in the negative, commenting that the more traditional math courses
preclude him from being inventive. He says, “I don’t think I could use [the
philosophy] in something as rigorous as algebra because creativity is not encouraged
so much.” Students in the “Math for Teachers” course are encouraged to collectively
think of alternate explanations to problems. Although he is the instructor in all of his
assigned courses and facilitates the learning process, Michael feels that he does not
have the power to change the way algebra is both learned and taught. He explains,
[I]n algebra, I’m a link in a long series of courses. In a terminal math course
like “Math for Teachers,” it’s not a prerequisite for any future course. It’s,
you know, the end of that field of study. They are not…they are not going to
take other courses [so] in that particular case, I could do that. But, yeah, I
could see my colleagues, you know, being shocked if I, if I said, “Well, let
me show you some alternative ways to do, you know, everything there is in
algebra. Yeah, that would be, it, I don’t think that would work as well.

He recognizes the power of students taking control of their learning. “The
immeasurable component of having a solution, owning that solution, explaining it to
other people, increases your ability to communicate, your fluency in the language of
mathematics.” Yet he is constrained by the unbreakable chain that links all math
courses together.
206
Michael goes on to talk about the manipulatives he uses in the course and
how they are used to translate the abstract into something more tangible. I share
with him my experiences as an elementary school teacher, commenting on how I
often felt inept trying to make sense of and teach with manipulatives given that I was
exclusively taught through lecture and handouts. We shared the following exchange:
Michael: But when you do math with a, with something hands on, it
feels different. Yeah, you get the idea. And then the
challenging part is to connect the algorithm that the student
learned to the manipulative.

Letty: I think it’s funny that we favor what we learned in our youth.
When I was teaching I had a harder time working with the
manipulatives than my students did.

Michael: Somebody even asked that question last night. She goes,
“Well, don’t you have to teach them the regular way?” I go,
“Over time, yes, but, you know, right now we want to teach
kids the way they learn best,” and that’s, you know, with
hands-on and with some other things.

Michael points out the great things he is able to do in this course with his colleagues.
Intrigued, his colleagues come by his office and take a look at his manipulatives and
listen to him explain how he incorporates them within his teaching. Yet, he says, “In
the almost 200 math courses that we might offer in the year, I’ve only had one
person borrow my manipulatives for one lecture and that’s been the extent of it.”
Michael does not offer any explanations as to why his colleagues are not
interested in using the manipulatives. His comment, “Math has a gate keeper
mentality…there are some people who believe in this gate keeper thing,” provides
me with one potential reason for his colleagues’ lack of interest. His words suggest
the culture of mathematics appears to promote the belief that not all students will
207
have equal success in math and “anything short of excellence” is unacceptable.
Michael says, “It seems to be, math seems to be the only thing where we’re allowed
to say, ‘You know, you won’t make it in math.’” In such a culture, can faculty
members truly promote success equally, particularly to those who have yet to
experience it?
April 8, 2005
Other discoveries are made as the faculty members continue to peruse the
report. In regards to age, Max says, “They are a little younger than I thought.” Of
the students surveyed, thirty-four percent of students work 20 hours or more and less
than half of them report having to care for children or younger siblings. While
these findings do not necessarily refute faculty’s assumptions about why students are
not succeeding in remedial math courses, they nonetheless engender a sense of doubt
and a proliferation of questions. The report further reveals that students reported
having high levels of proficiency in reading and writing. These findings are called
into question in the following exchange:
Guest: Their self assessment of their reading proficiency is probably a
little overstated.

Sharon: Yeah, really, and their writing ability.

Alejandro: How accurate is that?

Sharon: I say highly suspect, their reading and writing.

Audrey: When I typed in the data, if you asked most people what their
reading and writing skills, I guess most people would give
themselves a higher score than they actually have. I would
just assume.

208
Sharon: They have positive self-esteem.
The faculty members are highly engaged and continually question the findings of the
assessment. At the same time, they call into question some of their own assumptions
about students and how what they previously believed does not necessarily match
with the “reality” revealed by the assessment.
Another important discovery made from the assessment concerns race. To
date, the issue of race has rarely factored into the conversation nor has it been
broached by any of the faculty members. At times I feel as if race is that white
elephant in the room – everyone knows it is there but is rarely, if ever,
acknowledged. Today, race is brought into the open. “White students appear to be
better off in almost all of the [subscales],” says Sharon. Max points out, “Latinos
appear to be the lowest of all of the groups.” A guest to the meeting notices that
African Americans appear to be doing better than expected. However, as Michael
and George point out, the sample size for African Americans is very small as they
only account for 15 percent of all respondents. This prompts Max to make the
following observation:
There is another problem, an uncontrollable variable that I know existed in
the past and I don’t know if it still takes. You have, in the immediate
neighborhood, has relatively few Blacks than the southern [schools]. The
Blacks who come to our school come from a longer distance and I know in
the past we’ve been getting students from the south of here who feels more
than ready…and they came up here, so they self-selected, better students.
People that are highly motivated come here.

Max believes, and those around the table seem to concur, students who come from
farther distances are naturally better students because they exhibit greater motivation,
discipline and wherewithal to attend a school not in their immediate vicinity.
209
This commentary leads others to make comments concerning specific
student groups. Sharon wonders about the generation of Japanese and Korean
students surveyed by the LASSI. She references studies which suggest Asian
students who have been in the United States for an extended period of time take on
American characteristics and study habits that preclude them from doing well in
school as compared to recent immigrants. She says, “[Asians] lose that drive that
comes from the old country, kind of, that model minority focus.” Yuri agrees with
her assessment, saying, “I can see that in the students.”
The conversation shifts focus a bit as the findings of the LASSI yield
information about students’ apparent disregard for campus services – “The thing is,
they are more likely to study at home,” and “[Students] are not as involved in
campus activities.” Why students are not involved leads some to surmise that the
reputation of the college may be at fault. Faculty members begin to share what
they’ve heard from students and other faculty members over the years. “[CCC] has a
reputation of being an ESL school now,” says Audrey. Yuri says, “Vocational and a
ghetto school.” Max volunteers somewhat sarcastically, “It’s just a community
college.” And Michael offers, “We may have the reputation, in some people’s
minds, as just accepting anybody and that’s not…” Audrey shares information about
the Korean community at CCC and why this particular population has seen a decline
in enrollment in recent years. She remarks,
[A student] was telling me about Koreatown…that the attitude was that
[CCC] is the school that you send your children who are going to be manual,
what’s the word, vocational workers. And the Korean parents have a really
strong desire for their kids to be academics, professionals. So that’s kind of
210
why they were steering, I guess there was a larger Korean population and it
started to decline because the perception became CCC is a place for
vocational workers.

Some faculty members appear to be dumbfounded by this revelation; however,
Sandra and Alejandro are not. Alejandro has heard one of his department colleagues
mention that the tests he administers in the class he teaches at another, more highly
regarded community college are harder. Sandra says,
Those that are teaching [at other schools], they have the perception that if
they gave more rigorous tests or expected more from our CCC students, that
they would not be as successful as that high level they expect from other
schools.

I stare at Sandra for a long time trying to figure out whom she is referring to. Who
would not be as successful – the students or the faculty members themselves? Are
faculty members deliberately less rigorous at CCC because student success is
indicative of their own success and vice versa?
Questions in regards to the curriculum as well as the role of the adjunct
professor arise – “We don’t pay a lot of attention to the adjunct. I don’t think that
they understand our philosophy necessarily.” Still other questions regarding school
policy, delivery of instruction, student commitment and financial concerns are all
raised. Questions concerning commitment and finances return the group to a
consideration and discussion of race. The following exchange takes place:
Michael: I wonder if students who sign up for a class think that that is
their commitment to the school. And sometimes they are
surprised by the financial commitment of buying a book. And
so to expect the student to add these hours…I heard that we
can’t even get students to apply for grants…

Sharon: But a lot of these students consider that welfare.
211

Max: And particularly Latino students…
Sharon: Absolutely.

Max: You know, somebody pointed out, “You see these people
begging by the freeway? You’ll never see a Hispanic.” And I
haven’t yet. I’ve seen them selling stuff but I’ve never seen
them begging.

At this point in the discussion, faculty members are all speaking, bringing in
different ideas and suggestions to the table. I hear the buzz surround me but I am
fixated with the question: Does race matter in the learning of mathematics?
Max
It’s all preparation. It’s not the, I mean race is irrelevant. If you provide
people the training, taking them through. But if they come to you and
they’ve had no, no, or really shoddy preparation, then it’s more difficult to
pick up the pieces and move on.

I am sitting in Max’s office asking him some difficult and uncomfortable
questions. Because questions of race have not been directly addressed throughout
the project team meetings, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of asking
these questions myself. Citing the most recent research on minority students in
math, I mention to Max the divide that exists within the math literature. Some
researchers believe math has become a civil rights issue because the lack of access
into higher order math courses and the low levels of success experienced by minority
students bars them from attaining the highly technical jobs of the future. Still others
believe that math is context free, the only issue needing to be addressed is
preparation at the K-12 level.
212
Max appears to agree with the latter group of researchers. In our
conversation, he likens the learning of math to the learning of music. He says there
is a correlation between the acquisition of math skills and skills in music.
Individuals interested in pursuing music are given access to music training or, in
cases where this is not possible, individuals self-teach. The preparation they receive
or that they take upon themselves to learn enables them to acquire the skills to
become successful musicians. Given that correlation, Max says, “There doesn’t
seem to be any problem with minorities learning music.”
I think I understand what he is trying to tell me. Attaining knowledge of
music – reading music, playing notes, following time – is a difficult process and
requires an extensive amount of practice. With access to good instruction and/or
having the discipline to study it on one’s own, anyone can become a good musician.
The same can be said of mathematics. According to Max, access to good preparation
is key. Students who come from a background where math instruction has been
delivered in a “shoddy” manner (i.e., teachers who hate math) one can expect their
understanding of math will be less than exceptional. Thus, in Max’s opinion, race
cannot be equated to lack of preparation. I think I understand, I just don’t know if
his assessment is one I agree with.
April 8, 2005
There is a sense of restrained excitement in the room. The faculty members
are ready to take their discoveries and do something with them. Max says, “There
are enough people to carry the momentum of this.” However, with the quickly
213
approaching end of the semester, there is a fear this momentum may wane. Max
warns, “I think taking a break in the summer is a bad idea because you come back
and all the momentum is gone.” That said, the group agrees to take their questions
(those that have surfaced from their examination of the LASSI) and go into the field.
They decide to follow George’s suggestion to interview students enrolled in their
courses to find out what is true and what is not in order to really understand the lives
of their students. The results of their findings will be presented to the CCC
community, beginning with the President. Because they are at the end of their
interim president’s tenure, they are not likely to have a completed report for her.
Max isn’t worried and would rather they not “rush” the process because he feels it is
more important to provide the community with “a considered report,” one that is
“refined to the point that [they] can get some action going.”
July 19, 2005
How I wish I had a key to the elevator. I am trying to balance ten, three-ring
black binders, a hole puncher, extra copies of the interview transcripts, and the bag
holding the audio recorder and my laptop computer. Climbing the three flights of
stairs to JH 305 proves to be a challenge as I am forced to stare down at each step I
climb because I am unable to hold on to the handrail. The elevator in question is a
service elevator located at the center of the building; only those with a key can
access it. The only other elevator available to the general public is located in
Kennedy Hall, which is adjacent to Johnson Hall. It is possible to use this elevator
as a common hallway connects both buildings. Only that hallway is located on the
214
second floor and I would still need to climb one flight of stairs to access the third
floor. Deciding it is not worth the effort, I huff my way up the stairs, occasionally
stopping to shift items in my hands and to catch my breath.
In the last several months, propelled by the momentum of their curiosity, the
faculty members have engaged in numerous activities. At the end of the April
meeting, team members devised a draft interview protocol generated from the LASSI
results and the questions faculty members still had concerning students experiences
in math. In May, the interview protocol was finalized and the team convened to
discuss logistics and receive a crash course in qualitative inquiry and interview
techniques. This meeting was particularly beneficial as concerns over the direction
of the project and the “results” the group was likely to find were addressed. Notably,
Michael feared they were “losing sight” of what the project was intended to uncover.
He said,
I think we want to make sure that we’re not losing sight of why we’re doing
this. I almost feel in some of these meetings we really have lost sight of this
and what created this and we really are trying to find out how different
groups respond differently to instruction here at CCC.

Fearing that different people will interpret the interview protocol in distinct ways,
Michael hoped to ensure that all team members remember their “greater goal” of
“finding out why there is this diversity” in student achievement. Interestingly
enough, a guest to the meeting makes the observation that specific questions
concerning students’ ethnic group affiliation are curiously absent from the interview
protocol. She said,
215
One of the things the whole project is looking at is differences in
achievement for Hispanic, African American, White and Asian students. But
we don’t ask anything about their experiences based on whatever ethnic
group they’re in, if they think if there is any connection there at all, the
student’s perception of that.

Max suggests students can “volunteer” the information and Alejandro says students
can state if they belong to specific groups.
In June, the interviews were completed and some of them had been
transcribed. At this meeting, the “hiccups” of the interview process were revealed to
the group. Several faculty members conducted two interviews while one of them
conducted none. A few experienced challenges using the audio-recording device –
“I forgot to press the ‘record’ button.” Still others, such as Sandra, had difficulties
getting together with students or experienced overlap with other faculty members.
For the most part however, all those who participated in the interview process found
the experience rewarding and worthwhile. Summing up the experience, Max said,
“It was awesome!” Both George and I were heartened to hear that.
Today we meet to discuss with more depth the results of their interviews. To
provide a context for each interview, Audrey provided me with detailed background
information for each student participant. I took this information and put together a
data sheet with relevant information, including age, year in school, math course
enrollment and GPA (see Appendix G). Similar to our June meeting, faculty
members are eager to talk and share with their colleagues what they learned, what
was reaffirmed, and what they believe they need to do to improve student
achievement in remedial math. Max states it was amazing to hear about all “of the
216
crap [students] had in their lives” and wonders how students make it as single
parents. Audrey replies to his remark, saying, “A lot of people do.” Max, still
incredulous over what he found, says, “I think it will kill me.” One of Sandra’s
students revealed having been in jail for a period of time.
Listening to the faculty members speak about their interviews I am able to
hear the surprise and appreciation in their voices for what students experience both
inside and outside the classroom. Before the start of the meeting, Rachel was
laughing over the remarks made by a brilliant, yet precocious student she
interviewed. This student is 14 years old and has well-educated parents. He did not
take any math courses in high school yet he is enrolled in Calculus 1 at CCC. He is
essentially self-taught, requires very little study time (approximately 2 hours per
week) and is impatient with his fellow students. He remarks (as reported by Rachel),
“I just wish that students would come to class more prepared,” and “I just hate that
so many students ask so many dumb questions.” All those who are listening to
Rachel laugh at this student’s comments, perhaps because they are the exact thoughts
many of them have had at one point or another during the course of their careers?
While it is clear that this particular student is the exception rather than the rule,
Rachel nonetheless feels she learned something valuable about this student.
As the meeting gets under way, everyone picks up where they left behind
from last month’s meeting. Rachel shares some of her lessons learned from the
interview process. She remarks,
It’s just different because I had two [students] that I interviewed and you
have two sides. Because you have this mother, right, who had two kids, one
217
was nine-ish and the other one was younger and she didn’t even go to high
school. And so obviously, she didn’t, she got her GED, so she didn’t have
the same background in math that maybe another student who did complete
high school have. And of course you would struggle – she hadn’t been in a
classroom…and when I was talking to her, she hadn’t attended any structured
school for a long time and she started taking all of these classes which I think
was a bad move for her. I think she should have only taken one class and be
successful in that class and then that would have boost her…

Rachel’s expression as she speaks demonstrates the impact these interviews had on
her. Her eyes are wide open, her hands move excitedly in the air, and she speaks
quickly as if afraid she will leave some pertinent detail out. Her audience is rapt in
attention and reflection as they interrupt her at various points to insert their thoughts
or to ask clarifying questions. Rachel’s story of her interview prompt faculty
members to discuss the counseling services available at CCC, specifically
commenting on how counseling could have helped the mother of two make better
decisions concerning the number of units she decided to take. Unfortunately, as
Audrey reveals, it is only when students are on probation that CCC will limit the
number of courses students can take per semester.
Other issues are raised, one of which concerns the question, “What can
instructors do to help?” Rachel’s “boy genius” answered “nothing,” while other
students suggested professors “need to slow down when going over the material.”
These student comments led to an interesting exchange, where one faculty member
did not seem to be in agreement with how students replied.
Rachel: Obviously they feel that way because we dump so much
information on them but it’s a time issue…

218
Michael: That was a 105
16
interview?

Rachel: Yeah, but I get that in my 115 class too.

Michael: 105 is not that fast a pace…

Rachel: If you haven’t had a math class, you know, in a long time…Or
you never really learned that stuff, I think anything is fast.

Rachel’s interview of this single mother of two provided her with a perspective of
her students that she did not have before. Whereas in earlier meetings, faculty
members were quick to find fault with students, now it seems faculty members are
foregoing blame and instead looking for alternate explanations for student behavior
and low achievement.
Rachel
“So with this project, you know, it’s allowing me to do, is more, get more of
the student perspective opposed to our assumption ‘cause there’s a big difference.”
These words compel me to erase my first impressions of Rachel. At our second
meeting with the math department, Rachel was one of a handful of faculty members
who did not seem particularly interested in what we had to say. To hear her utter
these words is refreshing and assures me that what we are doing with this project is
having its intended effect. My sense of joy and my sense of relief, however, are
tempered by the shattering news of the day.
A palpable feeling of grief permeates the air. My footsteps on the tile floor
seems deafening in light of the hushed tones used within the math department’s
offices. I make my way to the last office down the right-hand side of the corridor

16
At CCC, the remedial math course sequence includes the following courses: Math 105 (Arithmetic),
Math 112 (Pre-Algebra), and Math 115 (Elementary Algebra).
219
and I see Rachel sitting at her desk. When she turns, I smile but the smile is not
reciprocated. Instead, I am greeted by the sadness in her eyes and I am uncertain
about what I should say. Rachel shares an office with Sandra and Alejandro, yet
Sandra is conspicuously absent today. Yesterday, Sandra’s youngest son was killed
in an automobile accident. In subdued tones we greet each other and she asks if I
have heard the news. I say yes, having received an early morning telephone call
from Audrey. She begins to speak to me of the shock they are all feeling, unable to
believe they will no longer hear stories of Sandra’s youngest and his misadventures
with math. I ask if she would rather we postpone our conversation for another day.
She replies no, saying, “It will give me something else to think about.”
I do my best to get her to think about something else, mainly the effect the
project has had on her professional life. As noted above, she tells me the greatest
benefit of the project has been to hear what students have to say, providing her with a
different perspective. She relays,
And, you know, it just hard for me to accept the fact that students, you know,
they’re just lazy, things of that nature ‘cause I really don’t think that. That’s
not the main problem with students. I just think that every situation is
different, everyone’s work environment [and] home environment is different.
So maybe they just need a different master plan ‘til the system can be
successful.

Having this perspective, she says, was made possible by what was discovered from
the LASSI and especially reinforced by the interviews. On the one hand she talked
to a single mother struggling to make it through her classes; on the other hand she
interviewed a child prodigy who plays video games while doing his homework. She
understands there are different types of learners who require different modes of
220
instruction. Ruefully, she admits, “But I’m having a hard time, you know, trying to
figure out what my students need.”
Rachel is one of the youngest, if not the youngest faculty member on staff at
CCC’s math department. As the youngest instructor, she feels she has a lot to learn
about her profession and relies on her colleagues to help her gain the knowledge that
will make her a successful college professor. She says, “I’m still young and open to
criticism, and if something, you know, is not working, change it, you know?” One
of the things she has learned from one of her colleagues is how to incorporate
technology into her teaching methodology. She no longer uses the chalkboard (or
the white board), but uses her laptop and LCD projector to demonstrate math
problems and solutions. All of her problem sets are on Powerpoint, the textbooks are
all in PDF format, and she uses a wireless pen to electronically work out the
problems for all of her students to see. Because she works from a kind of “smart
board” with her wireless pen, she can face her students while working out the
problems that are reflected on the screen at the front of the class. Students in her
class don’t become familiar with the back of her head; instead they see her working,
sometimes struggling with the problem. Rachel says, “I’m totally looking at the
students. I’m…my students are in front of me and I sit down…I try to make sure I
can see everyone…I see students who are sleeping, whatever.”
Returning to the subject of the project and how it has helped her, she says the
reason she joined the project was because she wants to learn about what she can do
differently to make students more successful. Her own experiences, to a large
221
extent, preclude her from fully understanding the experiences of her own students.
She comments on her own experiences as a student, admitting, “I didn’t have as
many obstacles like [them].” She recalls she was a good, but a lazy student.
Although she displayed signs of her intelligence, she was unwilling to work hard.
Most importantly, she did not want to be separated from the “regular folks.” She
recounts,
They were always trying to put me in [advanced classes] and I didn’t want to
because for so long I was segregated from like, the other students, you know?
And I didn’t want that. I just wanted to be normal.

