Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Training culturally responsive remedial math instructors
(USC Thesis Other)
Training culturally responsive remedial math instructors
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
TRAINING CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE REMEDIAL MATH INSTRUCTORS
by
Rochelle Camille Woods
_________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2008
Copyright 2008 Rochelle Camille Woods
ii
Table of Contents
List of Tables ………………………………………………………… iii
List of Figures ………………………………………………………... iv
Abstract ………………………………………………………………. v
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study …………………………………… 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review ……………………………………….. 14
Chapter 3: Research Design ………………………………………… 39
Chapter 4: Research Findings ………………………………………. 59
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications ………………………….. 121
References ………………………………………………………….. 145
Appendices …………………………………………………………. 150
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Science and Engineering Jobs: 2002 and Projected 2012 ………. 3
Table 2: Remedial Pass Rates for fall 2006 ………………………………. 5
Table 3: Teaching Experience of Sample Population ……………………. 53
Table 4: Teaching Experience of Sample Population ……………………. 62
Table 5: Teaching Associates’ Acknowledgement of Ethnic and
Gender Diversity in Their Classes ……………………………………….. 75
Table 6: Teaching Associates’ Role in Student Success ………………… 77
Table 7: Teaching Associates’ Learning about Classroom Management .. 98
Table 8: Teaching Associates’ Learning about Pedagogy ……………… 100
Table 9: Teaching Associates’ Learning about Math Content ………….. 100
Table 10: Teaching Associates’ Change in Practice ……………………. 113
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: How is America Doing Now in Science and Technology? ……….. 2
Figure 2: Teachers Knowledge: Developing in Context …………………….. 28
v
Abstract
This qualitative research study explores the experiences of eight graduate
students who taught remedial mathematics at a large public university. These
students participated in a training program in the fall of 2007 which was facilitated
by faculty members in the department of mathematics and funded by a Title V Grant
from the Department of Education. The goal of the Grant was to increase the number
of Latino students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
majors.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a formative program evaluation of
the training program from the perspective of the graduate assistants. The participants
were interviewed about their experiences during the semester and observed in the
weekly training workshops. The study included the Kirkpatrick (2006) framework
for program evaluation to guide the research design. In addition, culturally
responsive instruction (specifically validation, institutional agents, and authentic
caring) was used as criteria for the program evaluation given the goals of the Title V
Grant.
1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
Introduction
How do college instructors learn to teach? How do instructors learn how to
convey their content knowledge to others? An individual’s first response to these
questions may be to credit a professor’s formal college education as the way that
they learn to teach. However, for my study, this question looks beyond just acquiring
the knowledge of how to teach by becoming an expert in a particular subject matter.
Therefore, the question really is ‘How do instructors become knowledgeable in
pedagogical methods that will facilitate student achievement?’ There are
credentialing systems in place to prepare K – 12 teachers, but what safeguards has
the field of higher education implemented to ensure that instructors are capable of
facilitating successful classroom dynamics in institutions that are becoming
increasingly racially and ethnically diverse. This research study evaluated the
California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) program that assisted new instructors
as they learn how to teach remedial mathematics.
The educational issue
Globally there is an increasing need for more highly educated workers,
specifically in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.
Statistics from Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2007) show that fewer U.S.
students have been majoring in STEM fields compared to students in other countries
(see Table 1).
2
Figure 1: How is America Doing Now in Science and Technology?
However, the occupational needs in technologically related fields are increasing.
According to the National Science Board, the growth rate of science and engineering
careers will increase three times faster than the growth rate for all occupations
("Science and Engineering Indicators 2004", 2004) (see Table 1).
3
Table 1: Science and Engineering Jobs: 2002 and Projected 2012 (Thousands)
Occupation 2002 2012 Change
All occupations 144,014 165,319 21,305
S&E 4,873 6,119 1,246
Computer/mathematical scientists 2,504 3,480 976
Engineers 1,478 1,587 109
Life scientists 214 253 39
Physical scientists 251 287 36
Social scientists/related occupations 426 512 86
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Occupational Statistics
and Employment Projections, National Industry-Occupation Employment Projections 2002–2012
(2004).
U.S. leaders have shifted their attention to the issue of increasing STEM majors to
stay competitive in the global economy. According to Secada,
Full participation in our most cherished democratic institutions, projections
for civilian workforce and military needs, and shifts in our country’s and the
world’s economic systems all point to the need for everyone – not just for a
few – to possess more and different mathematical and scientific literacy than
is currently made available in schools. (Secada, 1992, p. 623)
There are different ways to address this educational issue. One way to address this
supply and demand problem is to import the workforce from other countries
(Johnson, 2007, p. 2). Another way to address the problem is to increase the amount
of college participation and graduation among U.S. citizens. In order to accomplish
this,
The United States must foster an atmosphere that will make it possible for
minorities to become better educated in mathematics so that this population
will help the country maintain its place as a world leader in science and
mathematics as well as in industry and technology. (B. J. Anderson, 1996, p.
201)
4
California State University, Fullerton has decided to address this problem by
increasing the number of students who choose STEM majors and then find success in
completing the degree.
Educational Problem of the Study
One common characteristic of STEM majors and careers is the need for
substantial mathematics skills. All of the STEM bachelor’s degrees at CSUF require
at least one semester of college level calculus. The problem that my study addressed
is the high number of students of color in remedial mathematics which in turn affects
the number of these students in STEM majors. Nationwide, the pathway to acquiring
higher level mathematics skills shows disproportionate numbers of students of color
placed in remedial mathematics courses. At CSUF in the fall of 2007, 38.5% of the
Mexican American students and 39.2% of other Latino students were assessed as
needing remediation in mathematics
(http://www.asd.calstate.edu/remediation/07/Rem_Ful_fall2007.htm). The only
group that exceeded these percentages was the African-American student population
with 44.8% needing remedial mathematics. These percentages are significant when
compared to the 21.5% of White/Non-Latino and the 14.5% of Asian American
students who required mathematics remediation during that same period. The
University does publish the pass rates for remedial mathematics, but unlike the
statistics of students who need remediation, the pass rates are not disaggregated by
ethnicity.
5
Table 2: Remedial Pass Rates for fall 2006
1
# Enrolled # Passed % Passed
Math 45 29 14 48.3%
Math 40 691 556 80.5%
Math 30 A 312 279 89.4%
Math 30 B 51 40 78.4%
Placement in remedial coursework hinders students from gaining their
baccalaureate. Placement in remedial mathematics translates into at least one
additional semester of coursework, essentially slowing students’ progress toward
degree completion and acting as a gatekeeper to STEM degrees and careers. The
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics states “Within diverse student
populations, African-American, Native American, Hispanic, and poor students are
more likely to have fewer opportunities to participate in higher level mathematics
classes; thus their mathematics achievement does not meet parity with the total
population” (Rubenstein & Bright, 2004, p. 1). So, one of the largest challenges
toward increasing students of color in STEM majors is the high likelihood of their
placement in remedial mathematics courses. Laurie Hart writes,
There are many reasons why issues of equity and justice are important in
mathematics education. Mathematics has been used as a filter that influences
who may study in particular fields and who may advance to higher levels of
education and career success. (Hart, 2003)
1
Fall 2007 statistics are not available as of 4/18/2008:
http://www.fullerton.edu/analyticalstudies/new_students/FTFremstatsFA06.pdf
6
As a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI)
2
and the recipient of a five-year, 2.5
million dollar Title V grant
3
the mission of CSUF is to serve Hispanics, yet they are
highly concentrated in remedial mathematics. CSUF is addressing this problem by
training their remedial mathematics instructors in ways to improve student academic
outcomes. The remedial mathematics instructors are graduate students in the Masters
of Arts in Mathematics program at CSUF and have little or no teaching experience.
They are referred to as Teaching Associates (TAs) and differ from what is
traditionally referred to as a Teaching Assistant because they teach their own courses
independently. Traditional Teaching Assistants conduct labs or discussion sections
as part of a larger lecture class taught by a faculty member.
Using the master’s students to teach serves two purposes. It enables them to
gain experience before moving into a full time teaching position. In addition,
because first time freshman must take mathematics during their first semester, it
helps the Department of Mathematics offer a larger number of courses. However, the
classes in the master’s program focus on mathematics content and not on pedagogy.
As remedial mathematics instructors who teach an ethnically diverse student
population, learning pedagogical techniques is critical for the success of students of
color.
2
HSI is a federal designation which defines institutions as having at least 25% of its enrollment
consisting of Hispanic students. It began in 1992 as a provision in the reauthorization of the Higher
Education Act.
3
Title V is a program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education to help institutions of higher
education enhance and expand their capacity to serve Hispanic and low income students.
7
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of my study was to conduct a formative evaluation of the impact
of the CSUF instructor training program specifically from the perspective of the fall,
2007 participants. For this dissertation, the overall guiding research questions for this
study are (1) In what ways did the Teaching Associates experience and evaluate the
training program; (2) In what ways did the activities, organization of the program,
and composition of the cohort influence the experience of the participants; and (3) In
what ways did the Teaching Associates learn about or exhibit characteristics of
culturally responsive instructors. Culturally responsive instruction was not the
specific vernacular used in the Title V Grant, however the goal of the grant was to
increase the numbers of Latino/as in STEM majors at CSUF. I purposely decided to
use culturally responsive instruction as a criteria for this program evaluation because
given the goal of the grant, instructors who exhibit characteristics such as validation,
authentic caring, and institutional agents, increase student learning and academic
success.
For this dissertation, I selected Donald Kirkpatrick’s program evaluation as
an overall framework to guide the design of my research. His first three levels of
evaluation ask: (1) How do participants react to the training program; (2) What did
they learn as a consequence of their participation; (3) In what ways did the
participants change their behavior as a consequence of the program. I will discuss
Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model more fully in Chapter 3.
8
Overview of the Training Program
The program was implemented in spring, 2006 to improve the knowledge and
skills of the instructors who teach remedial mathematics and participation is
mandatory. The expectation is that by increasing instructors’ knowledge and skills,
students in remedial coursework will experience a more beneficial learning
environment. The instructor training program consists of three components:
Weekly 50-minute workshops on pedagogy techniques, lesson planning, and
creating a classroom environment supportive of diverse learners. Two faculty
coordinators whose area of research is mathematics education conduct the
workshops.
Classroom observations by both the faculty coordinators and the instructors’
peers.
Electronic journals (instructors responded to on-line questions provided by the
faculty coordinators).
Although not directly stated, one goal of the instructor training program is to
improve the participation and success of Latinos/as in STEM fields. The program is
funded by a Title V grant and although the goals of the grant in regards to the
instructor training program are very general, based on my involvement in the project
and as a result of several conversations with the principal investigator, it can be said
that the authors of the grant were concerned about increasing the number of
Latinos/as at CSUF who choose majors in STEM. However, because a large number
of Latinos/as at CSUF are placed into remedial mathematics, the principal
9
investigator felt that the quality of instruction in remedial mathematics can impact
student’s decisions as to whether they will major in STEM and whether they have
been prepared to succeed.
Institutional Context
California State University, Fullerton is the only four-year public
comprehensive HSI in Orange County. As a campus in the CSU system, its target
service area includes Orange County and three adjacent districts of Walnut, Whittier,
and Chino Valley. Of the 31,673 CSUF undergraduate students enrolled in the fall
2007, 30.8% were white, 22.3% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 29.6% were
Hispanic (http://www.fullerton.edu/analyticalstudies/ethnicity/ethpie074.pdf). In the
fall of 2004, the Department of Education awarded CSUF a 2.5 million dollar, five-
year Title V grant to increase the number of Latino/a students in STEM majors. In
the fall 2007 semester, undergraduate student enrollment in the STEM majors was
3,073 with approximately 795 (25.9%) of those students self-identifying as Chicano
or other Hispanic
(http://www.fullerton.edu/analyticalstudies/ethnicity/FA07ethcolmaj.pdf). The 2006-
2007 CSUF statistics reveal that of the 354 bachelor’s degrees conferred in STEM
majors, only 56 (15.8%) were awarded to Chicano or other Hispanic students.