When she first started high school, she was placed in pre-algebra and did poorly. It
was at that point when she realized the potential trajectory of her academic career
and resolved to do something to change it. She took summer classes and courses at
night at a local community college to put her back on track. By the time she reached
her senior year in high school, she was able to enroll in AP Calculus.
In college, she admits to struggling in her courses, having received a D on a
math test. This was compounded by her struggles in chemistry and her inability to
convey her frustration to her professor. In graduate school, some of these same
struggles followed her, prompting her to admit, “Math just wasn’t something that
came naturally to me – it was something I had to work at.” Her struggles did not
discourage her, rather they seemed to motivate her to study harder and study longer
to attain those good grades that had been so elusive. She shares,
If you know that you’re weak in an area, you just can’t say, “I’m weak in that
area therefore I’m not going to get me degree.” You know? You just have to
work harder and I did. And I passed. But it was like such a struggle.
Writing has always been a struggle for me but I never – and I’m the worst
222
speller, the worst – but I never allowed that to get in the way of my goal.
And I think a lot of times [students] use it more like a crutch. You know?
“I’m not good at math, so it’s okay.”

Knowing first hand what it takes to get through one’s personal struggles, she says her
classroom teaching style is “drill sargeant-ish” to impart the importance of self-
discipline to her students.
Today, having taught at CCC for three years, she struggles to find ways to
help her students. She is grateful for the wealth of experience available to her within
the math department, feeling comfortable enough to go to her colleagues to seek
help. At the same time she recognizes that some of the older faculty members may
be a little too set in their ways to be effective. “I’ve noticed that once you’ve been
teaching for a long while, you get caught up in your same technique, your same
approach.” If low achievement results, Rachel believes faculty members are not
naturally inclined to think of their technique as the problem, rather they are more
likely to attribute the problem to students. As she states,
We as instructors don’t want to take…like it’s our fault kinda. You want to
put the blame on the students, which is totally not the case. But if you, if
instructors feel like, “Well, why should I change something?” You know?
“It’s the students,” you know?” And that’s what, if you listen to like the first
conversation we had with you.

Rachel refers to our first meeting together as a group in which many attributions
were levied against students in regards to student achievement. She makes no
apologies for this “natural behavior” saying that most faculty members “basically did
what it took” to pass their math courses. Additionally, most faculty members had a
traditional student experience, going to high school, then college, graduate school
223
and so on. She says this typical academic trajectory provides math faculty members
with a stock image of what it means to be a good math student. Rachel remarks,
If I didn’t know something, I went to another math teacher. I went, you
know, I studied in groups. I did everything it took for me to get whatever I
needed for that particular class…and that right there is, I think, what we have
embedded as our image, that the students are just not doing what they, what
they should be doing.

As we conclude our interview, Rachel says she is unwilling to believe it is all
the responsibility of the students. She can’t give up on them. As she says, “I don’t
feel comfortable with the idea of just giving up on the students. And that’s why if I
could do something to make them learn, then I want to do it. And it’s work.” It is
work because all of her students are different and she cannot always mimic what her
colleagues or her former professors did for her. She doesn’t like to hear about
students “horrible experiences,” but knows that is the reality of her environment.
Often she is frustrated by the little she feels she can do, fearing that she’s “running
out of options…to change things.” Nor does she like to see the low grades her
students receive, commenting, “It really bothers you as an instructor when you look
at the grades because you’re like, is a reflection on me or a reflection on the
students?” She knows it’s easier to say “it’s the student,” but that would be to deny
her own role as the instructor.
July 19, 2005
Discussion of the interviews continues to reveal new and interesting results.
Max interviewed a student whose English speaking ability was severely limited.
This prompted those around the table to wonder how many of their current students
224
are handicapped by language proficiency. Max believes this student is probably
“missing a lot of the lectures because of the English.” Michael is doubtful of Max’s
assessment of this student’s situation, remarking that he has been in numerous
calculus courses in which nobody spoke English but had satisfactory outcomes. In
fact, during one of our individual conversations Michael shared his experiences on
what it was like to be “one of the few native English speakers” in his program.
Rachel agrees with his comments, noting, “I don’t think proficiency in English
dictates [students] proficiency in math.” Sandra and Max both believe proficiency is
important, however Michael is not to be convinced. Rather forcefully, he shares his
point of view.
That’s what I say to my class. Even the native speakers don’t know what
“prime factorization” means when they walked in. So if someone halfway
through the class says, “I didn’t grow up speaking English, I don’t know what
‘prime factorization’ means,” [that] isn’t an excuse. I say, “Neither does
anybody else. If they just learned it, you have to learn it. But that has to be
just an excuse, at least that’s part of it. Math instruction has to be learned just
like everything else.

Because it does not appear the group will reach consensus on this particular issue,
Sharon suggests students use language as an excuse merely to “protect their self-
image” especially if they took these math courses in the past.
The conversation moves forward and Max shares his “awesome” experience
of talking to another student whom he likened to the “Energizer Bunny” for the level
of activity she engaged in. He also calls her an “insomniac” for the little sleep she
gets in between classes, taking care of her children, doing her homework, and
working the graveyard shift at a local diner. Sharon talks about her student who was
225
an “A” student in high school yet somehow placed in the lowest level math course at
CCC. Rachel is perplexed, asking, “I don’t understand how he could be taking
calculus [in high school] and yet place in 105?” Audrey suggests, “In three years he
forgot everything he learned.” Sharon sums up this experience, commenting, “You
know, he wasn’t very thoughtful, he really didn’t think about his answers…It wasn’t
that I thought he was lying but…how does this happen?”
A comment Sandra raises sparks a great deal of discussion and a trace of
disgust for some of those present. It appears that some students enroll in remedial
classes as a means to obtain financial aid. These students, many of whom are much
more advanced than the course they enroll in, may use the financial aid they obtain
to supplement family income. Audrey, as the coordinator of the placement test at
CCC, believes students have exploited the system going so far as to say, “It’s a
racket, I think it’s beginning to be a racket down here.” She makes these comments
because she sees many students attempting to cheat the placement test, deliberately
scoring lower than their actual ability, so that they can place in the lower division
courses. This allows them to prolong their stay at CCC ergo increase the amount of
time they are eligible for financial aid. Faculty members are surprised by this
revelation and are struck by the implications this has on their remedial classes.
Namely, the more advanced students provide faculty members with a false sense of
reality within their classrooms and jeopardize the instruction of students who truly
placed and need remedial instruction.
226
As in all of our meetings, it seems as if time is against us. Faculty members
are so deep in discussion that we loathe having to put a stop to it, but stop them we
do. Before the meeting adjourns, George asks the group to think about where they
want to go next as the research phase of the project has been concluded. He suggests
to the group that they can focus on four different areas: (1) student knowledge; (2)
motivation; (3) cultural; and (4) context. George believes there are other things that
can be added, but he thinks these four areas of focus can provide them with a
preliminary framework. Before faculty members respond to his suggestions, George
is quick to say he is aware of their need to find solutions, yet he has been hesitant to
move them in this direction without having the requisite amount of information
grounding their efforts. He follows up these comments with these final questions:
“What do all of these data tell us? What additional data do we need? How can we
fix it?”
In response, Michael believes the common link among their least successful
students is the lack of study. He says, “I think a number of students haven’t carved
out, it’s not that they haven’t put school as a priority, but studying and study at
home, that doesn’t seem to be a priority.” George tries to provide an explanation for
this behavior, suggesting it might be more metacognitive rather than badly ordered
priorities. Michael is not sure what the exact problem is but believes they (the
faculty members) are “going up against something” they can’t explain as to why an
adult learner would place in the lowest levels of math. Summing up his thoughts on
the matter, he says,
227
I think part of the problem for students is the illusion of knowing. They think
they know more than they do. And they are not aware of this illusion…of not
knowing. One of the students said, “I don’t know how to be a student.” I
think that’s true for all students.

His comments initially cause faculty members to pause in reflection before they all
erupt into conversation, seemingly to provide their own perspective on the issue
raised.
At the conclusion of the meeting, George reminds the group that what they
will be able to do with this information will not necessarily solve all of their
problems. Rather, he asks them to think of this process as a form of “triage.” He
wants the faculty members to consider all of the issues discovered from the LASSI
and from the interviews and consider which one may have the most impact on their
students. Both Michael and Alejandro suggest they should begin by looking at a
particular population of students. I think it is a great idea given the focus of the
project on African American and Latino students enrolled in remedial math courses.
Max vetoes the suggestion, however,, remarking, “I don’t think you want to go after
a population. I think you want to go after a problem, because the population doesn’t
have the problem…We may be doing things that we should stop doing and we
should be doing things that we’re not doing.” I leave the room impressed.
September 23, 2005
I finally get to the hotel after a long and frustrating, yet surprisingly short
commute on the 405 Freeway. CCC’s district-wide academic senate is sponsoring a
conference in Marina Del Ray and George and Max are scheduled to present on
behalf of the Math Project. I have both the LCD projector and the laptop containing
228
this morning’s presentation – I cannot be late. However, the 405 Freeway
northbound always appears to be full of cars involved in a dance of “stop and go”
regardless of the time of day. I make it to the hotel with five minutes to spare. I race
into the lobby and see Sharon walking towards me. She stops what she is doing,
walks me to the room where George is waiting, and gives me a meal ticket just in
case I decide to stay for lunch. I see that lunch is going to be a lavish affair: round
tables covered in elegantly crisp white tablecloths; polished, silver flatware; crystal-
clear water goblets; and colorful floral arrangements gracing the center of each table.
I am thinking about what might be served for lunch and whether I should stay as I
enter the room and hear George greet me, “I thought you weren’t going to make it.”
Ten minutes later I begin to wonder if I will have to do the presentation with
George. Max has yet to arrive and we already have several individuals waiting for
the presentation to begin. Perhaps he is stuck on the 405 Freeway too? George
begins his presentation with only a handful of attendees. He introduces the both of
us and begins to talk about the project when Max walks in. Everyone is scattered
around the cavernous room, sitting at different tables. Because the group is very
small, George forgoes the Powerpoint presentation, invites everyone to sit around
one table, and begins an informal conversation about the project. Utilizing the
handouts, George points out key elements of the project such as its emphasis on
collaborative inquiry and action research. Max is relatively silent at the beginning of
the conversation. However, this first group proves to be highly inquisitive, asking a
229
great deal of questions, forcing Max to speak up about the effect this project has had
on his department and on his campus.
With the flow of conversation Max seems to visibly relax and engage in
dialogue with his peers from across the district. When questioned about faculty time
and resources, George begins to answer the question only to have Max interrupt him
and provide an answer of his own. Max acknowledges the amount of time is
extensive but says that group members are invested in this “worthwhile” project and
the time demanded of them is not viewed as a burden. He remarks,
There’s no clear beginning or end to this. It’s a constant “lifting of rocks” to
see what is underneath. Incremental changes to hope that you can do
something about it. We haven’t seen a holy grail at the end of the process but
it is something that we think is important, that we should keep working on.

He mentions the interviews they conducted in the spring and the knowledge they
gained from talking to their students. He says, “It seems we have a lot of things in
place that are leading us in the right direction but we could be doing them better.”
He mentions CCC’s award-winning tutoring service and the substantial benefits
reaped by their students. At the same time, he admits, the interviews made clear to
the group that this service may not have always reached a segment of their student
population that is most in need of its services.
A faculty member from a southern community college within the district
wonders if the project would not be more effective if it was district-wide rather than
school-specific. Max negatively nods his head remarking that to rely too heavily on
a district-wide approach would be too far away from the school and may not be
applicable to individual needs. This same individual asks a follow-up question
230
pertaining to the values and perceptions of the group, inquiring if Max knew that
members of the Math Project were all on the “same page” when it came to
identifying the needs of the department. Before the question is completed, Max is
once again shaking his head indicating the answer is no. He responds, “Each person
on the team has their own perspective. We’ve come to consensus on a lot of things.”
I sense a feeling of pride emanating from Max as I observe him from across
the room. Max is not a particularly expressive person, yet something about his body
language and his level of engagement clearly indicate to those around him that he is
vested in the project. At the same time, however, I cannot seem to reconcile the side
of Max present in the room today – articulate, decisive, aware, and action-oriented –
with the side I see on a regular basis. During our team meetings and my individual
conversations with him, he always refers to Alejandro as the team leader and seems
to wait for him to mobilize the group to plan or discuss anything related to the
project outside of the regularly scheduled monthly meetings. On occasion, as in the
July meeting, Max has taken the reigns and made decisions on behalf of the group.
Yet this is rare and most often he lets others take the lead and he will follow. Today,
he is talking, reflecting, and considering actions as if he was in fact the team leader.
One of the action items he mentions is sponsoring educational programs for
faculty that are responsive to the needs of students. He says,
In a lot of cases, there are policies and programs in place that have been
effective in addressing the problems. But it’s a question of designing and
tailoring them so that they are more effective. We have programs, such as
the supplementary tutoring program that perhaps has not been as effective as
it could be. We need to go back to the greater department and perhaps set up
231
an educational program for the instructors that will help them to identify the
effective ways to use these programs.

In many respects, this response clearly shows a shift in thinking from a student
deficit perspective to one that is more faculty-centered. Moreover, Max concedes
they are not going to find the “silver bullet” to fix the problems they have, nor are
they going to “discover something that [will] revolutionize the teaching of
mathematics.” He makes clear to the group listening that what they are involved in
is not a packaged program implemented from the top down. Rather, as Max says,
the math project is an “incremental process…there is not going to be an epiphany.
It’s a matter of finding something that will incrementally improve the performance
of your students at your institution.”
Stage 4: Delayed Action and Uncertain Ownership
October 14, 2005 – February 10, 2006
November 14, 2005
Several emails have been sent in the last week to relay the importance of this
meeting. As has been the norm, I have no real way of knowing if these emails have
been read, if faculty members know I am coming, or if any progress has been made
since the group last met in October. The final report to the president needs to be
completed yet critical sections of the report are still missing, notably the
recommendations section, and the meeting with the president is a week away. Four
faculty members are present at today’s meeting yet only two seem to know why we
have convened on a Tuesday rather than on our regularly scheduled Friday. Even
more disturbing is the fact that some faculty members who agreed to do some
232
writing for the report have either not done so or do not remember having volunteered
to do so.
Sandra
Alejandro, Rachel and Sandra all share the office at the end of the hall.
Standing in the doorway to the room, Sandra’s desk space is to my immediate left,
Alejandro’s desk is adjacent to the door, and Rachel’s space is to my far right. The
room is no larger than Michael’s office, yet he only shares it with one other person.
Is it a question of seniority? I see Sandra is meeting with a student so I make small
talk with Alejandro until she is ready to speak with me. I ask him about the
paragraph he has agreed to write for the president’s report. He looks at me
perplexed, asking, “What paragraph?” Because I was not present at October’s
meeting, I tell him that George’s notes indicated he and Sharon would be doing a
write-up on a potential learning strategies course. He still has a confused look,
however he says that he will touch base with Sharon for clarification and get back to
me.
The student meeting with Sandra closes his book, puts away his notebook and
thanks Sandra for her help. He rises from the wooden chair that is sandwiched
between her desk and the water cooler, slings his backpack over his shoulder and
exits the room. I ask Sandra if she is ready for our conversation or if she needs a few
minutes. She indicates she is ready so I take my seat on the wooden chair and we
begin. As I lay out my materials, I observe the numerous stacks of paper seemingly
lying hapharzardly on her desk. I can see she is in the middle of grading either
233
homework or a recently administered exam, as the markings of the red pen are
evident from my vantage point. Sitting amidst the chaos of her desk is a picture
prominently displaying a photo of a smiling family. With pride in her voice, Sandra
says, “That’s my son and his family.”
As with all of my previous interviews, I ask Sandra to give me her
impressions of the project and all that has been accomplished to date. She
comments,
The only thing I feel is that we’re not quite doing our part as much as we
should. I don’t think, you know, a month passes and I don’t think we
participated as much as the, you know, or act on what we’ve talked about. So
I think that would’ve been – that would be better if we’d actually done a little
bit more. In fact, Max said the other day, he said, “Well, what have we done
since our last meeting?” I just said, “Nothing.”

I am taken aback by what she is telling me, not so much by what she says as I have
these same thoughts every time we meet. Rather, I am not expecting to hear her
admit they are not doing enough on their own. Seizing on her observations, I ask her
if they, either individually or as a group have shared their research findings with their
colleagues, and if so, what their impressions of the project are thus far. She begins
by saying they have not done a very good job of keeping “a whole lot of them
informed.” As she says,
Those outside of the [project], they ask what are we getting done, and I share
with them about the interviews…but of course, they’re still the ones that
want, “Well, what are you going to do now?” And, “What is the outcome
here?” “What can I actually see as an outcome?” You know?

This apparent “lack of outcomes” is what, Sandra believes, leads her colleagues to
question the value of, and the time spent on the project.
234
The last meeting we had when we came up with…I know George keeps
trying to focus [but] we tend to go off in a tangent. We kind of formulated
some action, and I know that’s why some instructors did not stay with it
because they always feel that [in] these planning meetings there’s no actual
action. And you know, we’re impatient to implement something and not
quite always aware that we need to do a little more planning and a little more
research to find the best aspect of it.

The sound of a chirping bird prevents me from asking a follow up question. I
look to see if a bird has flown into the room, but I see that the windows behind me
are closed and the blinds pulled down. Sandra laughs aloud as she points to the
clock above her desk. I look to where she is pointing and I groan aloud. She says,
“My mother-in-law has one of those.” My own mother-in-law has one of those as
well. What it is, is a clock in which each hour is depicted by a different bird. When
the clock strikes 2:00 (or any other hour), the sound of a blue jay can be heard
signaling the time. Each hour, a different bird. “They keep threatening in the middle
of the night to come in and knock it down and say, ‘oops, we broke it.’ They haven’t
though.” This clock seems to strike the same sentiment among different people as
my own sisters-in-law have likewise issued the same threat to my mother-in-law
over the breakfast table.
Ignoring the chirping bird, I ask Sandra what the group can do to bring their
colleagues on board with what they are doing. She mentions the math retreat they
will be having in December as a possible outlet, remarking, “The retreat I think is
something that we can bring some of the information we’ve learned, and they can
have their input as to our suggestions.” Given that it is October and they’ve been
involved with the project since last December, I wonder why this has not yet been
235
introduced to their colleagues, perhaps in a department meeting? Before I can ask
this as a follow-up question, she mentions the possibility of joining forces with
another community college, saying, “I think we might be able to get something
more, that we can help each other.” This question gives me pause and I look up from
where I am scribbling notes on my yellow note pad. Sandra seems to be looking to
me for some sort of response. Does she doubt they can do something of significance
on their own?
November 14, 2005
During October’s meeting, the group reviewed a long list of
recommendations emanating from their research. These recommendations included
the following items:
1. Professional development for math faculty;
2. Workshops to teach learning strategies, problem solving, and critical
thinking skills;
3. Learning strategies course specific for math students;
4. Tutoring center enhancement;
5. Learning communities;
6. Faculty stipends as incentives for faculty study groups; and
7. Mentors in classes.

From this list, the faculty members decided to focus their recommendations on the
tutoring center, the workshops, and the learning strategies course. Having not been
present at this meeting, I was surprised to learn that professional development for
236
faculty members was not on the final list of recommendations. I was even more
surprised to read in the transcripts that this action item appeared to be low on the
faculty member’s list of priorities, even after the emphasis Max placed on it at the
academic senate conference.
According to October’s transcripts, Alejandro spoke of the benefits of a
particular development opportunity in which faculty members can be critiqued on
their instructional technique and communication styles. He appears to have
benefited greatly from this opportunity as it allowed him to “see” himself teaching.
Other faculty members mention that Title V grant monies are available to them to
take advantage of numerous faculty development opportunities. Yet, they don’t
seem to be particularly enthused over this fact, especially Max. He says, “There are
certain techniques that certain instructors use that I’ve tried and failed miserably at,
like group work.” Sandra mentions some strategies she’s learned from faculty
development, only to have her colleagues critique her implementation of them,
calling them “awfully high schoolish.” As an instructor of algebra, she cannot help
but observe, “Algebra is pretty high schoolish.”
Michael seems to sum up everyone’s feelings in regards to faculty
development when he makes the following commentary:
Even if we do this for five years and we get into all this professional
development and get our lectures perfect, I don’t think it will help the
students we’re trying to reach. I think the population that we’re most
concerned about are those that aren’t paying attention to our lectures. I think
we’re looking at the wrong thing. We are deficient as lecturers…I don’t
think that’s where the fix needs to be applied. I think the fix needs to be
applied in how we can get students all of the other tools that they need to
including remediation, including academic excellence outside the classroom,
237
study habits so that…I think professional development probably may be, I’ll
be generous by if I say 3 percent of the issue we’re trying to [address].

Max agrees with his assessment of the value of professional development, offering
an old adage by way of explanation. He says,
You know there is an old saying, ‘Give a man a fish and he can feed himself
for a day. Teach a man to fish and he’ll spend all day long in a boat drinking
beer.’ The place where we can get most payback is applying things that can
help the students help themselves.

And so, faculty development has been eliminated from the final list and will not be
included into the report to the president.
Returning my attention to today’s meeting, Sandra, Yuri, Michael, and
Alejandro are all discussing various points of the recommendations they will put
together. Alejandro says he wants to incorporate more “critical thinking” into the
most basic math classes. Sandra offers information about the workshops they are
proposing, noting that the strategies used are similar to the ones taught by Alejandro
and Sharon in the ED 101 learning strategies class. Yuri mentions his concerns for
the tutoring center, namely the issue of money, to increase the number of computers
available for students and to improve the training offered to the tutors. As each topic
fades into the next, the copier in the faculty lounge where we are meeting is
efficiently, yet very loudly, churning out copies. The noise of the machine reminds
me of an old-fashioned typewriter, the kind one has to manually hit the carriage
return lever at the end of each line of text. The noise is consistent – back and forth,
back and forth – which makes it difficult to hear. Once the last copy is made and
238
picked up, Michael gets up off his chair and closes the door to the lounge. At last
there is silence.
The discussion of the recommendations continues as I answer questions for
clarification and offer suggestions for the write-ups still to be completed. Michael
raises some concerns about the dearth of statistical data to complement their
recommendations. He says,
I want to add some quality control to all of this. If we are going to do some
kind of, something new, whatever that new thing is, we can’t just say, ‘And it
works because we think it’s going to work.’ I mean, we need some, we need
to say, ‘This works and here is the data which shows that it works.

His commentary prompts those around the table to offer suggestions of how they can
realize their quest for data, recommending such things as pre- and post-tests, control
groups, and common finals. The group engages in a logistics discussion, identifying
who would take the test, when they would take it, how the data will be analyzed, and
how they can coordinate their efforts with the curriculum committee. This
discussion seems to satisfy Michael for he says, “This would be a good way of
testing our effectiveness.”
Once the conversation ends, I turn to Alejandro and ask him to relay any
important information we need to know about the meeting with the president that he
has coordinated on the group’s behalf. When he reminds us of the time and place for
the meeting, the day before Thanksgiving, Sandra reminds us that she will not be
attending the meeting due to previously scheduled travel arrangements. Alejandro
mentions, almost as an afterthought, that Max will also not attend, as he will be
flying out of town for the holidays. Sandra, already mildly upset that she will miss
239
the meeting, is even more alarmed that Max will not be there. “He needs to be
there…he has more clout,” Sandra says. Given this new information, all of those
present suggest they move the meeting to a date that is most convenient for everyone
to be present. Having all their members in attendance would likely give them greater
leverage when talking to the president. Or as Yuri so succinctly predicts, “More
people, more money.”
November 28, 2006
We are all gathered immediately outside the president’s office for our long-
anticipated meeting. We are ushered inside by the president himself, only to
discover there are not enough chairs for all of us to sit around the conference table.
The president seems to be mildly surprised by the large group that has assembled as,
he mentions, he was only expecting to meet with Alejandro. A few minutes are
devoted to locating and bringing in additional chairs, which gives me a few minutes
to look at my surroundings. The president’s office is in disarray, which is to be
expected given that he has only recently assumed the presidency of CCC. He is to be
inaugurated in a few days thus chaos reigns: Papers and boxes are stacked on his
desk and his bookshelves; the phone rings incessantly; and his assistant enters the
meeting space on several occasions to have him read or sign documents in
preparation for future meetings.
Once everyone is settled, the president is given a copy of the report and
George begins the meeting with introductions. Beginning with pleasantries, the
president asks if I know the president of my university and if I can get him tickets to
240
the championship game in January at the Rose Bowl. Thinking he is joking, I reply
“sure,” knowing for a fact that football tickets have long been sold out. George
informs him that he, we, don’t have the type of relationship where we can just call up
the president and garner tickets. He appears to be serious in his request, commenting
to George that it is a “professional courtesy” and he should be able to secure them. I
am not sure how to respond to this and neither does George so he moves the meeting
forward by discussing the formation and purpose of the project.
George describes the project as a “systematic way” of understanding the
issues facing students in regards to math, with a particular emphasis placed on
learning, motivation, institutional context, and student culture. The end goal of the
project, as George describes, is greater educational outcomes for minority students in
math. The president, who has been flipping through the pages of the report during
George’s brief introduction asks, “So, if everyone failed, would that be equitable?
Equitable and not quality? Wouldn’t it be better to have high achievement as
opposed to equitable outcomes?” George responds that both are needed, however,
the president believes the question is perhaps worded incorrectly. He says, “Things
could be equitable for everyone but students could all be stuck in remediation.”
The president continues to discuss his viewpoints, citing a recent study of
Latinos featured in a local newspaper. The study described the huge gap within the
California workforce, particularly noting the largely uneducated Latino worker,
suggesting that the state has the potential of sharing similar characteristics as that of
a third-world country. The president indicates that there is nothing they can do
241
“about it today.” That it is a “long-term issue – a cultural issue.” He says, “It’s
primarily a cultural barrier, a language barrier.” He qualifies his statement, saying
that there are a number of factors impacting the issues surrounding the education of
minorities, but nonetheless feels that language is a predominant factor.
George, with some assistance from Audrey, describes the data uncovered to
date and what they hope to accomplish. Audrey relays to the president the number
of students who pass the lowest remedial class and the actual number of students
who succeed in transferring to a four-year institution. Because the number is so low,
the president remarks, “If we know it doesn’t work, why do we bother?” I am
stunned to hear this comment coming from the president of a community college.
One of the primary functions of a community college is to provide remedial
education to students who seek it. In fact, CCC’s mission statement clearly
articulates the following: “[CCC] affirms the essential role of remedial and basic
skills instruction, English as a Second Language (ESL), and support services that are
intrinsic to student success at the post-secondary level.” Thus to hear this comment,
whether it be done facetiously or not, is highly inflammatory.
The president’s remarks concerning remedial education coupled with earlier
remarks truly make me wonder if he is merely assuming the role of devil’s advocate
or articulating his own position. One particular point centers around the differences
in ability amongst different individuals and the resources needed to make all students
successful. He says,
I don’t know what’s needed. Math came easy for me so I don’t know why
people can’t learn it. It’s probably one of the easiest things to see success –
242
one and one makes two. You can see it right away. You don’t have to wait
for the teacher to correct it.

While I am alarmed by what he has said, those around the table don’t seem to react
to his comments in a way that I would have hoped they would given the data
uncovered by the project. At one point in the discussion, the president confirms my
suspicions when he states he likes to play the role of “devil’s advocate” to provide an
alternative perspective than what is being presented. Before anyone can respond, he
goes on to say that it is “unrealistic” to believe that students “are going to pick up 12
years of math” in a 15-week remedial education course. My fingers are starting to
cramp from trying to take down everything being said. I pause to stretch my fingers
and look down at what I have just written in barely decipherable script. Under
whom’s viewpoint does this last comment fall under? His or the devil’s?
Alejandro
If remedial education was to be permanently removed from postsecondary
institutions of all levels, would it be missed? The literature on remedial education
suggests that faculty members at the tertiary level do not enjoy teaching basic skills
to college-going students. This notion is particularly emphasized in the literature
which favors its elimination from postsecondary institutions. However, throughout
my interviews with the faculty members, I have yet to hear one person state they do
not want to teach those courses. In fact, Michael has stated on various occasions that
he enjoys teaching remedial courses because he thrives in the environment and
understands the service he provides to students. Alejandro, on the other hand, has a
different perspective.
243
I meet with Alejandro and he, as usual, is upbeat. I ask him how classes are
going and what he is teaching this semester. He counts off the classes he is teaching
– trigonometry, pre-calculus, and intermediate algebra – and I notice something
missing.
Letty: So, you’re not teaching any basic skills this semester?

Alejandro: No, no.

Letty: Did it just work out that way, or…?

Alejandro: I’m very glad [about that]. Very glad.

Letty: Oh really?

Alejandro: Yeah, because I did it last semester and I was very frustrated
with it.

I am surprised by this revelation especially when I know that the selection of classes
was engineered by Max in such a way that all faculty members, regardless of rank,
would have to select and teach at least one remedial class per semester.
I have a number of topics I wish to discuss with Alejandro, but his happiness
over not having to teach any remedial courses this semester inspires me to deviate
from my protocol. I ask him to clarify what specifically about remedial courses
makes him the most frustrated. He comments that much of his frustration stems
from the students inability or unwillingness to ask for help when they need it the
most. He clarifies,
I could see that a lot of them would fail, and that I, the way I was doing
things was not going to help them because they needed – this is what I felt –
that they needed much more than my class…I think that they needed more
entirely. That’s the thing, they needed more…and what was so frustrating is
that they wouldn’t ask.
244

Alejandro offers suggestion of what the students could have said to ask for assistance
or to let him know when they did not understand something explained by him.
Because students were not open to asking questions he says he would try a number
of teaching strategies to try and meet the learning needs of his entire class.
Alejandro believes that students identified to take remedial courses “need more than
the class.” Students need to be exposed to computer-based instruction and group
work, among other things. While each of these strategies will not necessarily reach
all students, Alejandro believes it is a start and it is better to reach a few than none at
all. In the end, he says, “Well, those remedials are discouraging.”
Before we move on to other topics, Alejandro takes a moment to reflect on
his career and what it was like to start off as a new professor. Perhaps one of the
worst things he feels he had to learn was how to deal with student behavior and the
proper course of action he was allowed to take. He recounts,
When you first start teaching you usually get, at the community college level
when you teach remedial math, there are no prerequisites usually. They’re
very low lever. And then you get all kinds of people, okay? And to me my
worst classes were these classes where I have behaviors, people with
behaviors that were still like in high school or something like that. I hated
that so much and I had a hard time dealing with behaviors at the beginning. I
was inexperienced, you know, because this was a different culture for people
and I had to learn…I had to learn a lot. And I used to get so upset with the
situation because it was not about teaching, it was about handling behaviors.

Having been educated and having received his college degree from Argentina, he
admits to a great deal of culture shock particularly in regards to the lack of high
expectations in American schools. Compounding the culture shock was his
understanding of math – what it taught him to do and what it didn’t teach him to do.
245
As he says, “[Math] is a very mental activity. It’s not teaching humanities…[where]
you keep track of a lot of things, including people and their feelings. This is not that
way. It’s not like that. It’s math.”
He continues with his observations, making note of what he knows as an
instructor and what they do not know as students. He shares,
All I can tell you is…we’re in a position where we know more about how to
study, how to learn…we are in a position where we know more about these
things. They are not because they are in their remedial class [and] they don’t
know how to study.

The lack of effective study strategies and inertia prevalent in student behaviors led
many of his students to fail his courses. Of those he passed, Alejandro says, “I was
so uncomfortable passing them, because they didn’t know left from right…they
didn’t know the area of a square…very basic. They didn’t have the idea of what that
meant, you know?” Although he has matured as a professor, and has begun to
incorporate new teaching strategies in his classroom, he still feels the acute
frustration of teaching non-responsive students.
Alejandro’s upbeat mood has waned and so I endeavor to bring it back with
my next question. “If you had complete freedom to choose whatever you wanted,
which classes would you choose to teach?” Alejandro smiles at the prospect of
devising his own schedule without restriction of any sort. Immediately, he responds
to my query by saying he “would love to choose calculus courses” because there are
so very few to choose from at CCC. He goes on to say he would pick trigonometry
and pre-calculus, essentially the same schedule he is presently teaching. When I ask
him what his fourth class would be, sheepishly he responds, “I’ll tell you Letty, I
246
would like to teach calculus.” He laughs and I do as well before inquiring what it is
about calculus that he likes so much. Alejandro remarks,
It’s much more advanced than these other levels, so you get your, you know,
I studied a lot, and I’m using up to a fraction of what I studied and so it
would be the possibility of using what I studied.

In these classes, Alejandro is able to “break the classroom into groups…and give
them challenging problems” that require students to discuss and ponder. These types
of interactions require students to move beyond the mechanics and engage one
another. In this type of environment, Alejandro feels “students seem to relax and let
go of that panic that [they] have when studying math.” Alejandro clearly loves the
challenge and the potential of the more advanced classes. Clearly, for Alejandro,
remedial courses would not be missed.
November 28, 2006
If remedial courses are not doing the job to educate CCC students, the
President asks, “How do you make things better? I think that’s a question every
department has to ask itself.” Indeed, his question leads Michael to suggest that the
reasons why students are not succeeding can be attributed to students’ lack of
fluency in math. Max offers his own commentary, suggesting it may be a result of
students’ lack of motivation. These reasons, many of which are external to the
classroom itself, prompt Michael to ask, “What can we do outside of class” to help
students do better and succeed in math?
The president responds to their submissions, saying there are ways of doing
things to make things better, but says they operate under a philosophy “that students
247
have a right to fail.” Of course, as the president says, “Their [lives] will be dismal if
they don’t succeed.” As such, students emerge from the high schools with very little
academic preparation. Alejandro suggests, as he has many times before, that critical
thinking is one of the missing components in remedial courses. The president
believes spatial thinking is likewise missing as much of math instruction is delivered
via computers or calculators. I find this comment paradoxical especially after
hearing faculty members acknowledge the extensive use of computer-based
instruction in remedial courses, some citing it as “cutting-edge” differentiated
instruction.
Before the team is able to discuss the solutions they have collectively agreed
upon, the president encourages them to consider changing the name of the courses
they offer. Rather than offer “remedial” or “basic skills” courses, he suggests they
use more affirmative, scholarly language such as “academy” and “success” so that
they are not mired in negative connotations. For “students who have been in deficit
programs their whole lives,” the president notes, “this change would be much more
encouraging and make them feel uniquely special. Moreover, by using such
terminology, expectations might change.” I am unclear if he is referring to
expectations students’ hold of themselves, or expectations faculty members have of
their students.
As the meeting comes to its conclusion, the president congratulates the group
for the great work they are doing. He commends them by saying, “It’s really
reassuring that you guys are addressing [the problem]. Continually look at the data
248
and see what are the strategies that are working. I applaud you.” He tells the group
that he appreciates the update on their progress, remarking that math is a very
important subject and action is necessary. “I’m a firm believer that we have to do
something,” says the president. “We have to reengineer our thinking.” Michael
offers his thoughts, noting, “Students have to see math as something more.”
However, the president concedes that he “struggles” to find a solution to the
problems facing students. He remarks,
We know that we perform, period. We know there’s a gap. And it doesn’t
matter if it’s between this color or that color or this economic group or that
one. However, you need to find a strategy that will close the gap not by
dumbing it down, but close the gap by elevating kids to perform.

Alejandro responds to his commentary saying, “The worst thing we could do is do
nothing.” The president remarks, “And we know what doing nothing does.”
There is some joking around that the “solution” can be found in the report. In
all seriousness, however, Max says they are looking for a “catalyst for success.” The
president once again applauds their efforts to date and says the group has his blessing
for whatever it is they want to do from this point forward. He cautions them that
everything “costs money” and that they need to do all they can to secure funding for
their interventions. Directing his gaze at Max, the president encourages the group to
seek out grants, to request budget changes, and to change their class sizes to
accommodate their strategies. He articulates his personal support of their endeavors,
yet he does not specify if he will do anything himself to push their agenda.
The president looks to the clock and indicates that the meeting is drawing to a
close and we slowly begin to trickle out of his office. With the exception of Max
249
and Michael, and occasionally Alejandro, the faculty members had very little to
contribute to the meeting and largely remained silent. Before we exit, the president
reminds me about the football tickets and that he will be waiting for me to give him
the president’s phone number. I don’t respond, merely smile and I follow Michael
and Max down the stairs. Outside we gather – Max, Alejandro, Michael, Yuri and
George – to discuss next steps. They talk about wanting to pursue grants and wonder
aloud how they can go about doing this. George offers to help and I mention that we
can discuss all of this at our final meeting in December.
The four faculty members walk back towards Johnson Hall discussing the
work they will need to do in the coming weeks. George and I slowly head toward
our cars, commenting to one another our disappointment at the outcome of the
meeting. While we both agree that the president is not likely to impede any of the
faculty members’ future efforts, we likewise feel that he is not likely to assume a
leadership role nor become a strong advocate for what they do on behalf of their
students. I tell him I am disappointed over the fact that the faculty members did not
try and counter some of the president’s more inflammatory remarks. George is more
conciliatory, willing to give the faculty members the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps
this comes from his own experience as a faculty member, but George says given the
power differential in the room, it is conceivable they were unable and unwilling to
challenge the President. I concede his point, but my disappointment remains. As I
drive away and head back towards campus, I reflect on Yuri’s comments from the
250
planning meeting. We definitely had “more people” present at today’s meeting, only
problem is, we did not come out with “more money.”
December 14, 2005
It is almost 1:00 p.m. and I am beginning to sweat. To my left is a somewhat
extravagant display of food and beverages: three gleaming, silver-plated chafing
dishes containing an array of food prominently rests on white table cloths ruched at
various points; bread tumbles out of a lined wicker basket; and drinks float above the
quickly melting ice contained in the crystal-clear bowl. This display of food has
been put together in honor of the last official meeting of the Math Project.
Unfortunately, only three people are presently in attendance: Sharon, Audrey, and
Audrey’s immediate supervisor, Joanne, who is the Dean of Academic Planning and
Research at CCC. George and CUE’s director are in attendance as well, all of whom
are wondering if the faculty members are going to show up to this final meeting.
Today we have scheduled a special outing for the team, and unlike our
previous meetings, we are meeting at USC. This was done to celebrate the
culmination of the project and to accommodate the group’s request to have at least
one meeting at USC. While I wait, I scribble nervously in my notepad and make
small talk with those who have shown up. As I look around the room to make sure
all is in place, I take notice of the obvious differences between our meeting room for
today and JH 305. Rather than faded green walls and mismatched tables and chairs,
the classroom has enough gray-speckle colored desks and black, padded chairs to
accommodate a class of 25. The brick décor interspersed throughout the room
251
breaks up the monotony of the white walls and echoes the brick used on the façade
of the building. The chalkboard is a pristine onyx hue, over which a large white
screen unfolds to be used for Powerpoint presentations. The 8-foot tall windows
evenly spaced around the room let in a great deal of light, so much so that the
windows facing the southern side of the room need to be covered by the venetian
blinds to obscure the blinding light. For the first time I realize what I have taken for
granted for so many years.
As the minutes tick by, I wonder what else I can do. I have already gone
upstairs to check my email, to see if anyone has sent a message of cancellation, and
to verify the information I sent out to the team was correct. I make note of the
meeting date (December 14), the time (12:30 p.m.), and the location (Room 202).
All is in order but I am plagued with the same question: Did the faculty members
read their email? I am about to go upstairs and have CUE’s administrative
coordinator try and track them down when Audrey hears Alejandro’s voice in the
hallway. We all breathe a sigh of relief as Sandra and Alejandro walk through the
door. Ten minutes later, Yuri, Max, and Michael walk in, surprised to see the earlier
group. “How did you get here so fast? Last I saw you were behind us,” Michael
asks. Alejandro, who is a frequent visitor to USC, replies, “I know a shortcut.”
Once again, the food has its desired effect and team members are visibly
impressed by the food and the amounts of it. Unfortunately, people do not have as
healthy of an appetite as presumed by the caterer. Clearly, we will have leftovers to
share with the entire building. As soon as everyone has served themselves and are
252
seated around the tables arranged conference style, George begins the meeting. He
welcomes the group to the campus, ribbing them for their tardiness. There is a great
deal of joking around before we settle down and begin today’s conversation. To
start, George asks the group to reflect on the meeting with the president and to offer
their impressions. Michael starts the conversation by saying he felt the meeting was
“conversational” and that he took his cue from the tone established by the president
and therefore kept his “tone conversational” as well. He left the meeting feeling that
they were unable to point to any specific aspects of the report and that any specific
references to money were “diffused” to general education matters. When asked if
they have had any follow-up conversations with the president, Max informs us that
they haven’t and believes they will need to initiate contact if they wish to keep the
project on the “front burner.”
As others share their perspectives, George and I share our disappointment
with the outcome of the meeting. To begin, some of the comments made by the
president concerning the gaps in achievement were alarming. Michael agrees,
stating he believes the president does not truly understand math education.
Alejandro, on the other hand, thinks that perhaps that is just the way the president
interacts. George further states his disappointment in the fact that the president did
not offer any clue as to how this project may or may not fit within his overall plan
for the college. When Max asks the Director to offer some insight into some of the
other president’s meetings she has attended with the project, the following exchange
takes place.
253
Director: When I read these notes, I got the sense that he was somewhat,
I’m not sure what it was…

Max: Wasn’t committed?

Yuri: He was not there.

George: It would have been almost as if we were presenting a parking
report about the number of spaces needed. But if he would
have said, “The achievement is really a concern and I got a –
it’s a natural ally on one of the areas students have trouble
with…”

Michael: His reaction was as if we had just got together once. He didn’t
want to see what we had done for the past year and a half. He
was like, “Oh, you guys have ideas? Good, so do I.” And it
wasn’t, “What are your ideas?”
George: I guess I was surprised because had I been in his shoes I would
have marched you guys out as my blue-ribbon task force on
achievement in math.

Sharon offers her insights, suggesting to the group that the project aligns very nicely
to the president’s priorities but that the group will need to convince the president as
to the merit of their work. This is very much in tune to a remark made by the
president at the meeting, when he told the group they will need to come up with a
plan to secure funding to attain their goals.
Joanne joins the conversation and apprises the group of her impressions of
the president to date. She says it is not surprising to hear the president may have had
a “difficult reaction” to their presentation and that the group should not view it as a
reflection of their work. Rather, she says, his response to the group’s work seems to
be “consistent with other reactions to important things.” If the president’s reaction is
typical, or as the Director describes it as “casual” and “unintellectual,” will it be
possible for the team to do anything on their home campus? Is Sandra right, will
254
they have to partner with another community college to attain their goals? Before I
can pose these questions to the group, Alejandro seems to be exasperated with the
direction of the conversation. Giving the president the benefit of the doubt, he says,
Let’s test him before we make any assumptions. Let’s test him. Let’s go
with a very focused and clear request and see what he does. Because we
really don’t know him…and that was our very first meeting, we cannot make
assumptions [about] this guy. We need to keep pressing. I’m willing to do
that.