(http://www.fullerton.edu/analyticalstudies/degrees_grad/degreeaward/2.51.9.07.pdf)
As higher education moves toward becoming more accountable for the educational
outcomes of their students, it is important that graduation rates for all students,
especially students of color, are equitable.
10
Importance of the Study
Instructor preparation has a direct impact on the success or failure of students
in remedial mathematics courses, yet preparing to teach in colleges and universities,
unlike the preparation for K – 12 teaching, is focused on content knowledge.
…our preparation for becoming faculty members – that is, our graduate
education – has typically focused on academic content. Even degree
programs that have prepared us to become faculty in schools or colleges of
education have generally given little attention to pedagogy in the higher
education classroom. (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 114)
There is some empirical research on the preparation of instructors for college and
university level teaching. However, most of the research on teacher preparation has
focused on pre-service preparation for K – 12 teachers. Professional organizations
such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics have developed industry
standards for teaching mathematics, primarily intended for K-12 education. These
standards are inclusive of all students including those that have been disenfranchised
from educational opportunities and students who have not been successful in
mathematics. In addition, there is very little empirical research specifically on HSI’s
and a need to develop studies on the attitudes, values, and commitments of faculty
members teaching at these institutions (Contreras, Malcom, & Bensimon, in press
2008). Since graduate students teach the majority of the remedial mathematics
courses at CSUF, and a student’s first year of college is critical to their retention,
then the instructor training program needs to be evaluated to determine its
effectiveness. The research of Rendon, Villegas and Lucas, Stanton-Salazar, and
Valenzuela looks at how students of color can persist with the guidance of culturally
11
responsive instructors. So my study explores a critical point in a student’s academic
career, their first semester in a remedial mathematics course, and how relatively new
instructors can gain knowledge and change their behavior based on a training
program.
Supporting Theories
One underlying pedagogy that supports creation of equitable outcomes for
students of color is based in feminist theory. “Feminist pedagogy resists the
assumption of a de-raced, de-gendered, de-classed student and instead acknowledges
the influence that social locations have on histories and styles of learning” (Tice,
Jackson, Lambert, & Englot, 2005, p. 89). By incorporating pedagogy based on
feminist theory into instructor education, characteristics of students’ race, class, and
gender are considered influential factors in the learning environment. Teaching
becomes focused on student-centered learning.
Cognitive psychology theory supports the belief that as instructors learn how
to teach and gain experience, they transform their knowledge and thinking.
“Learning to teach entails the acquisition of knowledge systems or schemata,
cognitive skills such as pedagogical problem solving and decision-making, and a set
of observable teaching behaviors” (Brown & Borko, 1992, p. 211). Using cognitive
psychology theory as a framework, facilitators of training programs can incorporate
factors into the programs that transform the knowledge, skills, and behaviors of the
instructors.
12
The constructivist method of teaching is “respectful of student diversity and
recognizes the central role that individual and cultural differences play in the
learning process” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. xv). This is a characteristic that faculty
members need to be cognizant of and can use as a teaching tool. “…the diversity of
perspectives from which they [the students] see the world becomes a tool for
teaching the concepts of the course” (Tice et al., 2005, p. 16).
Limitations of the study
Due to the time frame of this particular study, the interviews, observations,
review of supporting documents, and program evaluation of the instructor training
program occurred only during the fall, 2007 semester, although the training program
continued through the spring 2008 semester. This program was created specifically
to address the needs of mathematics graduate students who teach remedial courses at
CSU Fullerton and generalizations beyond this particular sample cannot be assumed.
The outcome of this study will provide information for CSUF leaders which can lead
to improvements in the instructor training program.
Organization of the dissertation
This dissertation is five chapters. The first chapter was designed to provide
the reader with a basic knowledge of the problem of decreasing numbers of students
pursuing STEM majors and an overview of my study. Chapter 2 reviews relevant
literature about teacher education and culturally responsive teaching. The third
chapter will outline the research design and method of data collection. Chapter 4
reports and analyzes the findings of the interviews, observations, and document
13
analysis. The final chapter will make recommendations for the instructor training
program, discusses the implications for the stakeholders, and concludes with
recommendations for future research and training program evaluation.
14
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
The literature reviewed for this dissertation is categorized into two areas: a)
professional development of instructors/teacher education and b) the characteristics
of culturally responsive teaching: institutional agents, validation, and authentic
caring. Research and theories on these topics have been concentrated on the K – 12
arena; however, writings about higher education institutions continue to increase.
Literature regarding professional development of instructors/teacher education
In order to assist in the evaluation of the instructors’ experience in the CSUF
training program, I reviewed selected writings on preparation programs for teachers.
Additionally, I read empirical studies about teaching assistant (TA) training
programs, an issue that has been brought to the national forefront because of the
increasing number of international TAs teaching undergraduates (Wilkening, 1991).
Departments choose to utilize teaching assistants for a variety of reasons. One
prominent reason is economics. Undergraduate courses need to be taught and TAs
often need financial support and can provide inexpensive labor, freeing faculty
members to focus on research, publication, and service.
The CSUF Department of Mathematics employs their master’s students as
instructors for the remedial courses, but this practice has drawbacks and possibly far-
reaching consequences. Becoming an effective instructor requires adequate formal
preparation (Darling-Hammond & Hudson, 1990, p. 242). Also, experience in the
classroom helps instructors learn. “Efforts to describe the stages teachers go through
15
in learning to teach generally posit an initial stage of survival and discovery, a
second stage of experimentation and consolidation, and a third stage of mastery and
stabilization” (Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996, p. 66). Since successful
completion of college level mathematics is required for all CSUF students, the mix
of students’ skill level, interest, and majors is most significant in the remedial
mathematics courses. Therefore, instructors need to possess a certain level of skill
and self-efficacy to teach remedial coursework. Being a competent instructor entails
two types of knowledge, subject matter or content knowledge and pedagogical
knowledge. In addition, Paul Ramsden outlines several principals of effective
teachers: concern and respect for students and student learning, appropriate
assessment and feedback on students’ work, and learning from students what the
effects of the instruction is on their learning (Ramsden, 2003).
Graduate students who teach are concerned with their own progress toward
their degree and may not devote the time needed to improve their classroom
pedagogy. Teacher preparation programs not only help instructors understand how to
teach a particular subject matter, but also how to adapt the pedagogy to the specific
learning needs of a student. Learning to teach is a continual process, drawn from an
individual’s personal experience from how they were taught in K-16, progressing
through their formal conceptual and pedagogical instruction in teacher preparation
programs, and continuing throughout their own careers.
Beginning K – 12 teachers arrive in their classrooms shaped by formal
teacher preparation, and often, by their personal educational experiences. By
comparison, novice collegiate instructors lack the benefits of formal
16
preparation and often simply rely on their images of typical professoriate
behavior formed by experience and popular culture. (Tice et al., 2005, p. 261)
Preparation to become faculty members at the collegiate level (through graduate
programs) typically focuses on academic content (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Instructors at the collegiate level develop their teaching style through trial and error
and through conversations with their peers. Institutions can positively influence the
way instructors teach by creating a positive and supportive working environment and
providing incentives to participate in professional development activities.
The American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC),
defined as the leading professional mathematics organization that solely represents
two-year colleges, published guidelines for the academic preparation of mathematics
faculty members at two-year colleges. They state, “we strongly recommend that only
properly qualified personnel be permitted to teach mathematics. Ill-prepared
instructors can do much harm to students’ knowledge of and beliefs about
mathematics” (Guidelines for the Academic Preparation of Mathematics Faculty at
Two-Year Colleges, 1992, p. 1). Furthermore, the AMATYC believes that
mathematics instructors must be prepared to help and encourage African-American,
Hispanic, Native American and female students in mathematics based majors (p. 1).
In addition to content knowledge, effective instructors need to possess a command of
pedagogical knowledge in order to adapt to the needs of their students.
17
A body of literature exists that addresses the structure of teacher education
programs. It discusses the importance of incorporating culturally based aspects and
opportunities for supervised experience.
To make learning possible, it is proposed that all faculty members should
receive training in the following three elements: (1) didactic course on
cultural issues impacting the professorate, (2) supervised experience in
teaching culturally diverse students, and (3) research experience that focuses
on teaching and learning issues that impact diverse students. (Tice, et al.,
2005, p. 232)
Tice et al. advocate that faculty members teaching at the university level can enhance
their teaching experience with workshops that focus on topics such as:
demographic trends in the United States;
world demographic trends;
demographic profiles of American college students by race, gender, and
discipline;
learning styles characteristic of specified racial/ethnic groups and genders;
academic and research topics of particular interest to selected racial/ethnic
groups and genders;
special challenges faced by selected racial/ethnic groups and genders in
American higher education;
hidden vestiges of discrimination in American colleges and universities - for
example, standardized tests, monocultural curriculum offerings, and the
devaluation of diversity efforts in the promotion and tenuring of faculty
members. (Tice et al., p. 233)
18
A certain amount of skill development for faculty members can also come from
direct observation of their peers.
Classroom observations by peers or others are another useful learning
tool…The observer typically sits in a corner, watches, listens, and takes
notes…Observational reports often contain helpful suggestions for presenting
concepts and examples, fielding questions, and engaging students in
discussion. (Tice et al., p. 139)
Buerkel-Rothfuss and Gray (1991) published an empirical study which
surveyed 164 graduate school deans and 339 chairs of departments. The survey of
the deans focused on institution wide training programs while the questions for the
chairs were based on department level programs. This study specifically researched
TA training issues with the following research questions:
What training is provided to TAs and what is the nature of that training?
How do administrators evaluate and how satisfied are they with that training?
What sorts of follow-up training and supervision are provided?
How do administrators evaluate that follow-up/supervision?
How satisfied are administrators with TA teaching overall? (Buerkel-
Rothfuss & Gray, 1991, p. 31)
Outcomes of the study revealed that less than 0.3% of the responses from the
deans indicated training programs that lasted a full semester, with the majority
(52.8%) indicating that their program was one day or shorter in length. The majority
of these programs were not mandatory, and the deans believed that fewer than half
the TAs participated in the training. Two key characteristics of the mathematics
instructor training program at CSUF are its year-long length structure and its
19
mandatory participation. “A mandatory program can provide all new TAs with a
foundation based on a core of common knowledge while re-emphasizing the need for
continued learning and self-evaluation” (Hiemae, Lambert, & Hayes, 1991, p. 127).
The outcomes of the chairs’ surveys were similar in relation to the length of
the training programs (84% were one week and 2.7% lasted the entire semester).
About half (53.1%) of the chairs indicated that the training was mandatory. If it was
optional, the chairs indicated that about 80% of the TAs participated. A variety of
topics were covered in the training programs surveyed, for example classroom
management, writing lesson plans, and course policies and procedures. Common
components of the programs included methods courses, observing classes, visits by
other instructors, videotaping classes, and peer assistance. The CSUF program
covered topics such as best teaching practices, student engagement activities, and
classroom management techniques.
CSUF TAs were observed in the classroom by experienced faculty members
and also observed their peers. In the book A Practical Handbook for College
Teachers, Fuhramann and Grasha provide four basic requirements for conducting
peer observations 1) “Have a meeting before the class session [to explain how you
teach and why], 2) Give your observer specific things to watch for in class, 3) Have a
debriefing session immediately after the class session [while the observation is fresh
in your minds], and 4) Jointly explore ways to improve [colleagues can offer
suggestions and advice]” (Fuhramann & Grasha, 1983, p. 207).
20
Buerkel-Rothfuss and Gray also found the most common ways for
institutions to gage the effectiveness of their TA training programs is through
evaluation forms completed by the TAs and the students that they teach. Observing
the TAs in the classroom is another frequent method of evaluating the affect of the
training program.
Gray and Buerkel-Rothfuss (1991) conducted an additional study which
gathered the opinions of TAs about their training programs. The research questions
that guided this study were:
What are the demographic characteristics and teaching responsibilities of
TAs?
What training experiences, supervision, and/or ongoing/follow-up training
activities are available to TAs and what are their evaluation of those
activities?
What are the TA’s perceptions of their teaching readiness or ability and to
what degree do they feel training affected that ability?
What are the perceived needs of TAs and of what perceived importance are
various activities for meeting those needs? (Gray & Buerkel-Rothfuss, 1991,
p. 40)
The sample size of TAs surveyed was 207. The majority of these TAs had no
teaching experience prior to enrolling in their graduate program and 53% of them
indicated that they participated in some form of training, usually lasting one week or
less. Most of their programs (80%) included information on course
21
policies/procedures and grading assignments and these two topics were ranked with
the highest levels of satisfaction by the TAs, 7.6 and 6.7 respectively on a 9 point
scale. Overall, the TAs were slightly satisfied with their training, with a mean result
of 5.9 when asked about the satisfaction with the quality of the training. This may be
due in part to the diversity of training programs and the experience level of the
trainers. The diversity of types of training program is due to institution type,
discipline in which the TA teaches, and their specific responsibilities. In addition, the
future career plans of the TAs can also affect the design of the training program. For
example, many of the M.A. mathematics students at CSUF aspire to teach at a
community college, so the facilitators of the training program should keep this in
mind when designing the program.
According to W. Norton Grubb, good instructors utilize multiple pedagogical
methods in the classroom. “Instructors should know their students and their goals
well, and modulate instruction to fit both their interest and their background
(including levels of preparation)” (Grubb, 1999, p. 39). It is through teacher
education programs that instructors learn skills to become good instructors. In
Honored but Invisible: An Inside Look at Teaching in Community College, Grubb
and his associates observed and interviewed 257 instructors at 32 higher education
institutions. They noted the lack of “empirical literature on teaching in community
colleges or other adult settings” (Grubb, 1999, p. 14). Grubb’s research found a
shortage of formal teaching programs for instructors in higher education and that
trial and error is the method professors use to hone their skills. Grubb concluded
22
from interviews with instructors and administrators that the quality of teaching can
be improved if institutions actively foster good teaching though instructor training
and retraining (p. 280). He also points out the fact that subject matter competence
does not guarantee that an instructor will have an understanding of pedagogical
methods. An instructor in the Grubb study noted how there is a lack of training on
how to teach.
The irony is that we’re not taught to be teachers at the college level…We
teach high-school teachers how to teach…We teach administrators; you can
go get your Ph.D. in administration. But we don’t teach college teachers how
to teach. They just throw you right in it...Nobody is sitting there talking about
the pedagogy of teaching college students, you know, the whole philosophy.
(Grubb, 1999, p. 294)
Grubb did report two states with exceptions, Minnesota and Iowa, where
faculty members take courses on teaching skills. Additionally, the issue of peer
support for new instructors was discussed with several exceptional institutional
support policies in place. For example, the Community College of Westville
4
requires that the probationary teachers receive 90 hours of staff development. In
addition, the developmental studies program at North County Community College
5
has seasoned faculty members mentor new part-time instructors. Grubb found these
mentoring programs to be the rare exceptions rather than the common rule of
practice. Grubb’s writing also featured outstanding examples of community colleges
where the institution’s culture supported policies to enhance instruction. For
4
Pseudonym
5
Pseudonym
23
example, Choctaw Community College
6
evaluates instructors based on classroom
observations of peers and administrators.
The significance of Grubb’s study stems from its breath of community
colleges included and the methodology used (interviews and observations) which
provide a rich overview of teaching at the community college level. In general, there
is a lack of research on instructional practices at the higher education level. Grubb
lays the foundation to encourage further research at the higher education level in
particular at the 4-year institution level.
The University of Michigan implemented a mandatory training program for
its first-time teaching assistants in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Its
focus was diversity training in addition to classroom techniques (Schoem, 1995, p.
271). The organizers discovered that aspects of multicultural training were more
readily received when the information was integrated throughout the program as
opposed to a special session on the topic. They also found that teaching assistants
who had an understanding of their attitudes toward racism, sexism, and inter-group
relations could create classrooms where multicultural teaching could succeed.
Farmer, Hauk, and Neumann provide suggestions for the design of an
effective teacher training program and discount the effectiveness of the common
one-day workshop model. This type of program “asks teachers to ‘reform’ without
providing the necessary time, active engagement, and intellectual scaffolding of
highly contextualized discussions of content and process awareness” (Farmer, Hauk,
6
Pseudonym
24
& Neumann, 2005, p. 66). It is through critical self-reflection in a professional
development program that instructors become empowered to make changes at their
institutions.
Literature regarding culturally responsive teaching and pedagogy
I reviewed literature on culture, its impact on education, and the development
of culturally responsive instructors. This gave me a broader understanding on how
characteristics of culturally responsive teaching are translated into pedagogy in the
classroom.
Culture is defined as “a dynamic system of social values, cognitive codes,
behavioral standards, worldviews and beliefs used to give order and meaning to our
own lives as well as the lives of others” (Gay, 2000, p. 8). Culture does have an
impact on education. It has an influence on how we learn and subsequently how
instructors teach.
Education is deeply implicated in the politics of culture. [Classroom
curriculum] is always part of a selective tradition, someone’s selection, some
group’s vision of legitimate knowledge. It is produced out of the cultural,
political, and economic conflicts, tensions, and compromises that organize
and disorganize a people. (Nasir & Cobb, 2002, p. 93)
Culturally responsive teaching can be defined as teaching grounded in
“multicultural contributions, experiences, and orientations” (Gay, 2000, p. 25) and
shifts away from the traditional middle class Western European style of instruction.
Culturally responsive teaching is validating, comprehensive, multidimensional,
empowering, transformative, and emancipatory (Gay, 2000). Historically, students
have been expected to adapt their learning style and behavior to the dominant
25
classroom culture. Students were successful when they understood and could
communicate with the culture of those in power, specifically the instructor.
Becoming acculturated in the classroom implies that students have accepted a certain
code of conduct that has traditionally been tied to Western European values.
However, research on students of color has articulated the need for their culture to
play a role in the classroom, specifically with the subject of mathematics.
Educators must consider the culture of our students as we adopt an
accommodating cultural pedagogy – one that gives the students the power to
be a part of the mathematics culture as they use familiar knowledge (which
becomes power) of their culture. (Malloy & Malloy, 1998, p. 245)
If a student possesses different cultural values than the dominant classroom
culture, then they face the challenge of adapting to the dominant power codes and
rules. Otherwise, the differences in the cultural values will articulate themselves in a
student’s classroom behavior, for example, the ways they relate and interact with the
group, the normative communication and the styles of interactions (Malloy &
Malloy, 1998). Professors Carol and William Malloy write about culturally-based
pedagogy in the classroom, specifically focusing on African-American students in
mathematics courses. They concluded that instructors need to adjust their pedagogy
and that being a culturally responsive instructor entails seeking pedagogy methods
that utilize multiple learning preferences. In mathematics, this means
accommodating holistic, field-dependent, interdependent thinkers. “Culturally based
pedagogy can give all students, regardless of their learning preferences, the
opportunity to learn mathematics” (Malloy & Malloy, 1998, p. 251). This occurs
26
through the instructor’s ability to help their students use their own cultural
preferences for learning. Successful instructors have an understanding of the
relationship between their students’ learning and culture. Jerry Evensky writes,
You cannot know the unique cultural understandings of every student in your
class, but being aware of your students’ cultural diversity will prompt you to
remember that diversity as you try to think of ways in which to communicate
and relate the material to each of them. (Evensky, 2005, p. 15)
According to Rubenstein and Bright (2004), being a culturally responsive
educator is important because of the impact on student success in a diverse
classroom. Rubenstein and Bright address the issue specifically in relation to
mathematics stating “Effective teaching is an essential component of equity in
mathematics education” (p. 141). Culturally responsive instructors promote
educational equity for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or social
class. The belief that culture is a factor in how a student learns requires that
instructors who teach in diverse environments need to learn how culture impacts the
learning dynamic in the classroom. Traditional classroom instructional methods are
based in traditional European perspectives, meaning that teaching practices reflect
European American cultural values (Gay, 2000). In the classroom, competition is
emphasized instead of collaboration; assessment methods focus on learning
outcomes, not the process of learning, and the instructor is the sole source of
authority in the classroom utilizing passive teaching techniques like lecturing
(Rendon, 1994, p. 34). According to Ortega et al., “Traditional education fails to take
27
into account ethnic diversity; therefore, people are inadequately prepared to interact
in culturally diverse contexts” (Ortega, Jose, Zuniga, & Gutierrez, 1995, p. 51).
Culturally responsive instruction filters curriculum content and teaching
pedagogy through a cultural frame of reference enabling students to embrace and
master new content knowledge (Gay, 2000). In addition, instructors who are
culturally responsive believe that their students are not working from an educational
deficit and are capable of being academically successful. Therefore, they have the
same expectations for their ethnically diverse students and teach with the same
academic rigor that they use for “traditional” students. Coupled with the academic
rigor, the instructors connect with their students and express care and concern about
them. Other principles of culturally responsive teaching include incorporating the
students’ culture and beliefs into the classroom and allowing the students to control
the discourse to promote active learning.
An instructor’s belief system, along with their mathematical content
knowledge, is a major component of the theoretical model developed by Fennema
and Franke (1992) which illustrates the evolution of teacher knowledge.
28
Figure 2: Teachers Knowledge: Developing in Context
They write that in addition to having a thorough understanding of mathematics and
pedagogical techniques, teachers’ “knowledge of cultural and ethnic diversity is
essential for effective teaching” (Fennema & Franke, 1992, p. 147). A student’s
cultural perspective is directly related to how they learn, therefore preparing
educators who are culturally responsive will impact student learning. Villegas and
Lucas (2002) propose several characteristics of culturally responsive educators.
These characteristics include: having an understanding that race/ethnicity, social
class, and language influence an individual’s perspective; focusing on the ability for
29
all students to learn regardless of their differences; and possessing the belief that they
are responsible for and have the ability to facilitate systematic change to make
education more responsive to students. “Preparing teachers who are culturally
responsive is a pressing issue in teacher education…everyone entering the teaching
profession-regardless of background- must be prepared to teach a racially, ethnically,
economically, and linguistically diverse student population” (Villegas & Lucas,
2002, p. xii). Instructors who teach from a culturally responsive perspective can
influence students’ engagement in the classroom because they have the ability to
make decisions about tailoring lessons to meet the needs of diverse learners. In
addition, students in classes consisting of diverse students have the opportunity to
learn from each other. “When faculty interweave multicultural perspectives into
classroom discourse, students can challenge preconceived notions and learn about
the unique knowledge that their peers of diverse backgrounds hold and bring to the
classroom” (Quayle & Harper, 2007).
Three subtopics of culturally responsive teaching and pedagogy are discussed
in the next section of the literature review: the role of the institutional agent, the
impact of validation on student success, and the concept of authentic caring. Some of
the characteristics filter into each other. For example, by nature of their role,
institutional agents can provide authentic caring and validation for students. Faculty
members and staff who validate students’ worth can demonstrate authentic caring for
the students.
30
Institutional Agents
Institutional agents can be formally defined as those individuals who have the
capacity and commitment to transmit directly, or negotiate the transmission of,
institutional resources and opportunities (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 6). From this
transmission of resources and opportunities, students are able to strategically access
networks that facilitate academic and social capital. The interaction between students
and institutional agents can take place formally or informally, inside or outside the
classroom. Sennett and Cobb, as cited in Stanton-Salazar (1997), state that “the
power of institutional agents lies in their ability to give or withhold knowledge”.
Stanton-Salazar adds that this control of knowledge contributes to determining who
will be successful or “make it” and who will not. This belief emphasizes the
importance of training new faculty members about the role they play in shaping the
experience of college students.
Douglas Guiffrida (2005) writes about the role that faculty members play in
student success akin to the role of an institutional agent. His research included focus
groups and interviews of 19 African-American students at a predominantly white
institution. He found that the students described strongly supportive faculty members
as being student centered. One prominent characteristic of these supportive faculty
members was their ability to go “above and beyond” (Guiffrida, 2005, p. 708). The
faculty members showed concern about student on a holistic level, similar to the
characteristic of an authentic caring instructor, which is described later in this
chapter. According to the students in Guffrida’s study, supportive faculty members
31
also maintained high expectations of the student and the belief that the student could
succeed. These are also characteristics of authentic caring.