Seemingly satisfied with this concrete suggestion for future action, the group moves
to other topics of conversation.
In the next two hours, a number of topics are discussed. Max reveals the
knowledge he’s gained from the project, admitting to the group, “I’ve learned a lot
about where our limitations are as far as our intentions for improving student
success.” He refers to the notion of expanding instruction through the workshops
proposed, commenting, “One of the most difficult things for people is to make
time…people have their time committed out as far as it can go.” Michael agrees
with Max’s assessment of the situation and says that the list of recommendations
they came up with, while a good list, is not likely to have a dramatic affect on
student achievement. As he says, “I saw the list and I think [the president] even said,
‘thank you for the list of how to make motivated people do better.’ It was just a list
of more student-centered work.”
The issue of motivation, and what motivates students, prompts the Director to
ask the group how they could motivate more students. Silence greets her question
and Michael demonstrates his doubt as to the validity of motivation, saying,
255
“Motivation alone is hard to quantify.” Not to be deterred, George interrupts the
group to emphasize the importance of self-efficacy and the beliefs that underlie
student behavior. Max provides some insight to this, recounting his experiences in
the army and how individuals were given tasks that could not be accomplished on
their own but rather had to be completed by a group. This provided individuals with
the motivation to work together in order to succeed. If they can “parlay that into
some kind of team” or instruction, it may provide students at CCC with the
confidence to assume greater responsibility in their acquisition of math. Michael,
however, doesn’t fully believe that is likely to happen, emphasizing students’
expectation and “addiction” to doing what they have always done. When he says,
“[Students] like not understanding math and doing the steps,” the director counters
his argument by asking, “How do you know they like not understanding math?”
This question triggers the following remarks:
Alejandro: You don’t know that.

Sandra: The attitude is just like, “Give me the formula and let me
take…”

Max: [The student] just doesn’t like understanding anything…

Michael: Well, they like the answer…

Max: They’ve already abdicated any open understanding…

Michael: We were just talking about it on the way here…the students
don’t really have an appreciation of why it works, they just
[say], “Can’t I keep doing it this way?”

Director: But isn’t it your job to think of ways to make them appreciate
it?

256
The Director’s last comment leads her to reminisce with the group the challenge it
was for us to convince them to join the project. She reminds them of the resistance
they mounted, but that we worked around that resistance by trying new strategies and
approaches to get them to buy into the project. Had we given up on them, where
would we all be today?
The Director’s question once again leads to a great deal of discussion. All
faculty members offer suggestions and limitations of what they can and cannot do in
regards to their students. Michael says he tries to be inventive in the classroom, to
offer an “intermediate step” where students can mindlessly do math calculations –
“They do still have to learn how to do it on paper” – but still understand the
concepts they are working with. Unfortunately, as he says, “I try to explain why
long division works [but] students’ don’t want to know it.” The Director asks the
group to consider alternative ways to break down that resistance, change the culture
so that it becomes more equitable to students. She asks about the potential for
integrating study strategies within course content. Sandra quickly jumps into the
discussion to say that time is limited given the number of weeks students are in
school. She says, “We can be as innovative and inventive as time allows us.”
Which, given the amount of course content that needs to be covered within a 15-
week semester, that creativity and potential innovation are rarely fully realized.
Despite these apparent limitations, the group continues to share strategies that
may have an effect in the classroom. Alejandro suggests experiential tasks and
collaborative work. Sandra offers up group tests, of which she has had some positive
257
experiences with in her own classroom. Alejandro says, “We need to move away
from the lecture thing. Too many lectures!” Michael says that this is already
happening with the increased number of, and enrollment in computer-based
instruction. Although this type of instruction provides students with the repetition
that is “the keystone to learning” in remedial classes, they likewise seem to reinforce
what they say is not working. Michael shares, “I see trend of this mechanized,
calculation, very sterile-based, fill-in-the-blank for the answer kind of thing going on
at CCC…because the majority of instructors are using [the] computerized system.”
Using this type of system is very easy, as Alejandro shares, because the professors
don’t have to grade the work. Yet, this limits the amount of interaction students have
with one another, and in some cases, dominates classroom instruction to the point
where it assumes the role of instructor.
As they continue to talk, I begin to feel that we are talking in circles.
Throughout the course of the project, faculty members have garnered a great deal of
knowledge as to why students are not succeeding. Yet, rather than drawing from
what they know from their students based on the LASSI and from the interviews,
they seem to revert back to their original perceptions of why students are not
achieving in math. Because they don’t study, because they don’t want to learn why
math works, etc. These are all reminiscent of comments that harkens back to the
start of the project. When the Director suggests that there could potentially be five
different ways to teach the same concept, referring to the five faculty members
present at today’s meeting, Michael says, “There is a pretty standard way” to teach
258
the “mathematical process.” Max further cements this notion when he says, “I guess
deep down in our hearts, we know that [instruction]’s not why students are not
succeeding.” Yuri tries to take a more conciliatory approach to the Director’s
remarks, indicating that their role as instructors is to motivate but to understand that
even though they can help, they “cannot do 100%.”
This discussion leads us to the last remaining question: where do we, or
rather, they go from here? Michael says, “I want us to become the blue-ribbon
panel…maybe that is not lost. Can we become that blue-ribbon panel?” George
believes the data they have accrued could certainly be used to not only attain their
goals but to support the goals of the president. But before they can do that they need
to figure out (1) when they will approach the president again, (2) how they will
approach him, and (3) what it is they want from the president. George believes that
their discussions are very powerful for they elicit numerous topics of inquiry,
however, institutions are not structured in such a way to support their ongoing
conversations. Case in point, the department meeting. George believes they need to
position themselves with the president to receive greater support for these types of
discussion. Joanne remarks that there are two initiatives coming before the board
that might support their efforts. Intrigued, Max asks Joanne if she knows if the board
is aware of their efforts with the Math Project. She replies in the negative,
observing, “No, the president barely knows what you are doing.”
The director emphasizes to the group that even if they did not have the full
support from their president, they as faculty members have tremendous power and
259
influence to launch their efforts. They have, as the director describes, “established
the foundation from where you could turn things around.” Her concern however, is
whether they will continue and see this project to fruition without us there to guide
them. Immediately, Yuri replies, “No, we need you.” Sandra is a little more
optimistic but not wholeheartedly convinced. She says,
I have to say that yes, we would to an extent because I mean, just the
example that we brought it to the retreat. So we at least did that. I’m not
saying that we would be as gung ho as we are when we are forced to meet.
Not forced [but] when we meet once a month [in] a structured meeting. But
yeah, we already got something that we can work with now.

Sharon suggests they have an opportunity to further collaborate on their program
review and George believes they can disseminate their research findings at
conferences and through academic publications. Michael, however, does not seem to
be persuaded. As has been the trend in the past, Michael does not view the data
collected as being statistically reliable. He believes the recommendations they have
devised are laudable, yet he does not believe they can go and tout their effectiveness.
He says, “I think that our suggestions are the beginning. Once we get them
implemented and if we can say, ‘This makes a significant difference,’ and we show
some data to back it up, I think that’s what I’m waiting for.”
The director is exasperated and does not hide it from Michael. She responds
to his comment rather forcefully, saying, “It has nothing to do with tutoring…it’s
you, you are the change agent. It’s not what happens. I think that that’s what you
need to get at. That each one of you can make a difference.” Michael attempts to
argue with her reasoning, asking her if she has seen the report to perhaps delineate
260
the lack of statistical analysis. She says she has seen the report and believes it is a
beautiful report “in terms of all of the work that [they] have done.” Yet, she does not
feel that they have fully taken ownership for the project nor that they fully believe in
themselves as having the capacity to initiate change – either in students to improve
achievement, or in themselves to transform their department. The director says, “I’m
sorry that I’m being rude about this…but I feel that you don’t…I have more faith in
you than you do. You are the blue ribbon panel regardless if the president says you
are or not.”
Michael is still not convinced and begins to say they are not likely to receive
funding without the benefit of data. The director jokes with him, saying she is going
to beat his head against the wall to make him understand, “You do have the data!”
The challenge for Michael is to realize that the kind of data he is perhaps describing
is far different from that which he collected as part of the project with Uri Treisman.
At the director’s suggestion that he could be like Uri Treisman, Michael responds, “I
want to be. But he went to the classrooms, went to the study groups and watched
what they did.” The director reminds him that what they are doing, discussing the
issues, attempting to organize themselves to research the issues so that they can
devise structures for their students are all good data because it allows them to be
more purposeful in their action.
The meeting is drawing to a bittersweet close because the future of the
project remains uncertain. Michael wonders aloud, is the project not a success if
they don’t continue beyond today? The director says that it isn’t a question of
261
success or failure. Obviously, one always wants more than what one sets out to do.
However, in regards to this project, it really comes down to ownership of what they
have done to date and a commitment to seeing their recommendations become a
reality. She says, “We need some signs,” to which Michael astutely remarks,
“Which you didn’t get from the president.” As the director tries to explain further,
Sharon steps in and offers her understanding of what it is we are trying to accomplish
before the project comes to an end. She says,
It’s interesting to me. It sounds very similar to the notion of what we expect
to accomplish in a class. We want students to take responsibility for their
own learning. And we’re willing – we’re there, come see me anytime you
want to, I’ll help you as much as I can but really, I can’t go home and do the
homework for you. And that’s exactly the same situation – if we don’t own
what this is and don’t take it and go with it and demonstrate that we learned
something from it, then, you know, when you walk out the door, you’re done.

As we wave goodbye, I am pleasantly surprised to receive hugs from a few of the
members, thanking me for all of my help and the contributions I have made to the
project. It truly is a bittersweet ending for I do not know what the future holds. I
ceased being the detached observer/researcher long ago. I really do hope to see this
project lead to change.
Epilogue
February 10, 2006
Two months after our last meeting I find myself once again climbing the
three flights of stairs to Johnson Hall 305. Though nothing has changed, not the old
paint, not the scraped tile floors, and not the battered furniture occupying the room, I
feel strangely disconnected from CCC. Earlier this morning I received an email
262
from Alejandro confirming today’s meeting. Actually, I was “cc’d” on an email sent
to team members reminding them of today’s meeting. What is perplexing about this
confirmation is that no one neither acknowledged nor confirmed my original email
request to meet this morning. As a result, I come to this meeting unprepared. My
focus group protocol has been hastily devised, and worst of all, I come without food.
For today’s meeting, I hope to elicit their evaluation of the project and to see
what steps have been taken since last we met. Sandra’s opening comments fill me
with disappointment. “Alejandro has been out of town. He is our organizer…we
depend on him to keep us on task.” Apparently, as the group reveals, nothing has
been done in the intervening months. They have not met to discuss ideas generated
from December’s meeting, they have not organized an agenda, and they have not
deliberated over the action items listed in their report to the president. Nor, it seems,
are they certain of the future and the continuation of the work they have begun. This
becomes acutely evident in light of Max’s opening question: “Are we going to
continue to meet as a group?”
263
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION

The purpose of the Math Project was to provide faculty members with a
structured opportunity to consider alternative explanations for the continuous
underperformance of African American and Latino students enrolled in remedial
mathematics courses at CCC. Beginning with an examination of pre-existing data
and concluding with individual student interviews, faculty members participated in a
collaborative inquiry project that sought to challenge their assumptions and reframe
their points of reference in regards to a beleaguered student population. The monthly
discussions led by CUE’s facilitators yielded information that was thought provoking
and refuted preconceptions. These meetings likewise elicited comments from faculty
members that provided insight into their evolution as educators and their daily lives
as practitioners. Yet the question that frames this study – In what ways does a
faculty member’s involvement in a collaborative inquiry project influences and
brings changes to their beliefs about students in remedial courses and their role as
remedial mathematics professors? – is shrouded in ambiguity as the answer is not
easily articulated.
On the one hand, the evidence provided in the preceding chapter clearly
details a new awareness by faculty members: from Max’s amazement over the
awesome levels of external responsibilities assumed by students, to Rachel’s
growing realization that her students are not like her. This newfound awareness led
faculty members to reconsider their assumptions of students, which most often were
a result of anecdote rather than fact. At the same time, the evidence points to the
264
distressing knowledge that faculty members began and ended their participation in
the project with a perspective, to varying degrees, clearly situated in student deficit.
As Michael stated in the focus group, “And so it does come down to a student-
centered issue where students need something, and it’s something that is more than
[the] something we can provide in the classroom.”
Thompson (1992) held that individuals have beliefs that are often in conflict
with one another and lead them to act in contradictory ways. Accordingly, Alejandro
believed deeply in the need to do something to improve the educational outcomes of
minority students in remedial courses. At the same time, however, he held a deep
aversion to teaching in remedial education classes – educational settings, as the data
demonstrated, that clearly held the largest enrollment of minority students. As I
filtered through the data, I routinely asked myself, “Did this project change
anything? Was it successful? Did it influence faculty members in any way?” To
answer these questions, and the one guiding this dissertation with an unequivocal
“yes” or “no” would be too simplistic a response; one that could not account for the
nuances to laying bare individually held belief systems and the inherent difficulties
in trying to change those systems.
In the previous chapter I presented the data in a format that draws from
ethnographic fiction (Langness & Frank, 1978) in order to “draw the reader into the
story in a way that enables deeper understandings of individuals, organizations, or
the events themselves” (Tierney, 1993, p. 313). This, I believe, allows the reader to
see for herself the complex nature of the project, with all the unforeseen twists and
265
turns characteristic of a novel or movie, only occurring in real time. The interaction
of six distinct individuals made the story that much more intricate, with some voices
taking center stage while others receded into the background. In this concluding
chapter, I will analyze the findings of this research in a slightly more traditional
format, identifying key themes and events that will allow me to infer whether change
of any kind resulted from the Math Project (Pajares, 1992). I will begin this chapter
with a review of the problem and of the literature that provides the context for this
study. I will then present brief analyses of each of the protagonists in the story,
underscoring their role within the group and what effect the project had on their
outlook towards students as well as their roles as professors of remedial mathematics
students. I will conclude this chapter with my suggestions for future research and
what implications this project, and this study, may have on practice.
Review of the Problem
Mathematical competency is a necessary perquisite for success in today’s
knowledge economy. Data demonstrate, however, that scores of African American
and Latino students experience lower levels of success in math than do their Asian
and white peers (Perie et al., 2005). Consequently, African American and Latino
students are overrepresented in remedial mathematics classrooms in postsecondary
institutions (NCES, 2004). Countless studies across the K-16 spectrum have
attempted to identify the reasons underlying the variation in mathematical
competence by distinct minority student groups. Much of this research (as noted in
Chapter 1) typically frames the problem from a student deficit perspective; that is,
266
solutions devised to address the underachievement are aimed towards “fixing”
students who are lacking in specific skill sets that promote greater mathematical
understanding.
The aim towards “fixing” students can be inferred from the high-status
position mathematics holds within the greater social consciousness. According to
Stanic (1989), the discipline of mathematics occupies a privileged position whose
tenets regarding teaching, learning, success and failure are rarely questioned by the
general public. There is the de facto belief that mathematical competence can only
be achieved by a select few; or, as Ladson-Billings (1997) notes, it is “reserved only
for the intelligentsia” (p. 698). Though critical theorists such as Apple (1979) and
Giroux (1983) believe that the hierarchical nature and selective tradition of the
discipline privileges certain groups, commonly held perspectives (Stanic, 1999)
promote the notion that certain people will have the innate ability to do math well
while others will simply have to struggle through their mathematical illiteracy
(Moses, 2001). Consequently, instructional technique is not seen nor considered the
culprit for the low educational outcomes of minority students in math. Instead, the
culprit seems to be the student himself and his failure to absorb the necessary skills
sets that are presented by the instructor. It is within this educational tradition that
faculty members are reared and from which their belief systems are shaped. This
knowledge begs the question: What impact does this then have on students’
educational outcomes?
267
Unfortunately, the literature fails to address this question and the role that
faculty members play within the larger context of mathematics at the postsecondary
level. Although studies have been conducted which address issues pertaining to
institutional policies (Oakes, 1985, 1990a, 1990b; Moses, 1994), culturally
appropriate pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), classroom context (Fraser et al.,
1987), and instructor beliefs (Schoenfeld, 1989; Thompson, 1992), many of these
only describe the K-12 mathematics context. Investigation into the beliefs, attitudes,
and practices of faculty members at the tertiary level and the effect they (may) have
on students’ educational outcomes is rarely the subject of empirical research
(Rousseau & Tate, 2003). One instance is found in the work of Rebecca Cox (2004)
in which she examined classroom dynamics in community college composition
courses. She found that students and faculty members held different perceptions of
college instruction, thereby making communication and expectations difficult to
negotiate. Nonetheless, this lack of investigative rigor in mathematics is especially
problematic given the demographic makeup of remedial mathematics classrooms
(NCES, 2004). Because mathematics is portrayed as being independent of culture
and context (Stanic, 1989; Ladson-Billings, 1997) faculty members may not actively
seek to teach in ways that are culturally appropriate or address the unique needs of
African American and Latino students. Moreover, because the general public
accepts the fact that mathematics is culture and context free, there is no imperative
for change.
268
As has been previously noted, postsecondary faculty members ascribe poor
mathematical performance to external factors or, in some cases, innate ability
(Rousseau & Tate, 2002). Subsequently, faculty members feel there is little they can
contribute to the improvement of educational outcomes of their students. This
reasoning then leads faculty members to believe for instance, as Max does, that
improving instructional techniques will only yield “marginal results” in student
outcomes. Such an understanding “masks” (Barajas, 2001, p. 73) other factors
within the instructional, departmental and institutional setting that produce
ineffective learning. Belief systems that ascribe one way of learning irrespective of
culture and context, as math is wont to do, are especially problematic within the
community college milieu.
Community colleges are open access institutions whose mission it is to
instruct students with varying degrees of ability and preparation (Cohen & Brawer,
2003). Remedial courses are but one of the many educational tracks offered at
community colleges across the country. These courses enable students to access
higher education in a time when higher education is a necessary step towards greater
economic mobility. Unfortunately, the literature demonstrates a growing disconnect
and dissatisfaction with the preponderance of remedial education offerings at the
community colleges (Grubb and Associates, 1999). And, as evidenced by the data
presented in the preceding chapter, students who enter their college’s doors lacking
in the most basic of skills increasingly frustrate faculty members.
269
The socially constructed beliefs of faculty members, ranging from their
understanding of and training within the discipline of mathematics to their
experiences with students within the postsecondary educational environment, are
evident in their daily interactions with students. The degree to which these beliefs
impact students’ educational outcomes has not been the subject of research at the
tertiary level and thus prevents the educational community from factoring in a
critical contributor to poor mathematical performance. This dissertation sought to
address that dearth in the literature.
Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework
Individuals hold thousands of differing beliefs within an “architectural
system” that leads to “observable behavioral consequences” (Rokeach, 1972, p. 1).
Beliefs emerge from direct and indirect experience and observation (Rokeach, 1972)
and vary in strength (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975; Block & Hazelip, 1995). They are
deeply personal and cannot always be verbally articulated (Pajares, 1992). Beliefs
are resistant to change (Block & Hazelip, 1995) but can be modified to reflect new
experiences (Thompson, 1992). Within the context of education, beliefs are
influenced by and consistent with experience (D’Andrade, 1981), the culture of the
classroom (Schoenfeld, 1988) and the curriculum guiding instruction (Schoenfeld,
1988). Pajares (1992) suggests that a greater understanding of practitioner beliefs is
critical to the improvement of teaching practices and students’ educational outcomes.
Green (1971) notes that beliefs may be contradictory, leading individuals to
assert one set of beliefs while acting in ways that contradict those same beliefs.
270
These contradictions are what Argyris and Schön (1974) describe as espoused
theories-of-action and theories-in-use. The former is what an individual professes to
subscribe to (and is consciously held) and the latter is how an individual actually
behaves (and is often an unconscious response). Because one is not fully aware of
the inconsistencies in beliefs and how these lead to contradictory actions (Thompson,
1992), beliefs held by individuals must be inferred (Pajares, 1992) from observable
action and behavior.
Unconscious, or tacitly-held beliefs are posited in the literature as
impediments to change. Cohen (1990) asserts that for change to occur, individuals
receiving the reform must “want to change…and take an active part in changing” (p.
326). Yet, this may not be possible if individuals are not given the opportunities for
change to occur. This becomes especially difficult if what needs to change are
deeply held belief constructs that provide individuals “constancy” (Rokeach, 1972, p.
7). With respect to this research study, the “constancy” under investigation is the
enculturation of faculty members within the (1) discipline of mathematics and (2) the
organizational and social context of the community college. The impediment to this
constancy is the nontraditional student enrolled in remedial mathematics courses
who displays characteristics hugely foreign to their individual experiences as math
students.
A collaborative inquiry project was therefore initiated as the vehicle through
which faculty members could better understand this “nontraditional” student while at
the same time allowing for an exploration of personally held beliefs. This
271
exploration occurred through a collegial process of research and inquiry. This model
of inquiry enables faculty members to design the research, reflect on their research
findings through continuous dialogue and reflection, and initiate action based on
group consensus. Most importantly, collaborative inquiry, as an extension of action
research, makes it possible for “practitioners to arrive at a critique of their social and
educational work and work settings” (Kemis, 2001, p. 92). This is done with the
intent to draw attention away from the student as the sole instrument of his or her
success and bring in and question the social, historical and cultural components that
shape practice and the environment.
The examination of these components and the degree to which they influence
beliefs are made possible by the collaborative nature of the inquiry process. Faculty
members all have differing experiences yet are bonded together by a common
denominator: math. When they come together as a group, they are provided with a
structured opportunity in which they can work together on a commonly identified
problem not typically addressed by the department meeting. They are encouraged,
either by their colleagues or by CUE facilitators, to examine their assumptions about
students and their educational outcomes and how these are potentially mediated by
their own practices and beliefs. Most importantly, they learn from one another,
reflect on the learning that is taking place, and develop awareness for the need for
change (Ferrance, 2000).
The reflective nature of collaborative inquiry has the potential for
transformative learning (Mezirow, 2000). Transformative learning occurs when
272
individuals become cognizant of their taken-for-granted assumptions about the world
around them and endeavor to change them. In transformative learning, individuals
are willing and ready to work towards change by being purposefully reflective in
ways that “may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to
guide action” (Mezirow, 2000, pp. 7-8). Admittedly, this type of learning is not
easily achieved, and may in fact be threatening to people as it has the power to
uproot and disturb the constancy individuals hold so dear. Yet, the threat to one’s
self is mediated to a large degree by the support provided by the group who are all
experiencing the same process. In the section that follows, I will discuss the findings
from my two-year study, identifying some of the more prevalent themes that
emerged from the Math Project meeting and the corresponding interviews with the
faculty members involved.
Discussion
Faculty members engaged in a great deal of discussion and reflection
throughout the course of the Math Project. Specific observations about students,
about the role of the instructor, about the subject of math and the manner in which
math should (and should not) be presented were continually raised as the story of the
Math Project unfolded. Most often, faculty members supported one another by
offering insights and/or evidence to buttress a particular point raised by a colleague.
Less frequent were those occasions when faculty members directly challenged one
another for comments or observations that were not widely held. When dissention
did occur within the ranks, faculty members did not appear to take offense; instead
273
they listened attentively to what their colleagues had to say. Below are some of
those critical topics that garnered the most debate and have larger implications with
respect to this study.
“Students don’t know how to be students”
Initial resistance can largely be attributed to the above as most of our
discussions throughout the course of the project centered on students. Faculty
members, those that joined the project and those that did not, largely felt that
students who were the subject of inquiry did not know how to be students. By this
they implied that students did not know how to study, they did not know how to
properly motivate themselves, and did not know how to prioritize their work. These
types of comments were made during the initial stages of resistance, during my
individual interviews with the faculty members, and finally at the conclusion of the
project when ownership of the research was still in question.
Michael felt students did not put in enough hours to doing their homework.
Rachel held that no matter how much effort she put into her class presentations her
students were still going to fail because they just “weren’t getting it.” Alejandro
believed that the low expectations held of students in American schools have
somehow engendered within students an affinity for abdicating responsibility for
their learning. Sandra attributed a greater sense of responsibility for learning on
older students whereas she felt that the younger ones were more likely to “give
up…stop…leave early.” Max believes students need to “put in the work and the
effort” to try and understand what is holding them back from understanding the
274
subject. Yuri believes students are studying, in fact putting in numerous hours of
work into their studying, yet they are studying inefficiently and therefore not reaping
any rewards for the hours they devote to their work.
In trying to understand where faculty members’ certainty about students
stems from, I asked them questions during the individual interviews to better gauge
their frames of reference and how these may influence their perceptions of students.
I specifically asked them questions regarding study habits, motivation, and what it
means to be a student studying college math. The answers received were particularly
revealing. Reflecting on her own experiences, Rachel expressed the feeling that
math students are “disciplined” and do “what it [takes]…to pass” a course. Because
all instructors “have been there” and have gone through the struggles of being math
students, she feels that instructors now have a constructed image of what it means to
be a college math student and the work required to be successful. Anything to the
contrary, then, leads faculty members to believe students are not trying hard or
devoting enough of their energy to mastering the concepts. Rachel explains,
If I didn’t know something, I went to another math teacher. I went [and] I
studied in groups. I did everything it took for me to get whatever I needed
for that particular class…and that right there is, I think, what we have
embedded as our image, that the students are just not doing what they should
be doing.