In order to become an institutional agent, instructors should possess a level of
self-efficacy which enables them to believe that they can make a difference in the
academic experiences of their students. One of the undertakings of institutional
agents is to “communicate high expectations while providing moral support and
encouragement” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, p. 2). Institutional agents can erode a
student’s low expectations of themselves that developed from previous teachers
assumptions and expectations of the student (Good & Brophy, 1978). High
expectations are also a construct of authentic caring which will be discussed later in
this chapter.
Validation
Laura Rendon defines validation as “an enabling, confirming, and supportive
process initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that foster academic and interpersonal
development” (Rendon, 1994, p. 44). It is an on-going process, one in which students
can be continually developed, leading to further involvement and a more successful
academic and social life.
Rendon’s research focuses on students’ ability to persist in higher education
institutions. Originally based on the involvement theories of Astin and the college
impact studies of Pascarella and Terenzini, Dr. Rendon found that the concepts of
validation had an impact on student academic success (Rendon, 1994). Students with
low self-efficacy “yearned for acceptance and validation” (Rendon, 1994, p. 37). For
32
her research, she utilizes small group, open ended interviews with students to
determine how their involvement influences their learning and academic success.
According to Rendon non-traditional (i.e. students of color) are not likely to become
involved academically or socially on their own. But institutional agents can create
validating academic and social communities which encourage students to be
involved in campus academic and social life which leads to academic success. Her
research about students yielded several overall findings:
Non-traditional students communicated doubts in their ability to be
successful.
Non-traditional students need active intervention “to help them negotiate
institutional life”.
For success to occur in the first year of college, they need to get involved in
institutional life either on their own or with the assistance of an external
agent.
Non-traditional students can become learners through academic and
interpersonal validation.
Validation may be a pre-requisite for non-traditional students to become
involved.
Students benefit the most from validation during the first weeks of the first
year of college.
Instructors play an important role in validating students by increasing students’ self-
efficacy. Examples of validation are seen in the classroom when faculty members
33
showed genuine concern about teaching students, they were approachable, treated
students equally, worked individually with students who needed extra help, and gave
meaningful feedback to students (Rendon, 1994). Validation helps students become
excited about their learning, motivates them to succeed and makes them feel that the
faculty members care about them as a person, not just a student (Rendon & Jalomo,
1995). Faculty members, in the role of institutional agents, display characteristics of
validation when they take a genuine interest in their students’ experience, offer them
support in their academic endeavors and affirm that the student is capable of
reaching the high expectations they have set (Gay, 2000; Rendon, 1994). Validation
is intertwined with authentic caring (discussed later in this chapter), both of which
involve high expectations on the part of the instructor. Validation can have the most
positive impact on students during their fist year of school (Rendon, 1994). Remedial
instructors encounter new students during their first semester and impact the
students’ ability to adapt to the new college environment and facilitate the students’
involvement. Behavior that is viewed as invalidating includes: “calling students out
by social security numbers, discounting life experiences, detaching faculty from
students, promoting fiercely competitive environments that pit students against each
other” (Rendon, 1994, p. 45).
Rendon (1994) has outlined four ways that institutions can use to create a
supportive environment that validates students:
“Orient faculty and staff to the needs and strengths of culturally diverse
student populations”. Institutions accomplish this by providing faculty
34
members and staff with annual demographic information about the
composition of the student body. Additionally, information that addresses the
multiple issues students of color face will enable faculty members and staff to
serve as institutional agents for the students.
“Train faculty to validate students”. Faculty members need to understand the
transformational role they play when they validate their students. This step is
something that should be incorporated into the knowledge conveyed to the
new instructors, especially ones who work with first year students.
“Foster a validating classroom” See appendix A for a complete table of ways
instructors can foster a validating classroom. “A validating classroom
empowers students, connects faculty members with students, and creates an
atmosphere of trust, respect and freedom to learn”.
“Foster a therapeutic learning community both in- and out-of-class” See
appendix B for a complete table of ways institutions can foster a therapeutic
learning community. Student personal growth and development is just as
important as student academic development (Rendon, 1994, p. 47).
All four of these ways include applicable topics that could be included in the CSUF
instructor training program.
Author James A. Banks cites his “Stages of Cultural Development” as a tool
for TAs to develop teaching and interaction strategies that will help them and their
students to increase their cross-cultural competencies and functioning (Banks, 1991).
He suggests that as individuals move through the six stages, there are things that TAs
35
can do to facilitate the students learning and development, and in a sense, create a
validating classroom. TAs and faculty members in general need to understand and be
sensitive to the dominant culture which is pervasive in most curricula. This dominant
curricula marginalizes students of color and women. “Incorporating diversity into
content connects students better with the material and gives it meaningful relevance
for them” (J. Anderson, 1991, p. 82).
Authentic caring
The hallmarks of authentic caring include a relationship of reciprocity
between a student and their instructor, high expectations by the instructors, and
concern for the whole student (their physical, emotional, and social well being).
Authentic caring is too pivotal in shaping the educational experiences and outcomes
of ethnically different students to be taken for granted or left to chance (Gay, 2000,
p. 70) . “….caring is one of the major pillars of culturally responsive pedagogy for
ethnically diverse students. It is manifested in the form of teacher attitudes,
expectations, and behaviors about students’ human value, intellectual capability, and
performance responsibilities” (Gay, 2000, p. 45). Without authentic caring, there will
continue to be educational inequities for students of color. It is a necessary factor in
culturally responsive teaching.
Authentic caring is a partnership between the instructor and student that is
rooted in respect and a belief that the student can and will succeed when supported
by instructors who take action to ensure that success occurs. When students see that
instructors are advocates for them, they in turn are more willing to participate in
36
learning and authentic caring becomes a reciprocal relationship. Caring instructors
do not accept failure by the student and work hard to ensure student success (Gay,
2000). They acquire a knowledge base about diversity in education and demonstrate
authentic caring by being supportive and accessible to their students. They empower
students by acknowledging their intellect and respecting them as human beings (Gay,
2000). Research reviewed by Good and Brophy showed that teacher expectations
impact student achievement. “Many students in most classrooms are not reaching
their potential because their teachers do not expect much from them and are satisfied
with poor or mediocre performance when they could be obtaining something better”
(Good & Brophy, 1978, p. 70).
Angela Valenzuela conducted ethnographic research in the early 1990’s
which focused on the concepts of caring versus not caring and the impact on
Mexican-American youth in a Texas high school (Valenzuela, 1999). She studied the
relationship between schooling and achievement. It was a mixed method survey
involving both a quantitative survey of the students along with observations and
interviews. Her results in relation to authentic caring found that although the high
school had articulated an ethic of caring, nothing was really being done. Teachers did
not know their students in a personal way, and this in turn discouraged students from
going to the teachers when they encountered a problem (Valenzuela, 1999). There
was an underlying tone at the high school that these students were not going to be
successful and the teachers transmitted this belief unconsciously through their
behavior. Just like positive forms of authentic caring, these negative behaviors also
37
had a reciprocal effect as the students displayed uncaring attitudes which led to
failure. “A most effective way to be uncaring and unconcerned is to tolerate and or
facilitate academic apathy, disengagement, and failure” (Gay, 2000, p. 48).
Frank Murray, in The Teacher Educator’s Handbook, addresses the
manifestation of teachers’ low expectations for their students in the classroom
setting:
…it is very likely that well-meaning and well-read teachers with good college
grades will still make certain pedagogical mistakes with the pupils for whom
they have low expectations, regardless of how they have come to have these
expectations. They will treat these pupils not as individuals, but as a group,
seat them farther away and outside the zone of frequent teacher-pupil
interaction, look at them less, ask them low-level questions, call on them less
often, give them less time to respond, give them fewer hints when they are
called upon, and give them less praise and more blame than other pupils.
They will do all this out of a mistaken sense of kindness that is seemingly
oblivious to the pedagogical harm their undisciplined actions will cause their
pupils. (Murray, 1996, p. 5)
Ken Bain, author of the book What the Best College Teachers Do (2004) talks about
how good instructors appreciate students on an individual level.
First, the best teachers tended to look for and appreciate the individual value
of each student. Rather than separating them into winners and losers,
geniuses and dullards, good students and bad, they looked for the abilities
that any person brought to the table. (p. 72)
Chapter Summary
The goal of this chapter was to begin creating a foundation of literature based
on teacher education and culturally responsive teaching. Based on this literature, I
designed interview questions and observational cues that determined the instructors’
38
abilities to serve as validating and caring institutional agents for their remedial
mathematics students. The next chapter details the research design of this study.
39
Chapter 3: Research Design
Introduction
This chapter provides information regarding the methodology of my program
evaluation, describes Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model which provided the initial
framework for this study, and details the methods employed to collect data. I used
Villegas and Lucas’ (2002) organizing constructs on educating culturally responsive
teachers as a lens for the evaluation. The organizing constructs, also referred to as
strands, describe the knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary to become a
culturally responsive instructor (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The strands can be
plausibly linked to the learning and behavior levels of Donald Kirkpatrick’s
framework. Additionally at the end of chapter 3, the trustworthiness and ethical
considerations of the study are discussed.
The purpose of this descriptive research study was to conduct a formative
evaluation of the TA training program in the Department of Mathematics at CSU
Fullerton. Formative evaluations are conducted to improve a specific program, rely
heavily on qualitative methods, and are context specific (Patton, 2002). “Like all
educational efforts, a TA [teaching assistant] program must be evaluated, adjusted
and occasionally altered if it is to remain dynamic, relevant and of real service to its
constituents” (Hiemae, Lambert, & Hayes, 1991, p. 129). The information learned
from this research study will be reported to the Department of Mathematics and can
be used to make judgments about the effectiveness of the components of the program
and recommendations for strengthening the program based on the researcher’s
40
findings. This study was designed as a program evaluation based on Kirkpatrick’s
framework: (1) How did the remedial mathematics instructors react to the instructor
training program; (2) What did the instructors learn as a consequence of their
participation; and (3) In what ways did instructors change their practices as a
consequence of the training program? These specific questions helped to formulate
this dissertation’s three research questions: (1) In what ways did the Teaching
Associates experience and evaluate the training program? (2) In what ways did the
activities, organization of the program, and the composition of the cohort influence
the experience of the participants? (3) In what ways did the Teaching Associates
learn about or exhibit characteristics of culturally responsive instructors?
Methodology
The evaluation methods developed by Donald Kirkpatrick (2006) provided
the initial framework or parameter for this study. There are four levels, but for this
research study, I only utilized the first three: reaction, learning, and behavior. The
term practice was used in lieu of behavior. A change in practices represents a more
concrete, long-term change than a change in behaviors does. The TAs self-reported
their changes or intended changes in practices. I did not directly observe the TAs
teaching. The fourth level of Kirkpatrick’s framework, results, was not included in
this study due to the short time frame in which my research took place. Significant
results may occur after a period of time has elapsed, while the data collection for this
study took place only during the fall semester in 2007. Kirkpatrick’s levels are linked
and each affects an individual’s progression to the next level. For example, if the
41
TAs did not have a positive reaction to the training program, they would probably
not be motivated to learn and therefore, not likely to change their practices. In order
to conduct an effective program evaluation, the levels of Kirkpatrick’s framework
should be examined systematically.
Reaction
Measuring the TAs’ reactions to the training program was the first level of
the evaluation. Reaction is defined as “a response to a stimulus” (Pickett, 2004).
Measuring reaction was an attempt to find out about the instructors’ general feelings
and attitudes about their experience in the program. Asking the TAs about their
reaction to the training program sent the message to them that their opinion was
valued. Reactions to the program were generally positive, but some were negative. It
was critical that participants had a positive reaction in order to be motivated to learn
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). At the end of the semester, the training program
facilitators asked the TAs to fill out evaluation forms to convey their thoughts about
the program. For my study, I gauged the participants’ reactions to the training
program through one-on-one interviews. The questions related to reaction asked in
the first set of interviews in October determined their feelings about the training
program (see appendix D):
How did you hear about the training program?
What were your initial expectations of the program?
Were there particular aspects of the program that you are looking forward to?
42
Now that you have been in the program a few weeks, have your initial
thoughts and expectations changed?
Each interview in October lasted between 20 minutes and one hour. During the
follow up interviews in December the questions attempted to determine if their
reaction had changed since the beginning of the program. Each follow up interview
lasted between 25 minutes and one hour. These questions were based on the work of
Kirkpatrick (2006) and Gray and Buerkel-Rothfuss (1991), but tailored specifically
for the instructor training program (see appendix D):
What do you think the purpose of the program is?
If you had to use one word to describe the program, what would it be?
If the head of the Department called you to ask if the program should
continue, what would you say?
Follow up: Why would you say that?
What was most helpful about the weekly workshop sessions?
Follow up: What was the least helpful?
Tell me about the observation component of the workshop?
Follow up: What was the purpose?
What do you think about the electronic journal component?
What are your thoughts on the Rendon article about validation?
Follow up: Is there anything in particular you got out of it?
Overall, what are your feelings about the training program?
In general, the TAs needed to have favorable reactions to the training
program in order to be open to learning from the experience. Learning is the second
level in Kirkpatrick’s program evaluation framework.
43
Learning
Evaluating learning is more complex than measuring the TAs’ reactions.
According to Kirkpatrick, there are three things that training program facilitators can
teach: knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 39).
Therefore learning is defined as “the extent to which participants change attitudes,
improve knowledge, and/or increase skill as a result of attending the program”
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 22). In order to determine if the TAs learned
from their experience in the training program, the improvement in their knowledge,
increases in their skills, and changes in their attitudes were assessed.
As described in the introduction of this chapter, Villegas and Lucas’ (2002)
organizing constructs on educating culturally responsive teachers provide a context
for evaluating the training program. They acknowledge that the development or shift
of one’s knowledge and skills are part of what an instructor needs to do in order to
become culturally responsive. However, the instructor also needs to possess certain
attitudes and dispositions in order to be effective (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Two of
the Villegas and Lucas strands are linked to the learning level of Kirkpatrick’s
program evaluation framework: (1) gaining sociocultural consciousness; and (2)
developing an affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse
backgrounds.
Gaining sociocultural consciousness.
A preliminary step to teaching effectively in a diverse society is for
instructors to learn and understand that individuals have multiple perspectives on the
44
world and that their own perspective may differ from their students’ perspective.
These perspectives influence interactions between the instructors and the students
both in and outside of the classroom. In addition, there are links between socio-
economic status and educational inequity. Villegas and Lucas (2002) refer to this
understanding as their first strand: gaining sociocultural consciousness. Having
sociocultural consciousness means possessing an understanding that social status
grants some individuals access to power that others do not have. Banks (1991) also
writes about how being socially conscious impacts instructors’ effectiveness:
To become effective instructors in today’s classrooms and effective
professors of tomorrow, teaching assistants (TAs) need to understand the
changing ethnic texture of the nation’s population, the psychological
experiences and characteristics of students from different ethnic and cultural
groups, the construction of knowledge, and the assumptions that underlie the
dominant paradigms and canons in the academic disciplines. (Banks, 1991, p.
65)
Culturally responsive instructors are committed to the inclusion of diversity
issues in the educational process (Gay, 2000). The CSUF training program can
educate the TAs on aspects of gaining sociocultural consciousness by facilitating a
process of self-examination. By having the TAs become cognizant of their own
perspective and educational experiences, they will become more receptive to the
experiences of their students.
TAs need to examine their own racial and ethnic attitudes, to be aware of and
sensitive to the ethnic and cultural characteristics of their students, and to
help themselves and their students to develop higher levels of cross-cultural
competency and functioning (Banks, 1991, p. 67)
45
Also, self-awareness facilitates knowledge of how the instructors’
perspective influences their behavior in the classroom (Gay, 2000). The National
Research Council’s Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) has noted the
struggles that students of color face in mathematics through their national project
“Making Mathematics Work for Minorities.” Recommendations were developed
from strategic regional sessions and several addressed teachers and their effect on the
success of students. “We will encourage teachers to become sensitive to their own
behavior in the classroom and to realize that their behavior has an impact on the
performance of students, especially minority students in mathematics” (Aliaga, 1995,
p. 172).
Affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds.
The second strand of Villegas and Lucas also provided a context in which to
evaluate the training program. The strand is developing an affirming attitude toward
students from culturally diverse backgrounds. This affirming attitude facilitates the
characteristics of authentic caring and validation, both of which were discussed in
chapter 2 of this dissertation. TAs who lack an affirming attitude have low academic
expectations for minority students in remedial coursework. This way of thinking is
counterproductive to a TA’s ability to become an institutional agent because it makes
the student responsible for their failure and removes the possibility that the faculty
member can make a difference in the academic experiences of their students.
46
Teachers who have low performance expectations for students do not feel
very efficacious about their own competencies with those students. But they
attribute student failure to lack of intellectual ability and poor home
environments rather than to the quality of their teaching (Gay, 2000, p. 60).
With an understanding of the first two strands of Villegas and Lucas, the
Kirkpatrick model provided guidance for the effective evaluation of the training
program at the learning level. Kirkpatrick suggests utilizing pre- and post-program
assessments. For this study, I accomplished this through two sets of semi-structured
interviews. During the interviews, I asked questions that led to the discovery of what
the instructors learned from the training program. I specifically focused on their
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are applicable to the characteristics of culturally
responsive instructors reviewed in chapter two along with the constructs of Villegas
and Lucas. The first interviews in October entailed questions designed to gain a
sense of their background and thoughts on their students (see appendix D):
What are your long-term career goals?
What are you teaching?
Follow up: Tell me about the mathematics class you are teaching.
How does this class compare to the classes you took in mathematics?
What are your students like?
Follow up: What were your initial thoughts about your students?
How do you get to know your students?
Follow up: How do you encourage students to come see you during
your office hours? (Connecting with students outside of
class offers instructors the opportunity to learn about them.
Based on the work of Rendon, Valenzuela, and strand five
of Villegas and Lucas)
Follow up: Which students come to see you?
47
How do the students compare to other students you have taught at other
times?
How would you describe your first few weeks of teaching?
Follow up: Have there been particular highs and lows?
The follow up interviews at the end of the semester included the following questions:
Could you list for me what you have learned so far in this course?
Follow up: Which of those things have been helpful?
Once the instructors’ reaction and learning have been evaluated, the next level in
Kirkpatrick’s framework for evaluating training programs is evaluating behavior.
Practices
Behavior is a person’s actions or reactions in response to internal or external
stimuli (Pickett, 2004). For the purpose of program evaluation, the term practices is
used instead of behavior which Kirkpatrick defined as the “extent to which change in
behavior has occurred because the participant attended the training program”
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 22).
In this third level of Kirkpatrick’s framework, there are three applicable
strands from the Villegas and Lucas construct: (1) Developing the commitment and
skills to act as agents of change; (2) Embracing the constructivist foundations of
culturally responsive teaching; and (3) Learning about students and their
communities. An explanation of each strand follows.
Developing the commitment and skills to act as agents of change.
The third strand of Villegas and Lucas asks instructors to become agents of
change through a process of obtaining knowledge of educational inequality (linked to
48
Kirkpatrick’s learning level) and becoming advocates to combat this inequity (linked
to Kirkpatrick’s behavior level). When instructors advocate for equity, students have
access to learning and educational success (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). “Teacher
education programs have generally not given much attention to socializing future
teachers to see themselves as change agents or to helping them develop skills for
behaving as change agents once they become teachers” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p.
55). Villegas and Lucas suggest that instructors develop the skills to become agents
of change in order to support diverse student bodies. Students depend on instructors
to have their best interests at heart.
Embracing the constructivist foundations of culturally responsive teaching.
The next strand from Villegas and Lucas that is linked to Kirkpatrick
encourages instructors to use a constructivist model of teaching as opposed to a
transmission view. The transmission view of teaching and learning assumes that
faculty members possess all of the knowledge and convey it to students through a
structured linear curriculum. This view assumes that students acquire knowledge in
the same way and at the same pace. These assumptions are outmoded and grounded
in teaching styles developed for white middle and upper class men and is detrimental
in remedial courses, which consist mainly of students of color. The constructivist
model works well for diverse learners because it builds on their past knowledge and
uses it as a resource. This teaching model is also noted as a characteristic that fosters
a validating classroom, which was discussed in chapter 2 (Rendon, 1994).
49
Learning about students and their communities.
The fifth and final strand from Villegas and Lucas that I will link to
Kirkpatrick’s framework is learning about students and their communities. Based on
similar principles utilized by institutional agents such as validation and authentic
caring, this strand articulates that instructors can utilize a constructivist model of
teaching only if they know their students well. This includes knowing about the
students’ lives and communities outside of school, their perception of their previous
experiences in school and the connection to their lives in the future, and the students’
relationship to the subject matter. Once instructors get to know the students on an
individual basis, “stereotypical generalizations [often made about students of color]
will tend to be perceived as obviously damaging and inaccurate” (Cano, Jones, &
Chism, 1991, p. 89). This knowledge also enables the instructor to help the student
feel connected to the institution and acknowledges that the student has an outside life
and accomplishments that they bring into the classroom. Overall, it reduces the
chance that students will become disengaged from their learning experience
(Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
The challenge of evaluating changes in practices attributed to the training
program is that a TA’s practices may or may not change immediately after the
intervention. The majority of the TAs in the training program will leave CSU
Fullerton after two years upon completion of their degree program. Therefore,
changes in practices as a result of this program may or may not be realized in their
50
brief time at the institution. Individuals change their practices at varying intervals.
Four conditions are necessary for practices to change:
(1) the person must have a desire to change [stemming from a positive
reaction to the training program]; (2) the person must know what to do and
how to do it [based on their learning experience in the program]; (3) the
person must work in the right climate [one that supports change]; (4) the
person must be rewarded for changing (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006, p.
21)
If there was no change in a TA’s practices after the training program, it does
not necessarily imply that there was a negative reaction to the training or that the TA
failed to learn anything. It may also be due to the lack of a supportive environment or
a climate that facilitates and supports change. Therefore, the TAs need to feel that
they have the support of the University and the Department of Mathematics in order
to implement changes in their practices, especially in the classroom. A supportive
environment has policies and practices in place that support and reward TAs who are
caring, validating, institutional agents both inside and outside of the classroom. For
example, the Department could encourage the TAs to become mentors for their
students outside of the classroom in an effort to increase student involvement. The
work of Laura Rendon, discussed in chapter 2, affirms the importance of
involvement to student success. In addition, the Department of Mathematics can
support culturally responsive instructor behavior through its promotion of the
Faculty Development Center programs that discuss issues of diversity.
Effective evaluation of the practices level requires that the program evaluator
decide how, when, and the appropriate intervals to evaluate changes in practices due
51
to the training program. Although I interviewed the TAs twice, the questions to
determine changes in practice due to the training program were concentrated in the
second set of interviews in December (see appendix D):
Can you think of things you are doing differently now than when you started
the training program?
Follow up: Did the training program facilitate these differences?
Overall, what are your thoughts on how the program has affected your
teaching?
Are there teaching approaches that you use in class to which the students
respond especially well? (Based on the work of Rendon [1994], some
students are more successful with active learning techniques, a characteristic
of a validating classroom. Also based on strand 4 of Villegas and Lucas)
What does an instructor need to know to teach a diverse class?
Are there ways in which the students’ learning process is assessed in addition
to the students’ learning outcomes? (Based on the work of Rendon)
What does a student need to do in order to do well?
Follow up: How does the student know this?
Can you think of a student who did not do well in the class? (Instructors who
possess characteristics of culturally responsive teaching [institutional agents,
authentic caring and validation] understand that there may be many factors
involved, some of which the faculty member may have been able to
influence).
Follow up: Why do you think that student was not successful?
Think of a few students in your class. Can you talk about what their
experiences have been in their high school mathematics courses? (Based on
strand 5 of Villegas and Lucas)
How do you get to know your students?