In the same breath, Rachel recognizes students at CCC will not necessarily have the
same work ethic that she demonstrated while in college and may in fact require
something different, by way of instruction, to reach them. Yet, this “embedded
275
image” certainly colors the way faculty perceive students and the way they deliver
instruction. For, as she starts to say, “If I did it…” then somebody else can do it too.
Michael was perhaps the most verbose in his description of what it means to
be an effective math student. He largely believes that students who rely on
memorization as their “study model” are setting themselves up for failure because
new math concepts are introduced at a high rate of speed. Michael therefore assigns
his students math questions that they will work on throughout the semester to breed
familiarity with the concepts. By the end of the semester students will have worked
on as many as 1,000 homework questions, all of which may or may not be selected
for their in-class exams. Because exam questions are drawn from students’
homework sets, students will “know that spending time on those problems is
spending time on potential test questions.” This, Michael feels “shows them [that]
the responsibility for their grade is in their hands.”
As an instructor, he admits, “I don’t know if it’s the most pedagogically or
educationally sound way of doing something,” but it is something he feels works
because, as I later find out, it is something that worked for him as a college student.
As an undergraduate math major, Michael would select up to 20 questions from his
textbook that he would study in preparation for a test. Once he had selected his
questions, he would do all of the questions once, then a second time while timing
himself, and then repeat them a third time. This strategy, he says, led him to become
increasingly familiar with specific questions, would enable him to do them more
quickly, and force the ones he didn’t know to “come to the surface.” By employing
276
such a strategy Michael was able to see where he needed to concentrate during his
study time and motivated him to learn what he had not yet mastered. Utilizing a
similar strategy in his course, Michael hopes to “motivate [his students] the same
way” he used to motivate himself.
Many other, yet similar examples were offered by Yuri, Alejandro, Sandra,
and Max when describing what math students need to do to be successful. They
talked of the need for students to review their notes “immediately after class” to
ensure they understood what was just presented. They also discussed the appropriate
amount of hours students needed to study on a daily and a weekly basis. They talked
about being motivated to attend class regularly, listen attentively, participate in
discussions, and visit them during office hours. All of these actions factored into
their image of what is a good math student; and as evidenced by the examples
provided above, were often a reflection of their own individual images. Yet students
enrolled in their remedial courses were not reflective of this same image.
From their experiences, students did not always attend class and rarely spoke
up when they were present. They did not always do their homework and if it was
done, it was not always done correctly. Students did not do well on tests, often
giving up mid way through an exam and exiting the room without a backwards
glance. Most did not go to office hours and on some occasions, students could not
recall their instructor’s names and therefore could not find their instructor’s offices.
All of these actions have led these faculty members to perceive students, not
altogether negatively, but lead them to surmise that students are simply not putting
277
forth the effort to do well in math nor are they making school a priority. Moreover,
because faculty members emphasized specific strategies and offered
recommendations in class, they felt that if students did not heed these suggestions,
then there was very little else faculty members could do for students. Ultimately, in
their eyes, students had to assume responsibility for their learning.
What has been curious throughout the project is that faculty members
vacillate between understanding and frustration. They understand that students who
attend CCC may not always be the most academically gifted or prepared. They
recognize the effect schooling has had on them personally and the courage it takes
for their students to return to school despite some serious hardships. They realize
students have numerous external responsibilities, ranging from full-time jobs to
caring for children. The evidence provided by the LASSI survey and the student
interviews raised a newfound awareness among all faculty members and, as seen in
the previous chapter, engendered a great deal of discussion. Yet, at the same time,
they continually revert back to what it means to be a “student” and how students lack
of specific skills prohibit many of them from succeeding and moving out of remedial
courses. The concept faculty members have of what it means to be a “math student”
is generated from their own images as students. What is ultimately troubling about
this stock image faculty members have is that many of them were educated within a
traditional college environment and were advanced math students. Unfortunately,
CCC is not a traditional environment and the individuals who largely enroll at CCC
278
are not traditional students. This is a significant barrier that seems incapable of
being breached.
“The number one thing we need to do is motivate students”
Another issue that arose throughout the meetings focused on the role faculty
members play or should play within the classroom. An extension of this discussion
revolved around the level of influence they hold over students’ educational
outcomes. At the start of the project, a faculty member who did not join the team
volunteered the observation that “research shows instructor and instruction and
educational process in the classroom affect 25 percent of student outcomes.” The
remaining 75 percent of student outcomes, he felt, was attributed to socioeconomic
status and genetics. To follow this reasoning, then, would mean that faculty
members are almost incidental to students learning. In fact, only certain students
would become successful learners of math and the remainder would simply struggle
through as a result of their socioeconomic status or for lacking the appropriate
genetic makeup. Although faculty members did not respond to these proffered
comments, it was with great relief that no faculty members reiterated this “research”
during our team meetings. So while team members involved in the project did not
subscribe to this reasoning, they nonetheless disagreed with one another as to the
role of the instructor and the extent to which he or she has the capacity to influence
students’ educational outcomes.
Faculty members seemed to be evenly split between those that believed they
had a significant impact on student learning and those that felt their impact was
279
minimal. Michael principally felt that instructors have minimal influence over
students, that much of student learning is self-directed and intrinsically motivated.
Although Michael believed he could provide them with the tools that could lead to
success, he maintained the opinion that students ultimately are responsible for doing
the “hard work.” Max, likewise, falls within this camp of minimal influence because
he feels his role is to motivate students to want to change their behaviors so that they
may become better learners of math. Because students have potentially built up an
aversion to math over time, Max feels students need to work through their
apprehension of the subject and be willing to say, “I don’t understand.” Students’
recognition of their own limitations will pave the way for an instructor to provide
them with the necessary “level of preparation to meet the goals of the course.” Thus,
for Max, what takes place outside of the classroom has a significantly larger impact
on student success than what takes place within the classroom. And this would
include delivery of instruction. A more thorough discussion of this particular point
will follow below.
On the other side of the spectrum, Yuri strongly believes that his primary
function as an instructor is to motivate students to do well and reach beyond their
initial expectations. He feels that students who attend CCC do not aspire to attain a
bachelor’s degree for reasons that are unclear. He surmises that students may
potentially lack the confidence to reach beyond the Associates degree. Or, in the
case of first-generation college students, they may simply lack the information that
will propel them forward to a baccalaureate degree. Yuri sees his role, then, to
280
ensure that his students do not give up and strive to work hard despite the seeming
obstacles preventing them form grasping the content matter. He does this by
encouraging his students to seek him out during office hours, to call him by his first
name, and to ask questions in class no matter how basic they may be. Early in his
career, Yuri even provided his home number to students so that they may reach him
after hours. This soon changed when it appeared that all of his waking hours were
devoted to his work and to his students. The point Yuri makes is that he tries to
build relationships with students as a means to mediate their discomfort in class.
Similarly, Alejandro believes that instructors can positively influence
students by building relationships and providing them with the motivation to
succeed. He does not elaborate specifically as to how he accomplishes this, but says
that the type of instruction he delivers aims to provide students with context so that
the subject becomes personally relevant to their circumstances and real-life
situations. He mentions utilizing group work when possible and trying to limit the
amount of time he devotes to lecture. On a personal note, he involves himself in
numerous professional development opportunities that will not only allow him to
assess his teaching style, but will enable him to learn from others. In fact, if he has a
critique about his department, it is the fact that they do not have enough time to meet
with one another on a formal basis to discuss teaching technique and effective
strategies. Another way Alejandro feels he builds relationships with students is a
result of his own membership in a particular ethnic group. As a Latino, he feels he
has a particular sensitivity to minority students and understands the importance of
281
culture when delivering content. He understands that different groups may require a
unique mode of delivery and works to find the proper balance between culture and
content.
Sandra assumes a motherly, more nurturing role in her classroom, going so
far as to bring supplies to class in case any of her students forget to bring their own.
She recognizes that she perhaps needs to be tougher with her students, yet her own
experiences as an older, returning student seem to have sensitized her to the unique
needs of students. Rachel, like Sandra, recalls her own experiences as a math student
and the sheer amount of work she had to do in order to succeed. Additionally, she
recalls several instances in which the instructor she had for a particular course was
not effective and as a result, much of her learning largely took place outside of the
classroom. Both Sandra and Rachel draw from these personal experiences to work
with students to encourage them to do well. Sandra has adopted the use of humor
and really bad jokes to put her students at ease. Rachel admits to being a drill
sergeant in her classroom, demanding that students do all that they can to master the
content and succeed.
Clearly, faculty members have differing opinions as to what their roles in the
classroom should be. Yet, to say that Michael and Max do not care about their
students to the same degree that the others do would be a gross oversimplification.
As I discuss below, all faculty members care deeply about their students and wish to
see them succeed. In fact, Sandra remarks, “We feel bad when students don’t
succeed.” And unlike the faculty member who at the start of the project said, “We
282
don’t want everybody to become mathematicians,” the faculty members involved in
the project often grew frustrated with their students for the precise reason that they
were not getting it. These faculty members often said they wanted their students to
see what they saw and did not want them to see math as merely a subject they
“needed to get through.” Thus, they endeavored to be innovative in their classrooms,
trying new approaches such as group work and group tests to try and tap into their
students’ different learning styles. The extent to which they vary their instruction
and how they respond to students distinct learning needs, however, is subject for
debate and a great deal of discomfort.
“Hand-holding…I don’t do that very often”
Although Max and Michael expressed the opinion that their role in the
classroom is not equal to outside influence, they still tried to incorporate different
approaches that would supplement their instruction. They spoke at length of the
strategies they use to ensure learning takes place. Max adheres to the notion that
instructors have a “professional responsibility… to figure out…how you can tailor
your instruction…to get maximum success out of the people that come into your
class.” This philosophy appears to carry over to team members as they all described
what they do and have tried in their classrooms. Michael talks about spending
significant amounts of time going over specific concepts with his students, even if it
means he will fall behind schedule. Alejandro and Sandra spoke of incorporating
group work within their class hours.
283
Yuri understands that students respond to different types of instruction;
therefore he attempts to blend lecture, group work, and computers throughout his
instructional delivery. Rachel, as a new instructor, looks to her colleagues for new
ideas that will help her succeed as an instructor. In the four years she has taught at
CCC, Rachel has amassed an incredible amount of skills related to technology and
instruction. She utilizes technology to tap into the different learning needs of her
students, uses an online service to dole out helpful hints to students, and provides
them with opportunities to interface with her outside of the classroom. She admits to
becoming incredibly excited about what she does and “really get[s] into it.” Such is
why at the end of the day, when student learning has not been as successful, she
becomes frustrated with her students and feels that teaching “just sucks the life out of
[her].”
The faculty members acknowledge that students in remedial math courses do
not always respond to traditional teaching methods. Additionally, faculty members
seem to understand that students in these courses will require extra time to learn
concepts, extra time to process information, and will require more attention from
their instructors. Whereas all faculty members seem to relish these opportunities, as
described in the preceding paragraphs, there is a pervading sense of discomfort over
the thought that what they are doing may be misconstrued as “hand holding.” The
term “hand holding” is pejoratively used when speaking of college students who
require special attention and/or “handling with care.” Children, for example, require
an extensive amount of “hand holding” because they are young, they have not yet
284
learned many things, and their temperaments may be such that they are not yet ready
for independence. College student, one can presume, should not require “hand
holding” as they have gone through the schooling process and should know how to
function within an educational environment.
Because students have gone through the educational process, and have
progressed from hands-on-instruction to more lecture-driven instruction, the style of
teaching prevalent in postsecondary classrooms differs greatly from the pedagogical
approaches employed at the K-12 level. This perception is held not only by faculty
members, but to a large degree, by students as well. In Cox’s (2004) dissertation,
she found that students expected a certain type of instruction from their college
professors, instruction that differed vastly from their high school experience. While
Sandra’s mention of the professor that used rubber stamps with motivational sayings
and passed out Hershey’s kisses for A’s received on a test might be typical to the
elementary classroom it is highly unexpected (and perhaps unwelcome) within a
postsecondary environment. Sandra’s reference to a colleague telling her “it’s
awfully high schoolish” for her use of particular strategies implies that faculty
members have a specific conception of what is and what is not appropriate to a
college setting. Because this dissertation does not focus on students, I cannot
determine whether these strategies are viewed in the same light by students.
Most of the faculty members expressed their unease over the concept of
“hand holding.” Michael stated that he is often deliberate in his delivery and that he
may at times discuss concepts at a slower than average pace, all with the intent to
285
ensure no one is left behind and all students understand a given lesson. Yet, he is
uncomfortable with the idea that, in some of his classes, students need constant
reassurance and require an extraordinary amount of his personalized attention. This
is a paradoxical statement given that remedial courses, by their very definition, will
entail different modes of instruction and greater levels of support for they are
populated by students who have garnered very little success in their previous
educational experiences. Sandra reports being lauded for her classroom style or for
the manner she engages her students. Yet, similar to Michael, she is somewhat
uncomfortable for her “motherly” ways and feels she needs to “toughen up” and
modify the way she interacts with her students. This begs the question: Who is she
changing for? For the best interest of her students or for the best interests of the
department?
Max suggests that to nurture students at the postsecondary level is akin to
catering to student caprices, or so it may be presumed. Rather than be viewed as
providing an environment that is conducive to personal growth and knowledge
attainment, to provide a “nurturing” environment is construed as the equivalent to
faculty members lowering expectations. Max provides the example of a new faculty
member assigning an extraordinary amount of homework, of which he received
numerous complaints from students. As the chair of the department, he went to the
new instructor with the intent to reason with her and hope that she would lessen
student’s homework responsibilities. When she refused Max realized that he was
perhaps much too influenced by students’ external circumstances. Consequently, the
286
potential for compromised academic rigor exists if faculty members give too much
consideration to individual circumstances. Given these remarks and observations, it
seems that faculty members engaging with students in remedial courses travel a very
fine, precipitous line between rigor and empathy. This becomes especially
problematic in light of the open door policy at CCC.
As noted in the previous chapter, CCC has developed a reputation for being
an extension of high school. The college is perceived by the local community and
many of its students as having a vocational focus and has become an institution
dominated by ESL students. Above all, the belief persists that if students are to
become professionals they need to attend other community colleges that have a
greater academic orientation. This seems to weigh heavily on faculty member’s
shoulders, for in their discussion of this particularly unpleasant topic, they offered
evidence that pointed to the rigor of the college, the number of students that
successfully transition to four-year colleges, and the fact that CCC “doesn’t accept
just anyone.” This last comment is particularly intriguing given that CCC is a
community college and is in fact open to anyone irrespective of ability and
preparation. Ultimately, the message they feel they need to convey is one that touts
CCC’s rigor and extinguishes any notion that what they do diminishes their
expectations of students. They do not want to be perceived as lowering standards,
lessening their expectations of students, or compromising the rigor of course content.
To “hand hold” then is an action appropriate for children and not for adults.

287
“In mathematics, it’s just, you just do it”
Faculty members’ disregard for “hand holding” may in large part be
attributed to their understanding of math and to their individual experiences as math
students. At various points throughout our meetings and during their individual
interviews, faculty members alluded to the challenges inherent to studying
mathematics. Alejandro, recalling his undergraduate years at the University,
shudders at the memory of just how difficult it was to be a math major. Yuri, who
studied math as a graduate student, states that neither he nor his colleagues had real
opportunities to engage with one another as they were too busy studying and/or
doing work related to math. Rachel spoke often of her struggles with math, implying
that she did not have a natural talent for the subject and had to work diligently to
master the content. Max “intensely disliked math” prior to taking geometry in high
school, due in large part to the rudimentary manner it was taught by his teachers.
All these stories tell a tale of a subject matter that is difficult, that is abstract,
that requires due diligence and the wherewithal to become successful learners. This
may involve, as Michael believes, doing 200 problems to prepare for a test. Or, as
Rachel advises, students will need to spend up to 20 minutes after their math class to
review their notes and ensure they understood the lesson for the day. These
suggestions are practical strategies that provide students with a skill set, which they
can draw from regardless if they are enrolled in basic arithmetic or advanced
calculus. What is missing from this dialogue of practical suggestions, however, is
how to help students overcome their feelings of anxiousness, insecurity and fear of
288
failure in mathematics. Returning to Cox’s (2004) study, she found when faculty
members took note of students’ fears and helped students work through those fears,
students were more apt to see the work as something much more doable than initially
perceived.
All faculty members are consciously aware that other issues beyond a lack of
skills are preventing students from doing well in math. Max recognizes that some
students may have developed such an unhealthy aversion to the subject that it
incapacitates them from moving forward. Both Yuri and Alejandro have spoken
about the need to use “more psychology” with their students in order to get them
through the semester. One of Rachel’s students was homeless, one of Sandra’s spent
time in jail, and Michael had a student who was blind. In light of some of these
extreme circumstances, how does offering practical and technical suggestions for
improving one’s skills set erase the emotional baggage that students carry with them
on a daily basis?
Rachel has suggested that math’s emphasis on numbers and on the use of
logic precludes a teacher from involving students in a more personal way. For
example, as an English major, I was often encouraged by my professors to try and
find similarities between myself and the characters found within the pages of a
novel. To do so would allow my colleagues and I to have a much deeper discussion
in which the themes of a given novel could be applied to contemporary events in our
lives and the world around us. A similar approach cannot be taken with mathematics
as Rachel observes,
289
You know, you do a lot of reading and one of the things that was said was
that, especially for a woman, they like to talk about things like, “How does
that make you feel?” And it’s just…in mathematics…you just do it, you
know? And I’ve been doing it now it seems like forever that it’s just second
nature to me that it’s like, what do you mean?