Follow up: Have you asked them about their previous mathematics
experiences?
Have any of your students articulated how they view mathematics as part of
their future careers? (Based on strand 5 of Villegas and Lucas)
52
How do you know if your students are learning?
What role do you think faculty members play in a student’s success?
Do you think any of your students will become STEM majors?
Population and Sample
In the fall 2007, the Department of Mathematics conducted 32 sections of
remedial mathematics, which were taught by 21 instructors. The average class size
was 37 students. Of the 21 instructors, 15 of them were current master’s students in
the Department. The remaining 6 instructors were part-time faculty members, 4 of
whom had received their degrees in mathematics from CSU Fullerton. The 15
master’s students comprised several different ethnicities: Hispanic (4 students),
Vietnamese (3 students), Chinese (3 students), Asian (2 students), and White (2
students). One student did not disclose their ethnicity.
Nine TAs participated in the training program but only eight of these TAs
taught remedial mathematics and all eight agreed to participate in the interviews. In
order to maintain their anonymity, I created pseudonyms for the participants (see
table 4). Due to the small sample size, I chose not to link specific characteristics such
as ethnicity and gender to their pseudonyms in order to maintain the TAs anonymity.
The ethnicity of the training program participants was Hispanic (1 student),
Vietnamese (1 student), Chinese (2 students), Asian (1 student), and White (2
students). One student did not disclose their ethnicity. With the exception of one
person, all the participants I interviewed were female.
53
Table 3: Teaching Experience of Sample Population
Pseudonym Teaching Experience
Robin first semester teaching
Sally previous teaching experience
Heather previous teaching experience
Pat first semester teaching
Agnes previous teaching experience
Lisa first semester teaching
Crystal first semester teaching
Gloria first semester teaching
Sally, Heather, and Agnes had previous teaching experience at the high
school, community college, or university level. Lisa, Crystal, and Gloria were born
and educated outside of the United States.
Unit of Analysis
There were several possible units of analysis that could have been studied,
but for the purposes of this research, the individual TAs who participated in the
training program served as the unit of analysis. According to Patton, this means “the
primary focus of data collection will be on what is happening to individuals in a
setting and how individuals are affected by the setting” (2002). In this study, the
setting is defined as the instructor training program at CSU Fullerton. Through
gaining a better sense of the experience of the individual instructors over the course
of the fall 2007 semester, I determined the variation of the impact of the program.
54
Empirical Data Collection
I conducted observations of the 12 training workshops, interviewed each TA
twice, and analyzed documents. Documents included the handouts and readings
distributed in the workshops. Interviews were recorded and verbatim transcripts were
created. I inductively created a list of codes based on the interviews transcripts, field
notes, and documents. See appendix C for the complete list of codes. Subsequently, I
categorized the codes into themes, loosely based on the research questions. These
themes are analyzed in chapter 4. Richard Boyatzis (1998) refers to this process as
the data-driven approach to thematic analysis.
According to Patton, “multiple sources of information are sought and used
because no single source of information can be trusted to provide a comprehensive
perspective on the program” (Patton, 2002, p. 306). Each source of data has
limitations. My presence in the workshops may have influenced the behavior of the
participants and affected what was observed. Due to the timeframe of this study, I
was unable to observe the TAs in their classroom setting. Interview data limitations
included the possibility of distorted responses by the TAs and the relative
inexperience of the interviewer (Patton, 2002). By using multiple sources of
information, my goal was to maximize the strengths of each type of information and
minimize their weaknesses.
Interviews
The purpose of the interviews was to find out from the perspective of the TAs
what their reaction was to the training program; if they learned to become caring,
55
validating institutional agents; and if they augmented their practices. Individual face-
to-face interviews were conducted with the TAs in October, approximately five
weeks after the program started and then again in December after the program ended
for the semester. The first set of interviews enabled me to learn more about the TAs’
backgrounds, aspirations, and expectations of the training program. The second set
of interviews helped determine the impact of the training program on the TAs after
one semester. They also provided me the opportunity to follow up on responses from
the first interviews, statements I read in their electronic journals, and observations I
made in the workshops. I also attempted to discern if the instructors made
connections between what they experienced in the training program and their
interactions with students in the classroom.
The interviews were semi-structured and open-ended. Semi-structured
interviews are conducted using a list of questions and issues without exact wording
or a particular order (appendix D). This type of interview allowed me to respond to
and ask further follow up questions based on what the TAs said in the interview.
Merriam (1998) cites this type of format as allowing the “researcher to respond to
the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to the new
ideas on the topic” (p. 74). The open-ended interviews, which lasted between 20
minutes to one hour, enabled the TAs to respond in their own words as opposed to a
pre-determined response by the interviewer.
56
Observations of the Training Workshops
Attending the weekly training workshops permitted me to conduct
observations of a key component of the training program. There were 12 sessions
scheduled in the fall 2007 semester. Workshop topics included general pedagogy
techniques, lesson planning, and creating a supportive classroom environment.
During the weekly workshops, I observed the activities and interactions of the
participants and the faculty facilitators and maintained field notes that captured the
learning objectives of the various activities. My interview protocol included noting
where the TAs sat each week, what they said, and the questions they asked. Being
familiar with the topics of the weekly training sessions enabled me to base the
second set of interviews on actual learning activities. In addition, I observed any
changes in the TAs’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors during the workshops
and clarified my observations through questions in the second set of interviews. The
participants were informed of the purpose of my attendance at these workshops and
my role was to observe without participating.
Document Analysis
Document analysis was a method used in order to acquire a better sense of
the effectiveness of the instructor training program. Documents provided information
that was not readily gathered through the interviews or workshop observations. In
addition, they provided data in an unobtrusive manner. The TAs wrote electronic
journals based on prompts created by the faculty facilitators. Areas of focus for the
prompts included recurring student difficulties with mathematics content and
57
successful/unsuccessful teaching strategies. I had access to the TAs’ responses and
read them in order to triangulate information gathered in the observations and
interviews. For example, I asked some of the TAs about their journal responses
during their interviews. I also listened during the workshops to see if they articulated
similar responses or questions that they had in their journals.
Trustworthiness
In order to ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the findings from this
study, I utilized several strategies. First, through triangulation of multiple empirical
data sources (interviews, observations, and document analysis) I was able to identify
any themes that the TAs reported about their reaction, learning, and changes in their
practices due to participating in the training program. Next, after completing the
interviews I shared my tentative interpretations of our conversations with the TAs to
determine the plausibility of my findings (Merriam, 1998). Finally, it is important to
disclose that I work at CSU Fullerton in the College of Natural Sciences and
Mathematics and have interacted informally with two faculty facilitators prior to
undertaking this research study. I shared this information to increase the
transparency of my perspective of the training program and the subsequent program
evaluation. Due to my direct involvement with CSUF and the Department of
Mathematics, I have a responsibility to establish the trustworthiness of this research
and produce a quality program evaluation because my personal goal is to improve
the learning experience of the students in the STEM majors. This could only be
achieved with an accurate evaluation of the training program.
58
Ethical Considerations
The participation of the TAs in this study was voluntary and had no impact
on their status as CSUF students or employees. Prior to their participation, TAs
received an information sheet approved by USC Institutional Research Board which
notified them of their rights and any anticipated risks facilitated by their participation
in the study. It also enabled them to discontinue their participation at any time. In
order to maintain the anonymity of the instructors, pseudonyms were assigned to
each of the participants and are used in this dissertation and the reports disseminated
to the Department of Mathematics.
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided an overview of Kirkpatrick’s framework and how it
will be used in conjunction with the organizing constructs of Villegas and Lucas to
evaluate the instructor training program for this qualitative research study. Data
collection methods were articulated along with a discussion of the issues of
trustworthiness and ethical considerations. The next chapter will report on the
findings from the data collection and my analysis of the findings based on the
literature reviewed in chapter 2.
59
Chapter 4: Research Findings
Introduction
During the fall 2007 semester, I observed and interacted with eight Teaching
Associates (TAs) who were learning to navigate their way in the Department of
Mathematics at CSU Fullerton. They came from a variety of backgrounds and
experiences. The role of these individuals was to teach the students who had not met
the minimum test scores for placement in college level mathematics. The TAs
participated in a training program designed and facilitated by two faculty members,
Ms. King
7
and Dr. Clark
8
. The program was funded by a 2.5 million dollar, five-year
Title V Grant. My research took place during the beginning of the fourth year of the
grant after the training program was operational for three semesters. The original
intent of the grant was to increase the numbers of Latino/as at CSUF who choose to
major in STEM disciplines. The principal investigator, Dr. Jacob Gonzalez
9
, felt that
there were several factors that influenced students’ success in these disciplines:
availability of support services, nurturing faculty members, and opportunities for
leadership development. As a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), he felt it was
critical that CSUF recruit, retain, and graduate Latino/as in the STEM majors. One
aspect that influenced students’ advancement to STEM majors was the quality of
instruction in remedial mathematics courses. Dr. Gonzalez felt a personal connection
to students’ success in remedial mathematics based on his daughter’s experience.
7
Pseudonym
8
Pseudonym
9
Pseudonym
60
She had struggled through intermediate algebra classes at CSUF. Therefore, with the
financial support of the grant, the training program was developed. The goal of the
grant in regards to the details of the training program is very general and provided no
roadmap for the components of the training: “all remedial math instructors complete
specialized training to incorporate new pedagogy to improve course methodology to
create gender neutrality and non-ethnic bias” (Title V Grant). The original facilitator
of the training program was an “assistant professor of education, who specialized in
math pedagogy and feminist theory with combined knowledge and experience in
creating new ways to teach math to minority students” (Title V Grant). She left her
position at the University before the start of the grant in the fall of 2004 and
subsequently, the training program did not begin formally until the spring of 2006
under the leadership of two new faculty facilitators, Ms. King and Dr. Clark. Ms.
King is a full time lecturer in the Department of Mathematics who has taught classes
for elementary and middle schoolteachers, but now teaches mostly calculus. Dr.
Clark is a tenured faculty member in the Department who specializes in
undergraduate mathematics teacher training and teaches in the Mathematics Master’s
Degree Program.
Over the course of the semester, I observed the new TAs transform from
nervous instructors, who were unsure of their abilities and roles as teachers, into
instructors who became sure of themselves, bonded with their fellow TAs, and were
changing their teaching practices to improve their students’ learning.
61
This fourth chapter reports on findings based on my interviews with the
Teaching Associates, my observations of the weekly workshops, and text provided
by the facilitators. For the purposes of this research, text is defined as data collected
without the intervention of a researcher (Silverman, 2003). This text consists of
electronic journals submitted by the TAs and supporting materials distributed during
the workshops. I inductively created codes based on the interviews, field notes from
observations, and text (appendix C). These codes were subsequently categorized into
themes and analyzed based on three questions: (1) In what ways did the TAs
experience and evaluate the training program? (2) In what ways did the activities,
organization of the program, and the composition of the cohort influence the
experience of the participants? (3) In what ways did the TAs learn about or exhibit
characteristics of culturally responsive instructors? Even though culturally
responsive instruction was not mentioned specifically in the Title V Grant or
discussed in the workshop, the TAs who exhibit these characteristics can help
students succeed academically.
As stated in chapter 3, Kirkpatrick provided the initial framework to evaluate
the TA training program based on participants’ reaction, learning, and changes in
behavior. For the purposes of this research study the term changes in practices is
used instead of changes in behavior. This chapter begins with an overview of the
TAs background and their experience of teaching remedial mathematics at CSUF. It
also includes an analysis of the TAs reactions, learning, and reported changes in
62
practices. Throughout the chapter, the topic of culturally responsive teaching is used
as a lens to analyze the findings based on the data collected.
TA Teaching Experience and Future Career Plans
The TAs have a variety of educational backgrounds. All of them received
undergraduate degrees in mathematics or some other mathematics based discipline
such as science or engineering. Several of them attended a community college either
as an undergraduate or to help them prepare for the masters program. Six of the TAs
had no previous teaching experience prior to the fall of 2007.
Table 4: Teaching Experience of Sample Population
Pseudonym Teaching Experience
Robin first semester teaching
Sally previous teaching experience
Heather previous teaching experience
Pat first semester teaching
Agnes previous teaching experience
Lisa first semester teaching
Crystal first semester teaching
Gloria first semester teaching
Sally, Heather, and Agnes had previous teaching experience at the high school,
community college, or university level. Prior to teaching their own classes, some
TAs worked as tutors for the remedial mathematics courses. They reported in their
interviews that working as a tutor enabled them to watch instructors in the classroom
and learn how to work with students on an individual basis. Working with individual
63
students can help the TAs become more caring instructors, a quality that is addressed
later in this chapter.
In their interviews, some of the TAs said they were inspired to go into
teaching because of a professor they had. Gloria expressed her motivation to teach,
“I’m going to learn something and then I’m going to share just like the way my
professors shared with me…It’s this passion and love for the subject, it’s nothing
else.” Crystal’s community college mathematics professor’s classroom practices
inspired her. She told one professor in particular, “I’m going to be like you. I’m
gonna step up there and walk my students through math ‘cause I know a lot of
students that don’t like math and they think ‘why do I have to take math?’” These
memories of being a student and interacting with faculty members are shaping who
the TAs are becoming as instructors. The TAs learned both positive and negative
practices from the instructors they had in college. Robin commented,
There was a few that were good teachers ‘cause for the most part a lot of
them, they weren’t that great teachers ‘cause they have trouble relating the
material to the students ‘cause they know it pretty well and I don’t think they
can grasp how we don’t get it sometimes. (1: 79).
All the TAs articulated that they are gravitating toward teaching mathematics
at a community college after completing their graduate degree. Pat commented, “I
like the community college because there are students there who think they can’t
make it into universities or Cal States. And it’s like I really want to motivate them,
you know, ‘you can do it’.” Agnes stated that the reason she is drawn to teaching at
the community college is the diversity of the students and their variety of ages and
64
experiences. This enables her to use the students’ life experiences to relate to the
mathematics problems in class.
They aren’t there just because they have nothing else to do; they’re there
because they really want to be there. They’re paying for it themselves,
they’ve tried before and not made it through and so this is like a big deal to
them….nothing against Fullerton students, but I often don’t have that like
‘this means so much to me’ feeling that I have at a community college.
With the exception of one TA, all of them expressed a desire to work with
students in basic skills mathematics. This may be due in part to their desire to help
students who may not have a strong mathematics background or lack the confidence
to be successful. Pat stated “I like working with students kind of coming in thinking
they’re not good enough. Or students [who say] ‘I hate math’. I want to turn them
around and say ‘you know math is good, you’ll learn to like it’.”
Although all of the TAs are skilled at mathematics, some of them believe it
takes a different type of skill to convey this knowledge to students who are in
remedial mathematics. Robin commented on the realization about the complex
difference between the two skills.
Well I figured ‘oh I know this stuff’. It should be pretty easy right, it was just
talk about it right? But no, it’s hard; you have to come up with examples that
demonstrate what you’re teaching. Like a good example, not just any
examples. Something that can go into detail. Like try to figure out what’s
important to get across to the students.
Even with her experience in mathematics, Gloria’s comment reiterated Robin’s
reaction that teaching mathematics is a different skill. “I mean you know [about
mathematics] is one thing, if you know how to communicate [mathematics] is
65
another thing.” For Heather, there is even a further distinction about the skills needed
to teach particular levels of mathematics at a community college.
I don’t know if I would want to teach calculus, but I would want to teach
pretty much everything up to that except for the real basic math, I think that
would drive me nuts. That’s a hard class to teach…I don’t know all the ways
to teach that.
Although the TAs have a variety of educational backgrounds and teaching
experience, they all share the same goal of teaching mathematics at the community
college level, particularly remedial mathematics. With the variety of backgrounds
and experiences of the TAs, the Department of Mathematics prescribes uniform
practices in order to help guide the remedial mathematics instructors. This next
section will discuss these guidelines and how the TAs operated within them in the
fall semester.
Authority of the Department of Mathematics versus the Autonomy of the TAs
The students take a placement test that determines which remedial
mathematics class they are placed in and the results are not shared with the
instructors. Agnes and Gloria mentioned in their interviews that they would like to
get this information in order to have a better sense of which areas their students are
weak in. Agnes stated,
Maybe that would be a good thing for me to do, you know give an intake
exam so I know where everybody is and have in mind who needs extra
help….if we could have that and just see, okay this guy just barely squeaked
in and then be able to keep an eye on them. That might be a way of knowing
what to watch for.
66
By having the information about their students’ abilities from the beginning, both
Agnes and Gloria can build on the students’ previous knowledge and use it as a
resource. This facilitates a constructivist model of teaching, the fourth strand of the
Villegas and Lucas (2002) framework, and helps the TAs understand the students
preexisting knowledge about mathematics, the fifth strand of Villegas and Lucas. In
addition, this knowledge fosters an academically validating classroom (Rendon,
1994).
The Department of Mathematics assigns a part-time faculty member, Mr.
Lance Thompson
10
, to coordinate the topics covered in the remedial courses,
determine the homework assignments, and create the tests. The TAs met with Mr.
Thompson as a group for one hour prior to semester began to review the format of
the remedial mathematics classes. Each class session consisted of a homework
review, a quiz, teaching new material, and the opportunity to work in class on
problems covering the new material. The meeting with Mr. Thompson was separate
from the training program workshops. During the meeting, the TAs were instructed
not to lecture too much during their remedial mathematics classes in order to include
time for the students to work on sample problems from the lessons. Moving away
from the transmission pedagogy of lecturing to more of a constructivist view of
group interaction is supported by Villegas and Lucas’ fourth strand. The TAs were
also told to create daily quizzes for the students based on the homework assignments.
Having the course structured could be reassuring for new instructors but could also
10
Pseudonym
67
be interpreted as limiting their autonomy. Limited autonomy makes it more difficult
for TAs to make changes to their practices and become true agents of change, the
third strand of Villegas and Lucas. During their interviews a few TAs expressed that
the lack of autonomy affected their experiences in the classroom. Since the syllabus,
book, homework assignments, and tests were prescribed for the TAs, they did not
have the full experience of creating their own class. The TAs received the prepared
tests a few days before the scheduled date. This was to discourage them from basing
their lessons solely on the tests and to encourage them to teach everything on the
common syllabus. It also deterred them from preparing review sheets for the students
that were too similar to the test. Agnes talked about the drawback to using common
tests.
When this test comes in from somewhere else and it’s got this crazy stuff on
it that you never saw before, the rights [of the instructor] and the
responsibilities [to the students], they don’t go together. You have the
responsibilities to the students [as their instructor], but you didn’t have the
right to make it [the test] up. I don’t like that.
Because the pace of the course is determined by the Department, some TAs
expressed that they felt rushed to complete the material. This led Gloria to say “You
know, [there is] just no time to have this personal interaction in class. Every session
time is so short ‘cause there’s so much material to cover.” Robin hoped that the lack
of class time did not impact the students’ learning, “Sometimes I don’t have time to
do enough examples and I hope they [the students] do it on their own which is
sometimes hoping for too much.” It takes one complete semester of teaching before a
68
TA learns how the homework and lessons relate to the tests and final. Heather
discussed how this affected her.
[There] are things that I went over, because I didn’t know and I just covered
everything. And then it wasn’t on the test. And there are other things that I
should have covered more and I didn’t. And that’s something that like if
you’ve already done it a year, you already know because you have the test,
and you have the information.
The Department determined that homework assignments were not calculated
as part of the final grade, therefore the Teaching Associates decided how they
incorporated homework into their particular section(s). One of the TAs collected
homework and graded it, correcting each problem individually, while others just
checked it off to acknowledge to the students that they received it. Agnes found that
by collecting the homework once a week, the students were more motivated to do it.
Other ways to motivate students to do the homework included creating the daily
quizzes based on the homework or not disclosing to the students that the homework
was optional. Some of the TAs offered incentives to the students. For example,
Heather said “I’ve been counting that [the homework] as extra credit and collecting it
the day of the test. I’m going to do that differently next time because they don’t do
the homework.” She has decided to collect it more often to encourage the students to
do homework every day. Other TAs gave the students the choice to do the
homework. Sally stated, “I don’t grade homework, if you don’t want to do it, you
don’t have to do it…but then you’re not going to pass the quizzes.” Since the daily
quizzes were based on the homework, students who completed the homework were
more likely to be successful on their quizzes. Gloria suspected that some students
69
just copied homework from their classmates because she used the same homework
problems on the quizzes and still some students did not do well. Many of the TAs
expressed frustration that the students did not do their homework, the impact it had
on their academic success and what they, as instructors could do about it. Agnes
articulated this sentiment “That is something I struggle with…what’s my
responsibility and what’s their [the student’s] responsibility.” Heather even noticed a
pattern in her class in regards to who would do their homework. “Not everybody is a
good student and especially the boys are more likely to just blow off the
homework….but they can do okay on the test.”
One example of a TA who exercised autonomy within the classroom was
Crystal. She decided to augment the prescribed lessons in a way that she felt would
benefit her students’ learning experience.
They [the coordinator] took all the word problems out, but I think it’s really
important for them to learn, so I just put them in….I think word problems
[are] very important and I don’t know why they [threw] them out. I just don’t
know why.
The Department of Mathematics provides the topics, homework, and tests for
the remedial mathematics courses. In their interviews, the TAs discussed how this
structure influenced their experiences during the fall semester. The TAs’ background
along with the way that the Department of Mathematics organizes how the remedial
mathematics courses are taught set the stage for the TAs experiences in the training
program. In the next section, I discuss the training program, specifically in relation to
culturally responsive teaching.
70
Culturally Responsive Instruction
The literature reviewed in chapter 2 suggested that culturally responsive
instructors are more likely to help students of color achieve academic success (Gay,
2000; Malloy & Malloy, 1998; Rubenstein & Bright, 2004; Fennema & Franke,
1992; Villegas & Lucas, 2002, Rendon, 1994, Guiffrida, 2005). However, the Title V
Grant did not provide any detailed framework for the training program in regards to
how to train culturally responsive instructors. The facilitators led an overview of the
Laura Rendon article Validating Culturally Diverse Students: Toward a New Model
of Learning and Student Development, which is discussed more fully in the next
paragraph. The facilitators briefly talked about the origin of the Title V Grant, the
large numbers of Hispanic students in remedial coursework at CSUF and at our
feeder community colleges, and the importance of these students being successful.
Dr. Clark said, “They [the Hispanic students] may not become STEM majors, but
they may go into other majors”, so the TAs need to take their role of instructors
seriously and “put in the time and energy.”
Response to the Laura Rendon Article
Prior to the first workshop, I shared a copy of the Laura Rendon (1994)
article with the facilitators which I read in preparation for my literature review. The
article discusses the role that faculty members play in transforming students of color
into powerful learners. The research discussed by Rendon supported the need to
provide validating academic experiences for culturally diverse students in order to
foster their success. I decided to share this article with the facilitators because it
71
provided specific ways that instructors could positively influence the learning
outcomes of students of color. The article was sent to the TAs for discussion at the
first workshop. During the workshop, the article was described the as “long” and the
facilitators understood if the TAs did not have a chance to read the article in its
entirety. The discussion about the article focused on Table 1, which lists methods to
foster a validating classroom (appendix A). These methods were characterized as
being student centered learning as opposed to instructor centered teaching. The
facilitators tried to engage the participants in a discussion of the article but since
none of them volunteered, one of the facilitators tried to illustrate the concept of
“validation” by telling the TAs a story of a student she met who decided to stay at
CSUF because of the connection he made to a faculty member in a class. She added
that the TAs could have the same impact on students. The article was not referred to
after the first workshop.
When I asked the TAs about this article during our interviews, most of them
admitted that they had not read the article, or just skimmed it. Only a few were able
to discuss what they had learned from the article. Crystal focused on Table 1 saying,
“She [the facilitator] put this [Table 1] up. That’s when I applied some of it, like
‘students work together in teams’.” Robin, who had read the article and found it
interesting, articulated how it influenced interactions with students
[Just] being more positive and just tell them [the students] when they’re
doing a good job. Just tell them their doing good. And when you don’t,
sometimes they get really disheartened, but I just tell them not to worry about
it. Just be encouraging. I didn’t know that it was such a big deal…was such a
big problem as far as just learning.