Rachel’s comments suggest that she does not, and would not know how to
incorporate strategies into her teaching that may provide students with the
opportunity to express their thoughts about mathematics in a non-numerical way.
This notion is further cemented by a joke commonly held among math faculty
members and which Michael shared with me. What did the mathematician say on
the first day of class? “Chapter one.” The joke being that the professor does not say
hello, does not welcome the students to the course, and does not ask why they are
enrolled in the class. Instead, the mathematician immediately delves into instruction
and wastes no time on pleasantries.
During instances when faculty members shared alternative ways of doing the
material, these strategies were often qualified by the expression, “But it takes so
much time.” Alejandro spoke often and vociferously about improving students’
critical thinking abilities. To do this, he believed, they needed to incorporate lessons
and work problems that tapped into real-world problems. These included working
on credit card interest rates, or mortgages, or finding the area of one’s lawn in order
to purchase sod. While all faculty members appreciated the inventiveness of these
suggestions and actually began to brainstorm ways to work with local companies to
provide them with real-world problems, they would often hearken back to the
290
problem of time. Sandra, somewhat exasperated, remarked, “We can only do as
much as time allows.”
For Alejandro, addressing individual needs and tapping into students’
experiences and backgrounds was predominant. He believed the way instructors
taught math was one of the major obstacles to student learning. He said during one
of our interviews, “I do believe that we have very talented students, and for one
reason or another, they cannot show their talent. It’s not that the students are dumb.
That is not the issue. It’s how we teach.” And how they teach does not incorporate
critical elements of students’ backgrounds, namely culture. As a Latino, he feels that
his culture does not adequately prepare students to deal with the “mostly abstract
thinking” required by the discipline. He holds the notion that Latino students, who
comprise the greatest number of dropouts in his courses, need to relate to math in a
different way than is conventionally thought. He says, “If I were to provide a
context, they would really relate, but if I take things out of context, they do not
relate. And if they don’t relate, forget it.” One way he can help students relate to the
content is to tell stories that “give background [and] environmental information.” To
do so would greatly facilitate student engagement, alleviate any fears students may
have, and promote a greater sense of comfort and enjoyment of the subject.
Michael, unlike Alejandro, does not believe he can take different, more
creative approaches to the subject as he is “a link in a long series of courses.” To
deviate from the conventional methodology of the discipline would mean that he
would have a hand in jeopardizing the math courses that follow. The only allowance
291
he has to be creative is in a “Math for Teachers” course he teaches for students
intending to become teachers. In this course, as noted in the previous chapter, he
allows his creativity to flow with the use of manipulatives and group work. In this
course he subscribes to a teaching philosophy that encourages students to devise
alternative ways to solve a problem and share them with the class before he allows
himself to step into the discussion and offer a solution. What he does in this course
cannot be replicated in the traditional sequence of math courses because the content
simply does not allow for creativity. In fact, he says, his colleagues would be
shocked to hear him suggest that alternative ways exist to deconstruct math.
Michael, like his colleagues, is aware of the limitations of the discipline yet
he seems to be shackled by what they can and cannot do. The faculty members
further recognize that students do not want always want to take math classes and the
feelings they harbor can fully prevent them from experiencing success. He says,
“We have a historical issue, we have an institutional issue, [and] we have a cultural
issue,” all of which prohibit students from getting “excited about math.” In their
final report to the president, the team recommended the addition of workshops to
certain remedial courses to help students build their math skills, have more time with
their instructors, and hopefully thrive under a different instructional approach. Yet
their desires to assist students to become “excited about math problems in the same
way a lot of people are excited about crossword puzzles, or chess games, or athletics
events,” are tempered by the belief that, as Michael shares, not “many students
would really be excited about that.”
292
That’s just CCC…
Present throughout the Math Project meetings was the underlying culture of
CCC. Obvious, yet difficult to articulate, this culture was often referred to by team
members as “that’s just CCC.” Peterson & Spencer (1991) describe culture as “the
deeply embedded patterns of organizational behavior and the shared values,
assumptions, beliefs, or ideologies that members have about their organization or its
work” (p. 142). Culture, according to the literature (Bergquist, 1992; Schein, 1985)
gives people a sense of purpose and shared meaning. Cultural norms and behaviors
are tacitly encouraged by the organization, often serving as a metaphor of the type of
institution described (Bergquist, 1992). Change of any kind is mediated by the
norms of the culture, such that change is least likely to occur if there are violations of
any of these institutionalized norms (Schein, 1985; Bergquist, 1992). Kezar & Eckel
(2002), in analyses of six institutions in the midst of change, found that change is
intimately tied to culture. Their research revealed that the application of universal
strategies to distinct campuses is inappropriate and will not result in long-lasting
change. They say, “…change strategies seem to be successful if they are culturally
coherent or aligned with the culture…institutions that violated their institutional
culture during the change process experienced difficulty” (p. 457).
The culture of CCC was not something specifically discussed by faculty
members either during the project meetings or during the individual interviews.
Nonetheless, there were enough hints in their conversations to give us and indication
of some of their cultural norms. One of the things that we tried to promote with the
293
Math Project was a greater sense of self and group reflection. This was a difficult
concept, not because the faculty members were in opposition to doing something that
would improve their practice, but something that simply wasn’t done at CCC.
Contrary to many institutions of higher education, CCC did not conduct any
evaluations of its instructors or of the classes taught. The student interviews faculty
members conducted as a part of the project were the first time they heard directly
from students about what they think about math, the department, and the instructors.
Students are not routinely given the opportunity to provide feedback. As a result of
the project, some of the faculty members such as Alejandro and Rachel indicated that
they have begun to pose simple questions at the beginning or at the end of the class
session to essentially get the temperature of the class.
Another aspect of the culture that was striking was the leadership present at
CCC. Not only did faculty members (including the chair of the department) not
assume leadership within the project, but they didn’t take a leadership stance within
the department. Some expressed the opinion that they hold little sway over their
colleagues even though they all believe they have good working relationships and
are open to new ideas. As a result, the Math Project never gained ground within the
department; instead, it remained as an auxiliary project that was looked upon with
skepticism by their colleagues. The lack of leadership was underscored further by a
development late in the fall semester that was external to the Math Project. A junior
faculty member elected to teach an advanced course of out sequence. Rather than
receive support and offers to be mentored, this faculty members’ competence to
294
teach the course was questioned by her colleagues. The issue was so contentious that
senior faculty proposed the implementation of new policies that would require
faculty members to teach a specific sequence of courses before being allowed to
teach in any advanced courses. This issue not only challenged the presumption of
collegiality but laid bare other, hidden issues within the department itself.
Last, CCC appears to have an underlying culture that upholds the status quo.
Change of any kind, from descriptions provided by faculty members, is slow and
hindered by several roadblocks. The lack of administrative leadership, the lack of
resources, and the lack of initiative all yielded an image of an institution mired in
defeat. Those times when I expressed my frustration to a willing listener he or she
would often remark, “That’s just how things are done here.” The discovery that
students essentially cheated on the placement tests to place in courses beneath their
actual abilities, while inspiring outrage, did not inspire a demand for change. In a
very real sense, this underlying culture context worked in opposition to the new
culture and language we hoped to embody with the Math Project. Time and again
we could observe elements of the larger cultural context that focused on student
deficits and what the institution could not do, seep in to the discussion that ran
counter to project goals. A criticism of the Math Project is that we did not engage in
a fundamental analysis of culture and context. Bergquist (1992) says, “One of the
best ways to begin to prepare for (change) and to cope with challenges is to examine
our own institutions in order to appreciate and engage diverse and often conflicting
cultures that reside in them (p. 230). Because we did not master the locality of the
295
project, we were unable to mediate the effects the culture and context would
ultimately have on the project.
Did Change Occur?
Tracking the change of the individuals involved in this project has been
decidedly difficult. Many times, faculty members would suggest one set of beliefs
during team meetings only to offer something its polar opposite during our
individual interviews. As a result, to say faculty changed would be a claim perhaps
not substantiated by this research study. At best, what the research proved was that
faculty members had a dawning awareness as to the circumstances affecting their
students. Additionally, they began to comprehend that perhaps some of the services
they provided, from tutoring to computer-based instruction, did not work for
institutionally-based reasons that were previously never considered. Below, I briefly
sum up my observations of each of the faculty members, where they began and
where they are today.
Alejandro was the group’s team leader and cheerleader. He spoke often
about the importance of the project, the need for doing this type of work, and how it
would ultimately benefit CCC students. During our team meetings, he was engaged
and never failed to challenge someone’s point of view if it differed drastically from
his own. Alejandro recognized the magnitude of race in regards to mathematics,
pointing out how traditional modes of instruction and an instructor’s unwillingness to
try new techniques may ultimately contribute to inequities in remedial mathematics.
To say that Alejandro needed to “change” would seem unwarranted given that his
296
sentiments were commensurate to our goals with the project. Where I was uncertain
about Alejandro was the impression that, though he believed in the work, maybe
someone else should do it. Alejandro at various points mentioned that he wanted to
focus his energies on students preparing to transfer. He shared his schedule
preference, listing calculus and pre-calculus as his courses of choice. He did not
hesitate to remark upon his dislike of remedial courses and the frustration he felt in
teaching them. This point of view left me perplexed.
Rachel was the youngest member of the group, and one of the youngest
faculty members on staff within the Math Department. As such, she felt that she had
a lot to learn and continuously looked towards her colleagues for advice and
assistance with her instruction. She was highly engaged throughout the team
meetings, never hesitating to express her frustrations with her courses, alternately
blaming herself and her students. She expressed feelings of not reaching her
students at the same time she felt students were not putting forth the effort to learn
the content. She understood that her experiences as a math student were markedly
dissimilar from those of her current students and tried to make up for her lack of
personal insight by reading trade books that might lead her to new discoveries. At
the start of the Math Project, Rachel was one of a handful of faculty members who
did not seem to welcome our presence. She was standoffish, did not truly participate
in our initial conversations, and she demonstrated body language that indicated, “I do
not want to be here.” Over time, her role within the team increased exponentially, as
297
she fully engaged with her colleagues, offering her opinions and providing
suggestions for their consideration.
Yuri was the quiet one, the one who would raise his hand to speak during
moments of heated debate. Over time, he appeared to have found his voice and
offered many insightful observations throughout the course of the project. One of
his observations that stands out in my memory is his understanding of students and
their distinct needs. He ardently believes that faculty members’ primary purpose was
to motivate their students to succeed. Whereas others stated that faculty members
play a minimal role within the classroom, Yuri never wavered and continued to
profess the belief that faculty members’ impact on students is substantial. As such
he believes that students are best served if faculty members take the time to
personally encourage and challenge students throughout the course of instruction.
Moreover, he felt faculty members need to learn what leads students to respond to
certain instructors. He made the observation that some students perform better with
an instructor that lectures while others respond to computer-based instruction.
Because math is such a difficult subject to master, not to mention the personal
baggage that many students bring with them, understanding the mode of instruction
that best suits them may be one way to bridge the insurmountable barrier of student
success. This information, then, will translate to more effective faculty guidance and
by extension, greater numbers of students exiting from the remedial program.
Michael, from beginning to end was among one of our most vocal
participants in the project. He had a very definitive point of view and never hesitated
298
to express it. At the very beginning of the project he expressed the belief that
students did not know how to be students, that they did not put forward the effort to
build up their skills, nor that they knew how to prioritize their time. He felt that his
role within the classroom was minimal, that once he presented the concepts to be
learned, students were ultimately responsible to ensure they mastered the concepts
and were prepared for the test that usually followed. He lay out a demeanor that
conveyed to me “strict math professor.” When I met with him individually, he
articulated quite a different persona, one that worked hard to address the distinct
learning needs of his students. Moreover, he expressed his joy with working with
students in remedial courses as he found the greatest rewards in reaching students
whose grasp of math had been so elusive. Over the course of the meetings, while his
fundamental viewpoint did not change, I did see that he began to consider alternative
explanations for students’ low educational outcomes. Unfortunately, these
explanations never really reached the personal level where he began to question
some of his own teaching methodologies, which I found, were often grounded in his
own experiences as a math student. Instead, they primarily resided either within
students or with their external responsibilities that took time away from their studies.
Sandra was a pleasant surprise. At the start of the project, she appeared
disinterested and at times, defensive in light of the data presented to the group.
Additionally, she made very clear that she was unwilling to sacrifice time away from
home in order to attend meetings on days that she was not scheduled to be on
campus. In the months that followed, Sandra became one of the projects most ardent
299
supporters, often remarking about the important role faculty members play in the
educational outcomes of their students. She was alternately pleased and dissatisfied
with the student interviews. She was excited to make new discoveries and to learn
more about her students’ lives outside of the classroom. Sandra was decidedly
unhappy that the interviews took place really late in the semester as the selection of
students was more likely to be the “survivors” of the course and not a true reflection
of the remedial mathematics students. She seemed hungry for more data to digest,
even inquiring at our final focus group if they would be doing additional interviews.
Max’s role and participation in the project is difficult to assess. As the chair
of the math department, he welcomed our presence and appeared intrigued by the
data presented. He articulated his desire to make sure “the department is superb and
is known nationwide for the quality of students and for the quality of education.” To
that end, he instituted changes in the department that would reach that goal. For
example, he initiated a policy where all faculty members were required to teach at
least one remedial course so that students have the benefit of being taught by senior
faculty. Additionally, he was well-read, reading academic journals to increase his
knowledge base. Yet, throughout the project, Max demonstrated a hesitancy to
assume ownership of the project or to exert a degree of leadership. He often
demurred from making decisions as he looked to Alejandro as the leader of the
group. At times, he vacillated between what he believed about students. At times he
questioned the role of faculty and the influence they hold over student outcomes.
300
Other times he firmly presented a viewpoint grounded in student deficit, wherein he
believed external factors largely contributed to students poor educational outcomes.
Limitations to the Study
The limitations to this study are in many ways related to the limitations of the
Math Project itself. To reiterate, the Math Project was established with the intent to
raise awareness amongst faculty members as to the status of equity on CCC’s
campus in relation to minority students enrolled in remedial math courses. This
awareness was not limited to a focus on students and exigent circumstances, but
included awareness of institutional, departmental, and individual issues. Through
collaborative inquiry, dialogue, and analysis, it was hoped that faculty members
would no longer attribute poor educational outcomes to the student alone, but rather,
would consider how their individual beliefs and actions contributed to students’ poor
educational outcomes and may have compromised educational equity. This
consideration, it was hoped, would inspire faculty members to reconsider their
preconceptions about students, learning, and teaching and ultimately, strive for
change of self and change of the status quo with respect to the remedial context.
Unfortunately, this did not materialize as anticipated.
As has been noted in the previous section much of the discussion by team
members centered on students. From students not knowing how to be students, to
students’ external responsibilities and the negative effect they have on educational
outcomes. To a far lesser extent were conversations focused on the role of the
instructor, students’ fears about math, the context of the discipline, and the teaching
301
strategies that could and could not be utilized within the mathematics classroom.
Absent from the discussion were other critical components, namely a discussion
about race in relation to mathematics and remedial education. When this
conversation did take place, it was within the confines of my individual interviews
with faculty members and not within the larger context of the team meeting.
Individually, faculty members felt that race was not a factor in the equation of poor
educational outcomes. With the exception of Alejandro who felt that culture had to
be considered when presenting content material, by and large faculty members
believed preparation and to some degree socioeconomic indicators (whether students
had to work full- or part-time) had a greater bearing on educational outcomes.
Because race was not directly raised as a topic for discussion, I do not believe that
faculty members were given sufficient opportunity to critically examine their own
beliefs about race nor those of their colleagues.
An examination of the community college context, institutional policies, and
the role of remedial education within the larger mission of CCC was likewise absent
from the discussion. Similar to my observations about race, the failure to discuss
these very pertinent issues during the team meetings precluded faculty members
from having a considered debate about the issues. For example, rarely were
comments raised about the depressed environment of the CCC campus and how this
may or may not influence a students’ engagement with the institution and the faculty.
In part, this can be attributed to their eagerness to get to and implement the solutions
that would improve students and their educational outcomes. As such, I detected
302
impatience amongst faculty members over these “theoretical discussions” that did
not have a direct impact on what they were doing within the department and in their
classrooms. This rings particularly true given that most of the faculty members
believed that, once again, many of the issues resided within students themselves and
not with the environment surrounding them.
I am reminded of a comment issued by Max over our discussion of research.
He said, “You can research something to death.” Although faculty members felt the
data garnered from the LASSI and the individual student interviews provided them
with a wealth of information they did not previously have, there was nevertheless a
sense that faculty members wanted to move beyond the research phase of the project.
They were really anxious to get to action, to implement something that would
improve students and student outcomes. Sandra commented on their slow progress
and Rachel felt she still did not know what to do with her students. Michael felt the
discussions they were having were good, yet stated that the data failed to prove
anything because it was not statistically reliable and generalizable. Instead of seeing
the discussion themselves as potential data (about teaching, about faculty members’
relationships with students) for improving practice, he believed that more
quantitative data needed to be collected to truly understand what was going on with
their students. More importantly, because the data were not considered statistically
reliable, Michael believed they would be hindered in their future attempts to secure
grants to meet their recommendations offered in the president’s report.
303
The evolution of the team and the structure of the team meeting can perhaps
explain why many of the aforementioned discussions failed to take place. Among
the more important elements of collaborative inquiry and action research is the self-
induced desire to understand why a problem exists. If the Math Project had been
faithful to its roots in collaborative inquiry and action research, then the faculty
members from CCC would have approached us at CUE to do this work with them.
That was not the case. As has been demonstrated throughout this study, researchers
from CUE sought out the department as a result of the findings from the first phase
of the Diversity Scorecard Project. When faculty members were approached and
presented with the idea, they did not appear convinced as to the merits of the project.
In fact, 7 months elapsed before we received any kind of indication that faculty
members would participate in the project. We received that indication when six
faculty members showed up to the December 2004 meeting and informed us they
would be participating.
Facilitation likewise played an important role in the topics of discussion that
emerged throughout the course of the meetings. The group’s facilitator was
primarily George. He would begin and end team meetings. He asked questions and
clarified answers. He reminisced about his own experiences with learning,
prompting others to do the same. He offered suggestions for research, bringing forth
his vast knowledge on learning and development. George encouraged the use of the
LASSI and the student interviews. Although George played a vital role during the
team meetings, the topics of conversation were primarily guided by the group, the
304
end result being that such topics as race and institutional context were not raised and
not debated by the team. This end result raises the question, “Should the facilitator
have been more direct?” Should George have deliberately introduced questions
about race and the historical context of mathematics? Would questions concerning
faculty members’ education and training made a difference in framing the discussion
on student outcomes? Had we introduced academic literature, such as portions of
Cox’s (2004) dissertation that details the miscommunication and differing
expectations between students and faculty members, would I now be analyzing a
different outcome? Or would the faculty members simply been bored?
Leadership and ownership of the project were vital to the success of the
project, and by extension, documented change. Once again, because the project was
not proposed by team members, both George and I were looked upon as the leaders
of the team. Leaders in the sense that we were expected to offer them direction,
provide them with next steps, articulate how the report to the president would be
conducted, and many other factors. When we were not present, the faculty members
looked to Alejandro as their in-house leader. He was expected to provide them with
information, remind them of upcoming meetings, and essentially keep them up to
date on the latest happenings with respect to the project. Alejandro did not object to
this role, as he had been on the original Diversity Scorecard Project team, but he also
did not do as much to integrate the project within the framework of the department.
It is unclear if this was a result of circumstances within the department itself, or a
result of inertia. What is clear from my conversations with the faculty members is
305
that the project resumed and ended with each monthly meeting. Extended
discussions of the issues covered during the meetings did not occur in the interim
weeks, either between the participating faculty members or with other members of
the department. As such, the extent to which this project was successful in meeting
its objects and influencing change is difficult to assess.
Implications for Practice
The implications for practice are substantial for the department, the
institution, and the universities that provide the training for community college
mathematics instructors. Below, I discuss the implications for each and offer my
recommendations on how each can be acted upon. Last, I will offer
recommendations for institutions wishing to implement a collaborative inquiry
project and the elements that would make it successful.
Structured meetings beyond the department meeting
The Math Project aimed to provide a structured space for faculty members to
critically discuss issues of vital importance without interference from the more
routine. By this I refer to class schedules, text book selection, etc. Faculty members
at various stages in the project consistently remarked favorably on the opportunities
this project provided them. They may have been impatient with the rate of progress,
but nonetheless, they seemed to enjoy and look forward to the monthly discussions.
As such, departments should consider how they can provide faculty members with
similar structured opportunities in which non-routine issues can be discussed and
open for debate. To have such an opportunity enables faculty members to engage
306
with colleagues and understand the points of view they embrace in regards to
students, to teaching, and to the discipline. Additionally, this provides the entire
department with the opportunity to assess its own individual mission and how that
mission corresponds to the overall mission of the college as well as addresses the
needs of a wide array of students. This becomes even more critical when the
students in question are considered “deficient” and challenge the traditional
disciplinary norms.
The role of remedial education
Institutionally, there needs to be a frank discussion concerning the role of
remedial education within a community college context. At various points during
our two year engagement with CCC faculty members, they often remarked upon the
lack of advanced courses at CCC and how remedial courses seemed to dominate
course offerings. Additionally, they feared the perception that CCC was anything
but a rigorous institution of learning and that their modes of instruction may be
considered the equivalent of “hand holding” and lowering expectations. At CCC,
remedial education was not always referred to as “remedial” because of the negative
connotations associated with the word. Instead, these courses were often referred to
as “basic,” and or “developmental.” The National Association of Developmental
Education (2003) provides the following definition: “[Developmental education]
promotes the cognitive and affective growth of all postsecondary learners, at all
levels of the learning continuum. Developmental education is sensitive and
responsive to individual differences and special needs among learners.” Given this
307
definition, and the rhetoric espoused by faculty members, there is a gulf in
understanding. As such, faculty members, staff, and administrators need to come to a
common understanding as to what remedial education is, what are its purposes, and
the role it is to assume within the greater mission of the community college. This
common understanding would enable the institution, specific departments such as
math and English, and extended service providers to tailor their services and course
offerings (i.e., faculty training, student tutoring), minimize potential inter-
departmental conflict concerning limited course offerings, and dispel erroneous
perceptions about the institution.
Awareness of the institutional culture
Acknowledging the influence of an institution’s underlying culture is
important if change of any kind is to occur. The culture of CCC was clearly present
throughout our meetings, yet it was something that was not clearly understood by the
faculty members. Rather than trying to deconstruct this culture and analyze the
influence it has on their daily interactions, they simply remarked, “That’s just CCC.”
This comment, and others like it, simply reinforce the notion that institutions cannot
be changed and institutional actors have to work within the constraints of the culture.
Yet the culture, or cultures that reside and proliferate within an institution are created
and upheld by the actors themselves. By assigning blame to the institution, faculty
members seem to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the continuation of the
status quo. This is especially problematic as students must negotiate their way
through an institutional culture that is more gatekeeper than gateway to academic
308
success. Faculty members, administrators and staff alike need to recognize that these
cultures exist and acknowledge the degree of influence they hold over institutional
practices. In raising awareness of these hidden, yet pervasive cultures, institutional
actors can become much more self-critical in their analyses of institutional issues.
The training of math faculty members
Faculty members, by and large, are trained within a traditional college
environment. With the exception of Sandra who returned to school after a 26-year
hiatus, most of the faculty members who participated in the Math Project attended
four-year institutions as undergraduates and gained admissions into traditional, full-
time graduate degree math programs. Though many of the faculty members
indicated they participated in some type of teaching experience program, none of
their graduate programs formally prepared them to become teachers at any level of
education. Upon becoming instructors at the community college level, faculty
members relied upon their individual experiences to guide them in their initial forays
into postsecondary teaching. Rachel commented on her realization that students in
the courses she teaches do not possess the same traits she did as an undergraduate.
Similarly, Max remarks upon his recognition that what works at a four-year
institution does not work at a two-year community college. Consequently,
individuals intending to teach at the community college must be provided with
opportunities to learn about effective teaching methodologies for a wide-array of
learners. This may not be possible during the graduate experience, because as many
of the faculty members relayed, many of the them did not know they would
309
eventually become instructors of math. Many of them began their careers in
aerospace, engineering, and other like professions. Yet, to have exposure to distinct
learning models and modes of instructional delivery is of particular importance for
disciplines such as mathematics where learning in a specific manner seems to be
standardized.
Implementing a Collaborative Inquiry Project
The Diversity Scorecard Project was conducted at fourteen institutions of
higher education throughout California. As a result of five years worth of data
collection and observation, we found that several elements must be in place that are
critical to the success of the project (Bauman et al, 2005). These elements include:
(1) committed leadership at both the institutional and team level; (2) team member
expertise; (3) openness to self-criticism; (4) motivation; (5) credibility; and (6)
resources. The Math Project alternately demonstrated and lacked these elements.
Below I provide a brief description of each.
• Committed leadership includes not only the leadership of the team (i.e,
Alejandro and Max), but also leadership at the administrative level.
Recognition by upper-level administration provides the group with a
sense of purpose and legitimacy in that what they are doing will not only
affect the department but will have a broad effect on the campus at large.
Moreover, the disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity has the
potential to raise uncomfortable questions and expose the vulnerabilities
of the institution. With strong leadership, this is mediated by the
310
willingness of the institution’s leader to raise the difficult questions for a
more considered debate.
• Team member expertise was evident in the Math Project by the presence
of the institutional researcher who was able to provide the team with data
for discussion. Expertise was also provided by the team members
themselves as they shared their experiences in the classrooms and the
different strategies they found successful. Expertise was lacking,
however, in trying to make inroads with other faculty members that were
not part of the project. As a result, the project remained independent of
other math department activities, and skepticism among other faculty
members as to the worth of the project remained.
• An openness to self-criticism is important when considering questions of
race and ethnicity. The tendency to “look past ourselves for the source of
problems” (Bauman et al, 2005, p. 36) makes it inherently difficult for
learning and change to occur. At CCC, faculty members occasionally
made mention of some of their personal limitations and ways they could
improve. However, as demonstrated earlier, much of the discussion
centered on student deficits and what needed to be implemented to “fix”
those deficits.
• Motivation is a key component to the success of any project. Without
this, projects may be construed as just any other activity. Math Team
members were initially resistant to the project, but over time, saw the
311
benefits of engaging in research. As a result, their motivation led them to
be present at monthly meetings, examine data, interview students, and
devise recommendations for future action. Where motivation was
lacking was in a willingness to assume leadership of the project and
integrate it with other departmental objectives.
• Credibility refers to the individuals composing the team and the standing
they enjoy within their individual communities. In other iterations of the
Diversity Scorecard Project, team members were selected that alternately
represented a variety of fields and enjoyed the respect of the campus
community. Team members involved in the Math Project were not
selected, rather they offered to join the project when others showed no
interest. Although I cannot speak as to the standing of the individual
faculty members within the department, the presence of the chair should
have, at the very least, given legitimacy to the project. Yet, from what
has been articulated by the faculty, this did not occur.
• Resources, including investment of time without compensation, were
critical to the overall success of the project. Math Project team members
devoted a great deal of time and energy to the project. Their only
compensation was the fulfillment of professional development hours and
a nicely catered lunch. Without faculty members’ (and others)
willingness to stay hours after their obligations, this project would not
have continued as long as it did. Moreover, the presence of the
312
institutional researcher and the learning skills coordinator provided a
wealth of knowledge and institutional information that added to the
discussions.
These elements, as our data has demonstrated (Bauman et al, 2005) are
critical to the implementation and success of a collaborative inquiry project.
Although the data does not suggest that a project will not be successful should any of
these elements go missing, it is nonetheless clear that the objectives of the project are
more likely to be accomplished with the presence of these vital elements
17
.
While the Math Project as a whole did not lead to transformative change of
beliefs, faculty members’ reconsideration of some of their taken-for-granted notions
about the discipline, their practice and the students show the value of the project. In
the end, however, some of their more deeply-rooted beliefs were incapable of being
changed by dialogue alone. We nonetheless believe the approach does have promise
as a model of professional faculty development as the project has been able to
demonstrate the usefulness of a process that engages faculty members in meaningful
inquiry and collaborative work that is all too infrequent in college settings.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research needs to continue to explore the role that the personal beliefs
and experiences of faculty members has on remedial instruction. The current
literature on remedial education seeks to understand the reasons underlying students’
poor educational outcomes, but rarely considers how faculty members fit within the

17
For more detailed information, see Bauman et al (2005), Achieving equitable educational outcomes
with all students: The institution’s roles and responsibilities.
313
equation. This study sought to provide a glimpse into the beliefs and experiences of
faculty members as they emerged throughout their involvement in a collaborative
inquiry project. In future research, greater numbers of faculty members at distinct
institution should be interviewed to garner a greater understanding of how their
training and understanding of the discipline of mathematics shapes their practice.
Additionally, future efforts should extend the research beyond personal interviews
and observe them in practice so as to juxtapose the information proffered with
instruction. Last, research efforts should likewise consider involving students as
their perceptions can provide for richer, more comprehensive analyses.
Concluding Reflections
The Math Project was an undertaking that simultaneously frustrated me and
gave me hope. Like the faculty members and their frustrations with their students, I
often left CCC with the question, “Why don’t they get it?” By the same token, I was
given hope for I saw that despite some of their more negative comments, all of them
were present month after month because they wanted to effect change. Over time,
they knew, as Max did, that they were not going to find the “magic bullets” that
would revolutionize the teaching of mathematics. But they came to understand that
change of any kind requires careful consideration of the issues, that change takes
time, and that change often occurs with the smallest of steps.
I was further encouraged by their recognition that students enrolled in
remedial math courses require something different from the traditional math
environment. Though they struggle with what that something is, they demonstrate
314
they are willing to try different techniques and strategies to see their students
succeed. As a former math student who grew to have an adverse reaction to
anything involving math, I am encouraged by the steps they have taken and by their
dedication to the project over the span of two years. Of course, this is tempered by
the knowledge that not much has occurred since we last met in December 2005. I can
only hope that they will continue to explore the issues, continue to be critically self-
reflective and look for ways to improve the educational outcomes of their diverse
population of students enrolled in remedial math.
315
REFERENCES
Adler, P.A. & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 377-392). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Abdal-Haqq. I. (1995). Making time for teacher professional development (Digest
95-4). Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher
Education.

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Tool Box. Academic Intensity, Attendance
Patterns, and Bachelor's Degree Attainment. Washington, D.C.: National
Institute of Postsecondary Education.

Adler, P.A., & Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anderson, B.J. (1990). Minorities and mathematics: The new frontier and challenge
of the nineties. The Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 260-272.

Angrosino, M.V., & Mays de Pérez, K.A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From
method to context. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (2
nd
Ed., pp. 673-715). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Apple, M.W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Astin, A.W. (1998). The Changing American College Student: Thirty-Year Trends,
1966-96. Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 115-135.

Astin, A.W. (2000). The civic challenge of educating the underprepared student. In
T. Ehrlich (Ed.) Civic responsibility and higher education. Phoenix, AZ: The
American Council on Education and The Oryx Press.

Attinasi, Jr., L.C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university
attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher
Education, 60(3), 247-277).

Ball, D.L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reform: What do we think
we know and what do we need to learn? Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 500-508.

316
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). The role of design in research: The integrated learning
design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.

Barajas, H.L. (2001). Is developmental education a racial project? Considering race
relationships in developmental education spaces. In D.B. Lundell & J.L. Higbee
(Eds.) Theoretical perspectives for developmental education. Minneapolis, MN:
Center for Research on Developmental Education.

Bauman, G.L. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to
achieve equity in educational outcomes. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational
learning in higher education (No. 131, 23-35). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Bayer, A. E., & Braxton, J. M. (1998). The normative structure of community
college teaching. The Journal of Higher Education 69(2), 187-205.

Becker, H.S., Geer, B., Hughes, E.C., & Strauss, A. (1961). Boys in white: Student
culture in medical school. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bensimon, E.M. (2004). The Diversity Scorecard: A learning approach to
institutional change. Change, 36(1), 44-52.

Bensimon, E.M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational learning
in higher education (No. 131, 99-111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bensimon, E.M. (2006). Learning equity-mindedness: Equality in educational
outcomes. The Academic Workplace, 17(1), 2-5, 18-21.

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

Bergquist, W. (1992). The four cultures of the academy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Block, J.H., & Hazelip, K. (1995). Teachers’ beliefs and belief systems (pp. 25-28).
In L.W. Anderson (Ed.) International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher
education (2
nd
Ed.). Oxford: Elsevier Science. Ltd.

Bochner, A.P. (2001). Narrative’s virtues. Qualitative inquiry, 7(2), 131-157.

317
Bombardieri, M. (2005, January 17). Sumners remarks on women draw fire. The
Boston Globe. Retrieved from
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/01/17/summers_re
marks_on_women_draw_fire/?page=1 on September 5, 2005.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the
terrain. Educational researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York:
Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture.
London: Sage.

Bragg, D.D. (2001). Community college access, mission, and outcomes: Considering
intriguing intersections and challenges. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(1), 93-
116.

Braxton, J.M. (2000). Introduction: Reworking the student departure puzzle. In J.M.
Braxton (Ed.) Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 1-9). Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.

Bray, J.N., Lee, J., Smith, L.L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in
practice: Action, reflection, and meaning making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Brim, O.G., & Wheeler, S. (1966). Socialization after childhood. New York: Wiley.

Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges
in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.

Bundy, A. (2000). Basic skills problems at community colleges and how to resolve
them. Change, 32(3), 44-47).

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (2006). Occupational outlook
handbook, 2006-2007 edition, (Bulletin 2600). Washington D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Burroughs-Lange, S.G. (1996). University lectures’ concept of their role. Higher
Education Research and Development, 15(1). 29-49.

318
Cain, M.S. (1999). The community college in the twenty-first century: A systems
approach. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Calderhead, J., & Calderhead & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student
teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 7(1), 1-8.

Camblin Jr, L.D. & Steger, J.A. (2000). Rethinking faculty development. Higher
Education, 39 (1), pp. 1-18.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and
action research. London: The Falmer Press.

Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and
institutional context. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction:
25 years of progress (pp. 455-478). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.

Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Design
experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(8), 249-
305.

Cohen, A.M. (1990). The case for the community college. American Journal of
Education, 98(4), 426-442.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1972). Confronting identity: The community college
instructor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (2003). The American community college (4
th
ed.). San
Francisco: Joseey-Bass.

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea
(Eds.). New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through
conjecture-driven research design. In A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook
of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231-266).
Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

319
Cooney, T.J. (1985). A beginning teacher’s view of problem solving. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 16(5), 324-336.

Cooney, T.J., Shealy, B.E., & Arvold, B. (1998). Conceptualizing belief structures of
preservice secondary mathematics teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 29(3), 306-333.

Cox, R.D. (2004). Navigating community college demands: Contradictory goals,
expectations, and outcomes in composition. Unpublished dissertation, University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cronbach, L.J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology.
American Psychologist, 30(2), 116-127.

D’Andrade, R.G. (1981). The cultural part of cognition. Cognitive Science, 5, 179-
185.

Deegan, W. L., Tillery, D., & Associates. (1985). Renewing the American
community college: Priorities and strategies for effective leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Denzin, N.K. (1989). The research act (3
rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2003). Introduction: The discipline and practice of
qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of
qualitative inquiry (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

Dossey, J.A. (1992). The nature of mathematics: It’s role and it’s influence. In D.A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
39-48). New York, Macmillan.

Education Commission of the States. (2004). Helping state leaders shape education
policy. Retrieved from
http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?print=true&issueID=200&subissueID=39 on
July 7, 2004. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Ernest, P. (1988). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. Paper
presented at the 6
th
International Conference of Mathematics Education,
Budapest, Hungary.

320
Ernest, P. (1989). The impact of beliefs on the teaching of mathematics. In P. Ernest
(Ed.), Mathematics teaching: The state of the art (pp. 249-254). London: Falmer
Press.

Fennema, E. & Franke, M.L. (1992). Teacher’s knowledge and its impact. In D.A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp.
147-164). New York: Macmillan.

Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: Brown University.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fontana, A. & Frey, J.H. (1994). Interviewing: The art of science. In N.K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 361-376). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Frank, G. (1997). Is there life after categories? Reflexivity in qualitative research.
The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 17(2), 84-98.

Fraser, B.J., Walberg, H.J., Welch, W.W., & Hattie, J.A. (1987). Syntheses of
educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational
Research, 11(2), 145-252.

Fullilove, R.E., & Treisman, P.U. (1990). Mathematics achievement among African
American undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An
evaluation of the mathematics workshop program. Journal of Negro Education,
59(3), 463-478.

Gallego, A.P. (1995). Another look at the remedial role. Community College Times,
7(17), 3.

Gans, H.J. (1982). The participant observer as a human being: Observations on the
personal aspects of fieldwork. In R.G. Burgess (Ed.), Field research: A
sourcebook and field manual (pp. 53-61). London: Allen & Unwin.

Garofalo, J. (1989). Beliefs, responses, and mathematics education: Observations
from the back of the classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 89(6), 451-
455.

Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C.
Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.

321
Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of
education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257-293.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Golafshani, N. Teacher’s conceptions of mathematics and their instructional
practices. Unpublished manuscript retrieved on February 7, 2005 from
http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/PErnest/pome18/teachers_conception_nahid_golafsh
ani.htm.

Goodman, J. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of
preservice teachers’ professional perspectives. Teaching & Teacher Education, 4,
121-137.

Green, T. (1971). The activity of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Griffin, J.B. (1990). Developing more minority mathematicians and scientists: A
new approach. Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 424-438.

Gross, S. (1993). Early mathematics performance and achievement: Results of a
study within a large suburban school system. Journal of Negro Education, 62(3),
269-287.

Grubb, W.N. & Associates, (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching
in the community colleges. New York: Routledge.

Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

Heron, J. (1981). Experiential research methodology. In R. Reason & J. Rowan
(Eds.), Human Inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research (pp. 153-166).
New York: John Wiley.

Heron, J. (1985). The role of reflection in cooperative inquiry. In D. Boud, R.
Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp.
128-138). London: Kogan Page.

Heron, J. (1988). Validity in cooperative inquiry. In P. Reason (Ed.), Human inquiry
in action (pp. 40-59). London: Sage Publications.

322
Hersh, R. (1986). Some proposals for reviving the philosophy of mathematics. In T.
Tymoczko (Ed.). New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 9-28).
Boston, Birhauser.

Hoepfl, M.C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology
education researchers. Journal of Technology Education 9(1), 47-63.

Jarvinen, M. (2000). The biographical illusion: Constructing meaning in qualitative
interviews. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(3), 370-391.

Jarvis, P. (1992). Paradoxes of learning: On becoming an individual in society. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jorgensen, D.L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning
the Goldilocks principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 419-469.

Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational
Psychologist, 27, 65-90.

Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review
of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review
of Educational Research, 72(2), 177-228).

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1992). Action research as a form of staff development in
higher education. Higher Education, 23, 297-310.

Kember, D., & McKay, J. (1996). Action research into the quality of student
learning: A paradigm for faculty development. The Journal of Higher Education,
67)5), 528-554.

Kemmis, S. (1993). Action research and social movement: A challenge for policy
research. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(1), 1-9.

Kemmis, S. (2001). Exploring the relevance of critical theory for action research:
Emancipatory action research in the footsteps of Jürgen Habermas. In P.Reason
& H. Bradbury (eds.), Handbook of action research. London: SAGE
Publications.

LaBerge, V., Zollman, A., & Sons, L.R. (1997). Awareness, beliefs, and classroom
practices of mathematics faculty at the collegiate level. Paper presented at the
323
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
March 24-28, 1997.

Ladson-Billings, G.J. (1995). Toward a theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G.J. (1997). It doesn’t add up: African American students’
mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
28(6), 697-708.

Lanaan, F.S . (2001). Accountability in community colleges: Looking toward the
21st century. In B.K. Townsend and S.B. Twombley (Eds.). Community
colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Langness, L., & Frank, G. (1978). Fact, fiction and the ethnographic novel.
Anthropology and Humanism Quarterly, 3(1-2), 18-22.

Lasly, T.J. (1980). Preservice teacher beliefs about teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 31(4), 38-41.

Lavin, D., & Hyllegard, D. (1986). Changing the odds: Open admissions and the
life-chances of the disadvantaged. New Haven, CT: Princeton University Press.

LeCompte, M.D. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 39(3),
146-154.

LeCompte, M.D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. (2
nd
Ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Levin, H. (2001). Globalizing the community college: Strategies for change in the
21
st
century. New York: Palgrave.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues,
2, 34-36.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Little, J.W. (1988). Seductive images and organizational realities in professional
development. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Rethinking school improvement. New
York: Teachers College Press.

324
London, H.B. (1980). In between: The community college teacher. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Volume 448, The Academic
Profession, 62-73.

Louie, B.Y., Drevdahl, D.J. Purdy, J.M., & Stackman, R.W. (2003). Advancing the
scholarship of teaching through collaborative self-study. The Journal of Higher
Education, 74(2), 150-171.

Love, J., Bauman, G.L., & Bensimon, E. (2004). Beyond diversity: Measuring
success at a diverse campus. Paper presented at the Council for the Study of
Community Colleges Annual Meeting. April 24, 2004. Minneapolis, MN.

Majors, W.R. (1976). Community college faculty: Unwanted stepchildren or
accepted members of the academic family? The History Teacher, 9(4), 575-587.

Marland, P.W. (1995). Implicit theories of teaching. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2
nd
Ed.), pp. 131-
136. New York: Pergamon.

Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative Research Design: An Interpretive Approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCall, G.J., & Simmons, J.L. (1969). Issues in participant observation: A text and
a reader. New York: Random House.

McCarton, A. (1983). The community college mission: Present challenges and future
visions. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(6), 676-692.

McGrath, D. & Spear, M. (1991). The academic crisis of the community college.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A
reconceptualization. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575-596). NY: Macmillan Publishing
Co.

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merisotis, J.P., & Phipps, R.A. (2000). Remedial education in colleges and
universities: What’s really going on? The Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 67-
85.

325
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey -Bass.

Mezirow, J., and Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

Moore, W., Jr. (1970). Against the odds: The high-risk student in the community
college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moses, R. (1994). Remarks on the struggle for citizenship and math/science literacy.
Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 13(1), 107-111.
Moses, R. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon
Press.

National Association of Developmental Education. (2003). Definition of
developmental education. Retrieved December 10, 2005, from
http://www.nade.net/A1.%20de_definition.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Remedial education at degree-
granting postsecondary institutions in fall 2000. NCES 2004-010. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Science Foundation, Division of Resources Statistics (2007). Women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2007 (NSF
07-315). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Nelson, W. (1983). Faculty who stay: Renewing our most important resource. In R.
Baldwin and K. Blackburn (Eds.), College faculty: Versatile human resources in
a period of constraint (pp. 67-83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 19, 317-328).

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality, New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.

Oakes, J. (1990a). Opportunities, achievement, and choice: Women and minority
students in science and mathematics. Review of Research in Education, 16, 153-
222.

326
Oakes, J. (1990b). Tracking in secondary schools: A contextual perspective. In R.E.
Slavin (Ed.), School and classroom organization (pp. 173-175). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

O’Banion, T. (1972). Teaching for tomorrow. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona
Press.

Orr, E.W. (1987). Twice as less: Black English and the performance of black
students in mathematics and science. New York: Norton.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a
messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332).

Patton M.Q. (1985). Quality in qualitative research: Methodological principles and
recent developments. Invited address to Division J of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, April 1985.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2
nd
Ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, G.C., & Terenzini, P.T. (2004). First-
Generation College Students: Additional Evidence on College Experiences and
Outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.

Peña, E.V., Colyar, J. Bensimon, E.M. (2006). Contextual problem-defining: situated
inquiry as a means of creating faculty knowledge about the academic lives of
minority students. Liberal Education, 92(2), 48-55.

Pepin, B. (1999). Epistemologies, beliefs, and conceptions of mathematics teaching
and learning: The theory, and what is manifested in mathematics teachers’ work
in England, France and Germany. TNTEE Publications, 2(1), 127-146.

Perie, M., Grigg, W., and Dion, G. (2005). The nation’s report card: Mathematics
2005 (NCES 2006-453). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

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.

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity – One’s own. Educational Researcher,
17(7), 17-22.

327
Peterson, M., & Spencer, M. (1991). Understanding academic culture and climate.
In M. Peterson (Ed.), ASHE reader on organization and governance (pp. 140-
155). Ann Arbor: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary
Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis.
Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5-23.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative
research. Journal of Counseling, 52(2) 137-145.

Potter, W.J. (1996). An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative methods.
Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Putnam, R.T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of the new view
of cognition. In B.J. Biddle, T.L. Good., & I.F. Goodson (Eds.), The
international handbook of teachers and teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kluwer.

Powney, J., and Watts, D. M. (1987). Interviewing Educational Research. London:
Routledge.

Reason, P. (Ed.). (1988). Human inquiry in action: Developments in new paradigm
research. London: Sage.

Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Remedial Education: The high cost of catching up. (1995, March 17). The Boston
Globe, p. 26.

Reyes, L.H., & Stanic, G.M.A., (1988). Race, sex, socioeconomic status, and
mathematics. Journal for Research in mathematics education, 19(11), 26-43.

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J.
Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102-119). New
York: Simon & Schuster.

Richardson, R.C. & Skinner, E.F. (1991). Achieving quality and diversity:
Universities in a multicultural society. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.

Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

328
Roueche, J.E., & Hurlburt, A.S. (1968). The open-door college: The problem of the
low achiever. The Journal of Higher Education, 39(8), 453-453.

Roueche, J.E., & Kirk, R.W. (1973). Catching up: Remedial education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roueche, J.E., & Roueche, S.D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-
risk student in the open-door college. Washington, D.C.: Community College
Press.

Roueche, J.E., & Roueche, S.D. (1999). High stakes, high performance: Making
remedial education work. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.

Rousseau, C., & Tate, W.F. (2003). No time like the present: Reflecting on equity in
school mathematics. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 210-216.

Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J.D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by academic
teachers. Higher Education, 24(1), 93-111.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J.D. (2001). Revisiting academics’ beliefs about teaching
and learning. Higher Education, 41(299-325).

Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of
“well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 145-166).

Schoenfeld, A.H. (1989). Explorations of students mathematical beliefs and
behaviors. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 338-355.

Schwandt, T.A. (2001). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. (2
nd
Ed.).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schulock, N., & Moore, C. (2006). Rules of the game: How state policy creates
barriers to degree completion and impedes student success in the California
Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education
Leadership and Policy.

329
Secada, W.G. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class, language, and achievement in
mathematics. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 623-660). New York: Macmillan.

Seideman, E. (1985). In the words of the faculty: Perspectives on improving teaching
and educational quality in community colleges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Publishers.

Seideman, I.E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Seymour, D., Love, J., Tillberg, R., Bensimon, E., Soto, M., & Hao, L. (2002).
Diversity Scorecard Project: Report to the President. Los Angeles, CA:
University of Southern California, Center for Urban Education.

Shavelson, R.J., Phillips, D.C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M.J. (2002). On the science of
education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28.

Shaw, K.M. (1997). Remedial education as ideological background: Emerging
remedial education policies in the community college. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 284-296.

Smith, L.M. (1978). An evolving logic of participant observation, educational
ethnography, and other case studies. In L. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in
education. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Smith, N. (1981). Metaphor for evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing Inc.

Soliday, M. (2002). The politics of remediation. Pittsburgh, PA: The University of
Pittsburgh Press.

Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.

Stake, R.E. (1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational
Researcher, 7(2), 5-8.

Stake, R.E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The handbook of qualitative research (3
rd
Ed.) (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks :
Sage Publications.

Stanic, G.M.A. (1989). Social inequality, cultural discontinuity, and equity in school
mathematics. Peabody Journal of Education, 66(2), 57-71.

330
Stein, S.K. (1972). Mathematics for the captured student. The American
Mathematical Monthly, 79(9), 1023-1032.

Stevenson, H.W. (1992). Learning from Asian schools. Scientific American, 267(6),
70-76.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Susman, G., & Evered, R. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merit of action
research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 582-603.

Tate, W., & Rosseau, C. (2002). Access and opportunity: The political and social
context of mathematics education. In L.D. English (Ed.), Handbook in
international research in mathematics education (pp. 271-299). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Thompson, A.G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ preconceptions of teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, 15, 105-127.

Thompson, A.G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the
research. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp. 127-46). New York: Macmillan.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student
Attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tierney, W.G. (1993). The cedar closet. Qualitative Studies in Education, 6(4), 303-
314.

Tierney, W.G., & Dilley, P. (2002). Interviewing in education. In J.F. Gubrium & J.
Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 453-
472). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Traub, J. (1995). City on a hill: Testing the American dream at City College.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches
to first year university science teachers’ approaches to teaching. Higher
Education, 32, 77-87.

United State Department of Labor. (2006). Occupational outlook handbook, 2006-07
Edition. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
331

Walberg, H.J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational
Leadership, 41(8), 19-27.

Watts, H. (1985). When teachers are researchers, teaching improves. Journal of Staff
Development, 6(2), 118-127.

Weinbaum, A., Allen, D., Blythe, T., Simon, K., Seidel, S., Rubin, C. (2004).
Teaching as inquiry: Asking hard questions to improve practice and student
achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.

Weinstein, C.E., Palmer, D.R., & Shulte, A.C. (2002). Learning and study strategies
inventory (LASSI) 2
nd
Ed. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing Company, Inc.

Willig, A.C., Harnisch, D.L., Hill, K.T., & Maehr, M.L. (1983). Sociocultural and
educational correlates of success-failure attributions and evaluation anxiety in the
school setting for Black, Hispanic, and Anglo children. American Educational
Research Journal, 20(3), 385-410.

Wilson, S. (1979). Explorations of the usefulness of case study evaluations.
Evaluation Quarterly, 3(3), 446-459.

Wilson, V. (1997). Focus groups: A useful qualitative method for educational
research? British Educational Research Journal, 23(2), 209-224.

Wilson, S.M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of
professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary
professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.

Wolcott, H.F. (1999). Ethnography: A way of seeing. London: Alta Mira Press.

Woodlief, B., Thomas, C. & Orozco, G. (2003). California’s gold: Claiming the
promise of diversity in our community colleges. Oakland, CA: California
Tomorrow.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2
nd
Ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Zech, L.K., Gause-Vega, C.L., Bray, M.H., Secules, T., Golman, S.R. (2000).
Content-based collaborative inquiry: A professional development model for
sustaining educational reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 207-217.

332
APPENDIX A

Table 13: Timeline of Math Project activities and events

Timeline of Events
Meeting Date Activity
1 5/7/04 Findings of the Diversity Scorecard Project (Phase 1)
2 9/17/05 Introduction to the Math Project
3 10/8/05 Math Department Meeting
4 12/20/05 Math Project Team Meeting (first meeting)
5 1/20/05 Math Project Team Meeting
6 2/11/05 Math Project Team Meeting
7 2/23/05 LASSI Administration
8 3/11/05 Math Project Team Meeting
9 4/8/05 Math Project Team Meeting
10 May ‘05 Faculty Interviews of Students
11 5/13/05 Math Project Team Meeting
12 6/7/05 Math Project Team Meeting
13 7/19/05 Math Project Team Meeting
14 August ‘05 Math Faculty Interviews
15 9/9/05 Math Project Team Meeting
16 9/23/05 Academic Senate Presentation
17 October ‘05 Math Faculty Interviews
18 10/14/05 Math Project Team Meeting
19 11/14/05 Math Project Team Meeting
20 11/28/05 President’s Meeting
21 December ‘05 Math Faculty Interviews
22 12/14/05 Math Project Team Meeting (Final Meeting)
23 1/20/06 Focus Group
24 February ‘06 Math Faculty Interviews
333
APPENDIX B

California Community College Math Project Today’s Date: ___________

Supplemental Information Survey

Thank you for participating in the LASSI survey!
We would like to know more about you….

Please help your college do a better job by telling us about your learning strategies and
study habits. Your responses are strictly confidential. Results will be used only for
institutional statistics and research.

Your Student ID #: ____________________________

Today’s class – please circle one
Math 105 Math 112 Math 115 Math 261

Were you born in the U.S.?

Yes No

If you were born outside the U.S., at what age did you come to U.S.? _____________

If you came to the U.S. after school age, how many years of school did you take in your
primary language? __________________________

Please rate your English language proficiency:

Speaking: Low Median High
Reading: Low Median High
Writing: Low Median High

What is your highest level of Math in high school and the average grade received?

Arithmetic A B C D
Pre-Algebra A B C D
Algebra I / Integrated Math I A B C D
Geometry / Integrated Math II A B C D
Algebra II / Integrated Math III A B C D
Trigonometry A B C D
Pre-Calculus A B C D
334
Calculus A B C D
How many hours do you study for this math class every week outside the classroom?
1-2 hours 3-4 hours 5-10 hours more than 10 hours

Do you participate in any of the following activity? Please check all that apply.
Go to tutoring sessions
Participate in Pie-shop
Have a private tutor who helps you with Math
Online tutoring
Group study

Do you work? If so, how many hours do you work every week?
Yes No
1-5 hours 6-10 hours 11-15 hours 16-20 hours more than 20
hours

Do you have child(ren)?
Yes No

If yes, how many children do you have?
1 2 3 4 more than 4

Are you the primary caregiver to your child(ren)?
Yes No

Do you have other responsibilities (like taking care of your parents)?

Please check the box if you agree:

I am willing to participate in the future research of this project.

THANK YOU!

335
APPENDIX C

CCC Student Interview Protocol

Background Questions
® Please tell me a few things about yourself and your life outside of CCC (i.e, home,
family, work, siblings, etc.)
® Where did you go to high school? Tell me a little about your high school experiences.
[some students may not have gone to school in the US so the faculty interviewer
should make judgments about what to ask, e.g., when did you come to the US]
® How well do you feel your high school prepared you for CCC? Tell me about the
math courses you took in high school.

Being a student at CCC
® How long have you been at CCC?
® When was the first time that you came to CCC? What were your first impressions of
the school? (i.e., environment, school, faculty, etc.)
® Tell me about your decision to come to CCC. How did you decide to come here?
® What has your experience been like since starting at CCC?
® If a friend were to ask you about CCC – what is it like – what would you say?
® Among the people that you know, what do they think about CCC? How do you feel
about what they think?

Ideas about Math
® What math courses have you taken at CCC?
® Did you take the placement test? Tell me about your experience taking the placement
test.
® How would you describe a “good math class”? How would you describe a “good math
professor”?
® What have been the hardest things in math for you this semester? What have been the
easiest?
® Tell me how you study for your math class and/or a math test. [probe to find out if
they are part of an informal academic network]. Describe where you typically study
(at home, in the library, at school) and how you feel about it.
® If you are unsure about the homework, like how to do it, what do you do?
® Are you familiar with the learning skills center?
® Describe to me a normal day, from the time you wake up in the morning to when you
go to sleep at night (i.e., describe classes, work, time devoted to homework, etc.)
® If your math teacher asked, “What can I do to help?” What would you tell the teacher?

Ideas about Finances
® We have discovered that many students struggle financially but they do not
necessarily try to get financial aid. What are your thoughts on this?

Ideas about Life and Career Goals
® What were your goals when you first came to CCC?
® Have your goals changed since coming to CCC?
® What are you plans and what is your ultimate goal?
336
APPENDIX D

Interview Protocol for Individual Faculty Members

Interview Protocol:
1. Background Information: Questions under this topic will address factual data such
as the number of years teaching, specific programs taught, years of academic
training and other factual information that is pertinent to getting a complete
understanding of the subject’s background.

2. Mathematics background and experience: Questions under this heading will
pertain to specific aspects of the subject’s background and experience with
mathematics. Questions will examine the subject’s educational experience from
elementary school up through graduate school to understand the degree to which
these experiences influence their understanding and practice of math today.

3. Chosen career: Questions under this heading will examine the reasons behind a
subject’s decision to pursue mathematics and teaching as a career. Potential
questions include: Why did you choose to teach at a community college? Four-year
college? How did you decide that you were going to become faculty?

4. Mathematical beliefs: Questions under this topic will address a host of educational
issues with particular emphasis on 1) beliefs about the teaching of math; 2) beliefs
about mathematical knowledge; 3) beliefs about student learning, specifically about
learning as it applies to developmental math courses; and 4) beliefs about teaching
and learning and the role of the instructor within the two constructs.

5. Collaborative inquiry as professional development: Questions under this topic
will inquire as to the subject’s participation in a collaborative inquiry project
modeled after the principles of action research and situated learning. Questions will
address the degree to which a collaborative inquiry project impacts faculty’s
conceptions about math, teaching, learning, and their perceptions of students in
developmental math courses. Questions will further probe the degree to which
collaborative inquiry as professional development fosters greater collegiality among
community college faculty and promotes a culture of evidence.

337
APPENDIX E

Post-its on the Wall
(May 7, 2004)

Question:
What do you think might be the contributing factors to the math performance gap
revealed from the data presented?

1. Individual level (students, instructors and others)
a. Students don’t know how to learn.
b. Lack of understanding of what mathematics is/does.
c. Not all students participate in their education – some have “learned”
not to ask questions.
d. Students don’t know how to learn
e. Lack of understanding of what mathematics is/does
f. Some students speak “math” rather than “English”
g. 1). Educational background; 2). Working students (no time to study);
3). Confidence
h. What are the expectations of the students from the instructors? If the
instructors expect poor performance from certain groups of students,
do they create a self-fulfilling prophecy?
i. Students are not trained to develop good working and study habits,
punctuality and consistency.
j. Junior colleges admit everyone!! We should look at what level the
student is when they enter CCC.
k. Students enter classes with a “will to fail”.
l. We don’t teach math in a way that makes sense to students. Minority
students may have a need to experience the problems in a practical
way rather than an academic/lecture way.
2. Interpersonal (relationships among students, relationships with faculty, etc.)
a. Student learning styles and instructor teaching styles don’t necessarily
math.
b. Grades are determined by factors other than student learning.
c. Progress reports could be given to students in order to give them
feedback on their strengths and weaknesses rather than a finalized
letter grade. Or, at least in addition to a letter grade.
d. Community colleges have NO (or very few) educational offerings
outside of the classroom – if a student wishes to overcome past
difficulties – we have little ot offer other than a full 3 or 5 unit class.
e. Need evaluation:
i. Self: by student (prior exit), evaluate (possibly): 1). Number of
hours planning to study; 2). What efforts will you make for
success in class; 3). Understanding grade policy
338
ii. Instructor: evaluate at end by student, asking specific/more
relevant questions.
3. Institutional (policies, practices, and culture)
a. Lack of supplemental programs for students to participate outside the
classroom.
b. Instead of just race groups, use race groups/educational backgrounds.
c. What about intervention at the middle school level – working
collaboratively with feeder middle schools and maybe also high
schools
d. Whether we are looking at the right data: 1. is there data that is
useless; 2. is there data that is missing? Based on the data, are there
measures that we would like to change? Given that we would like to
change a measure, what strategies might be effective in
accomplishing this?
e. Is grade inflation a concern in the gap? Has that been examined?
f. Instructors teach the course outline, not how to use the material
g. Teachers are more concerned with complying with the state’s
mandate of completing the curriculum, rather that with student’s
learning experience and quality
h. Educational background prior to entering: entrance level, break this
down and look at placement by race. Is our instruction affecting the
success / or is background the greatest affect?
i. Number one: Increase success by (?)
i. Smaller classes (15 max)
ii. More frequent meetings per week (M, T, W), (M, T, W, Th)
j. Number two: Class organization
i. Avoid excessive sub-dividing of courses if Number 1 proves
successful
1. 105 Æ 112 Æ 115 Æ (125 gatekeeper course): 4
semesters
2. 105 Æ 112 Æ (113 Æ 114 )Æ (125A Æ 125B): 6
semesters
ii. Number three: Grading
1. The grade of C (if not others as well), is too broad.
Does it mean a D+ or a B-? the college should have C-,
C, C+, B-, B, B+, etc.
k. Number four: Pre-requisites
i. Poor success may come from poor preparation
ii. But, enforced prerequisite accomplishment may reduce
enrollment
iii. If item number 1 can be tried and shown successful, pre-
requisites should be enforced

339
APPENDIX F

CCC Department of Mathematics
USC Center for Urban Education (CUE)
September 17, 2004

Please review the list below and rank what you believe to be the 3 most important issues
with regards to math that you would like to further pursue within an Action Research team.

Reasons for the Problem Rank
Students don’t know how to learn.

Students lack an understanding of what mathematics is/does.

Not all students participate in their education – some have “learned” not to ask
questions.

External/internal factors that prohibit learning:
o educational background;
o working students (no time to study);
o confidence

What expectations does faculty have for students? If the instructors expect poor
performance from certain groups of students, do they create a self-fulfilling
prophecy?

Students are not trained to develop good working and study habits, punctuality and
consistency.

Students enter classes with a “will to fail.”

We don’t teach math in a way that makes sense to students. Minority students may
have a need to experience the problems in a practical way rather than an
academic/lecture way.

Student learning styles and instructor teaching styles don’t necessarily match.

Community colleges have NO (or very few) educational offerings outside of the
classroom – if a students wishes to overcome past difficulties – we have little to
offer other than a full 3 or 5 unit class.

Lack of supplemental programs for students to participate outside the classroom.

Instructors teach the course outline, not how to use the material.

Teachers are more concerned with complying with the state’s mandate of
completing the curriculum, rather than with student’s learning experience and
quality.

340
APPENDIX G

Student Profile
Student S1
Race Black/African American
Primary Language English
Age Group 25-35
Place of Birth U.S.
High School
Highest Level of Math Arithmetic
Average Grade Received D
College
Grade Point Average 3.3
Fall 2004 Math Course
Fall 2004 Grade
Spring 2005 Math Course 105
Spring 2005 Grade A
Study Habits & Strategies
Hours Spent Studying 1-2 hours/wk
Tutoring Yes
Online Tutoring
Private Tutoring
Pi Shop
Group Study
Commitments Outside of School
Work No
Hours Worked
Children 2
Children’s Primary
Caregiver

Other Responsibilities No

341

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The learning and understanding of mathematics is widely acknowledged to be a critical component for economic and civic life (Oakes, 1990a). Yet, 35 percent of students, many of whom are African American and Latino, enroll and do not attain success in remedial mathematics courses at the community colleges (NCES, 2004). While many reforms aim to remediate presumed or identified deficiencies among students, rarely is the critical role faculty members' play examined within the complex web of underachievement among minority students enrolled in remedial mathematics courses.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of remedial mathematics on the success of African American and Latino male community college students

PDF

Training culturally responsive remedial math instructors

PDF

The growing gender gap among Latino students attaining a postsecondary education: a study of a minority male support program

PDF

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

PDF

Ready or not? Unprepared for community college mathematics: an exploration into the impact remedial mathematics has on preparation, persistence and educational goal attainment for first-time Cali...

PDF

Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation

PDF

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

PDF

To what extent does being a former high school English learner predict success in college mathematics? Evidence of Latinx students’ duality as math achievers

PDF

An examination of teacher-centered Explicit Direct Instruction and student-centered Cognitively Guided Instruction in the context of Common Core State Standards Mathematics…

PDF

Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

Asset Metadata

Creator Bustillos, Leticia Tomas (author)

Core Title Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: a collaborative inquiry approach

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 04/30/2007

Defense Date 02/15/2007

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

Tag collaborative inquiry,faculty,math,minority students,OAI-PMH Harvest,remedial education

Language English

Advisor Bensimon, Estela Mara (committee chair), Frank, Gelya (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email lbustill@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m461

Unique identifier UC1167859

Identifier etd-Bustillos-20070430 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-501307 (legacy record id),usctheses-m461 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Bustillos-20070430.pdf

Dmrecord 501307

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bustillos, Leticia Tomas

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