72
Pat read the article, but by the time of our interview, she admitted forgetting it. She
described the article as talking about “diverse cultures or something like that.” When
I showed her a copy of the article, she recalled that it was Table 1 that interested her
and provided guidelines of how to teach a diverse population,
It kinda gave me like an idea or something. How if something happens, how
should I perceive it, how I should handle it. Or how a students background…
just [what] to expect I guess. What kind of students I get or [what] faculty
should do.
While reading the article, Heather saw some things that she was doing or should
have done in the classroom and that validation meant encouraging the students. In
order to encourage the students, she offers them extra help and tries to be personable.
She thought the article was good, but kind of long. She felt that the chart, which
appeared in the appendix, should have come earlier in the article because it was an
easy way to look at where she “fit in” when determining if she was a validating
instructor.
Validation
Even if the TAs did not read the complete Rendon article, there were
instances when they exhibited characteristics of validating instructors. Increased
student self-efficacy is a by-product of validation. In our interview, Robin talked
about a student who exhibited characteristics of low self-esteem and how the student
felt reassured by interacting with Robin,
I had this one kid who goes every day [to office hours] after class. He just
follows me into my office and all he wants to do, he just wants me to look
over his work…he goes up there and does the problems and just wants me to
tell him that he’s doing a good job and that he’s doing them right.
73
Another aspect of being a validating instructor also comes from having high
expectations for students. Agnes shared an example when the students had not met
her expectations and what her reaction was.
One [quiz] recently was six out of ten and that wasn’t okay with me. So I said
‘okay if you got below a seven then you need to do extra homework and
we’re going to have another question over this material on the quiz on Friday
to try to get them up to speed. Usually I think [their quiz scores] is probably
about seven, ‘cause the six bothered me.
Allowing students to re-do assignments until they master them is also a characteristic
of an academically validating classroom. Heather talked about her students’
opportunity to correct their tests.
I made them do test corrections if they didn’t get an A and they turned them
in and they were wrong. And so this time, I’m like ‘no you have to do them
and you have to do them right’ And so if they’re right, I check them off and if
they’re wrong, I write them a little note and give it back to them and make
them re-do it.
Getting to know the students individually also enables the TAs to establish a
validating classroom experience that can eventually lead to academic success. Agnes
shared the story of a student that became more engaged in the class when she pointed
out things he did correctly on his in-class assignments. Sally focused on students in
her class who are not doing well. “If I see somebody getting a bunch of fails [on
quizzes or tests] I make sure I can match the name with the face. I’m going to know
who that is and I’m going to look out for them in the classroom.” When I asked Pat
how she gets to know her students on an individual basis, she stated that she “started
to recognize each individual’s potential as I grade their stuff and I do talk to them
individually about their grades.” Gloria felt that she was unable to get to know her
74
students on an individual basis because there was no time to have personal
interactions in class due to the amount of material to cover.
All of the TAs encouraged group work during their classes and found their
students were receptive to this teaching method with the exception of Robin.
Although this is a characteristic of an academically validating classroom, none of the
TAs made the connection of this practice to increasing the academic success for
students of color. Group work just happened to be a technique they were encouraged
to do in the training program. Ms. King also alluded to this serendipitous
happenstance when she and I discussed the appendix of the Rendon article. She said
that as educators, she and other faculty members utilize many of these practices, they
just do not necessarily use the term validation.
Sociocultural Consciousness
To be a culturally responsive instructor, the TAs need to have what Villegas
and Lucas (2002) refer to as sociocultural consciousness (strand 1). In order to move
toward an awareness that ethnicity and gender play a role in an individual’s
perspective, the TAs should acknowledge their students’ ethnic and gender
differences. In the interviews, I asked the TAs if they noticed the ethnic and gender
diversity in their classes. Their responses are presented in the table below:
75
Table 5: TAs Acknowledgement of Ethnic and Gender Diversity in Their Classes
Pseudonym Response
Robin “Yeah, it [the class] was pretty diverse. A mixture of different
ethnic backgrounds.”
Sally “It’s not too diverse. I mean we have like the stereotype of Asians
for example, they’re geniuses at math. So I don’t have too many
Asians for example. But you know, for the most part, this campus is
very diverse, so my classes are pretty diverse too. I think I have at
least a couple from different ethnicities. Gender is pretty mixed
too.”
Heather “It’s mostly girls.” [My husband noticed] there were a lot of
Hispanics. There is some, I don’t know…there’s a mix. There aren’t
many African Americans. I know in Orange County there aren’t
that many in general here…I don’t have a lot of Asians, I have
maybe 3 or 4 of them, a couple of African American, but mostly
White and Hispanic.”
Pat “There’s more females than males. I would say the majority of my
class is probably Hispanic. There’s a few Blacks, one Asian a few
Whites, that’s it.”
Agnes “It’s more evenly matched [between men and women]…There’s a
range [ethnically diverse].”
Lisa “Most of the time there are more female than male...[They are
pretty diverse based] on their last name. Most I think there were
Spanish accents.”
Crystal “I have more women than men….You can say that [they] are pretty
diverse”
Gloria [One class] is about ½ and ½ but [the other class] just several boys,
the rest are girls. So I’m kind of surprised [there’s] such a big
difference. [One class] there’s about 2 or 3 African Americans, no
probably more than that, probably 4 or 5. It’s just a couple Asian,
I’m kind of surprised, I expected more. And the rest are Hispanics.
There’s a lot of Hispanics.”
76
Two of the TAs, Robin and Gloria articulated what instructors need to know
to teach an ethnically diverse class. Robin had never really thought about it before,
but felt it was useful if the instructor could “understand what kind of background
some of the kids come from.” In addition, when the instructor and student shared the
same background, the student may feel more comfortable approaching the instructor
and asking for help. Gloria believed that teaching mathematics was easier than
teaching other subjects in which language may become a barrier in an ethnically
diverse class. She stated,
Even for those who couldn’t speak good English, they could just look and do
it in their head, they can still succeed in class. Even though you could not
read good English, just look at the formulas and you can figure it out.
Although the TAs were aware of their students ethnic diversity on a surface
level (i.e. the ability to visually categorize them), they did not necessarily make a
connection to how this diversity influenced the dynamics of teaching, learning, and
student success in the classroom. However, when I asked the TAs about what role a
faculty member could play in students’ success, some of their responses contained
preliminary indications of culturally responsive characteristics: authentic caring,
institutional agents, and validation. If the TAs had opportunities to discuss how race
and ethnicity impacts student learning and learned tools about how to help the
students, then the TAs could begin to develop into culturally responsive instructors.
Here are the TAs comments on the role they felt they could play in student success:
77
Table 6: TAs Role in Student Success
Pseudonym Role Faculty Members Can Play
Robin “Approaching them and asking if they need any help.” (authentic
caring)
“It helps if you understand what kind of background these people
[the students] come from.” (Villegas and Lucas strand 5)
Sally “Be their mentor. Help them out, help lift them up. Helping
them…if they need any help following their path, not just [me] up
there teaching math.” (authentic caring and institutional agent)
Heather “You can make your class interesting or you could make it boring.
And if they’re more interested, they’re more likely to come and do
the work.”
“E-mail them. Write little notes on their homework or quizzes when
they’re low.” (authentic caring)
“Calling on individual students. I think that works.” (validation - to
encourage every student to actively participate in class)
Pat “The instructor [is] the role model ‘cause the students look up to the
instructors and they follow the instructors’ examples.”
Agnes “I can do what I can but I can’t make them do their homework and if
they don’t do their homework…You know, that’s what math is
about, it’s not a spectator sport. You gotta do it and so ways of
motivating them [the students] and giving them all the tools, that’s
how I see my job.”
“Treating them as adults, turning their responsibility for their
learning over to them, but doing everything I can to encourage it.”
(Villegas and Lucas strand 4)
Lisa “It’s my job to help them succeed in this class.” (institutional agent)
“I care about how they [the students] progress.” (validation)
Crystal
“I make them walk to the board and explain it to the classroom [and
do] presentations.” (validation - this practice demonstrates active
learning techniques where students learn from each other and not
just the instructor – however, it must be done without reinforcing
inadequacy and fear in the student)
Gloria “You gotta be enthusiastic about this [remedial mathematics]. If you
sound like you don’t care, of course they [the students] can feel it.”
78
The comments by the TAs can be analyzed using the literature reviewed in
chapter 2. When Lisa said that it was her job to help the students succeed in the
mathematics class, she did not articulate details of how she would do this. However,
it shows that she has reflected on the responsibility that instructors have to help the
students achieve their success. Instructors that have high expectations for students
and provide access to resources and opportunities are characterized as institutional
agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Sally’s comment also refers to helping the students
follow their path and being their mentor. In addition to developing preliminary
characteristics of an institutional agent, Sally also showed signs of authentic caring.
By becoming their mentor, she articulated a role in which she can support the
students and take action to ensure their success. Robin’s statement on approaching
students and asking if they needed help reflected an active way to encourage
students, thereby showing authentic caring. Encouragement is also shown through
Heather’s notes to her students. Showing a genuine interest in their students’
experience is a feature of validation. Lisa expressed this by caring about the
students’ progress. Rendon’s (1994) research on validation discussed active learning
techniques. Crystal’s statement about getting the students involved in classroom
presentations and Heather’s response about calling on individual students are
examples of active learning techniques. These practices attempt to increase student
involvement in the classroom and move away from the transmission method of
instruction.
79
Two of TAs comments on the role of the faculty can also be linked to the
Villegas and Lucas (2002) strands reviewed in chapter 3. Agnes believes that faculty
members can turn the learning over to the students which shows a constructivist view
of thought and glimpses of a validating classroom. In that same statement, she also
says that she will encourage learning, which shows that she takes some responsibility
for the student learning, not leaving their success only up to the students. The fifth
strand, learning about students and their communities, is articulated in Robin’s
comment. By having knowledge of the students’ background, the TAs can begin to
develop into culturally responsive instructors.
When asked about the role faculty members can play in student success, two
of the TAs responses did not reflect characteristics of culturally responsive
instructors. Pat and Gloria’s comments, while genuine, did not articulate any of the
culturally responsive actions reviewed in chapter 2. This may be due to their lack of
knowledge about ways faculty members can help diverse students or they may not
have had the time to reflect fully on the other roles that faculty members could play
to encourage student success.
Although the Title V Grant did not provide a specific framework of how the
instructor training program should be designed, the literature in chapter 2 suggested
that culturally responsive instructors help students succeed. The TAs did have the
opportunity to read the Laura Rendon (1994) article about validation. In their
interviews, the TAs gave examples of classroom practices which can be interpreted
as culturally responsive although they did not make a connection to how students’
80
culture and ethnicity affected their experiences in the classroom. This chapter
continues by discussing the TAs experience in the training program utilizing
Kirkpatrick’s framework for program evaluation. In addition, culturally responsive
teaching will be used to analyze the data when warranted.
Reactions to TA Training Program in General
By the end of the semester all eight of the TAs expressed a positive reaction
to their experience with the training program. The TAs who had participated in
previous in semesters still found the training program valuable. During the
interviews, I asked the TAs to use one word to describe the program. They used
adjectives such as “helpful”, “comforting”, and “supportive” because in the program
they learned what their peers were doing through observing each other, by reading
each other’s journal responses, and sharing information both in and outside the
workshop. It was their interactions through the training program that facilitated a
sense of community among the TAs and enabled them to learn from each other. In
addition, their interactions showed them that they all faced similar challenges in the
classroom. Robin felt “maybe it’s not you that’s the only one having problems or
gets a little nervous their first time teaching. And then that way you could just
discuss any kind of problems or issues you have with your classes.”
Even the two TAs who had participated previously in the training program
continued to recognize the value of the program for themselves and understood that
their learning about teaching was an on-going evolution. Agnes commented on her
thoughts about teaching,
81
‘cause teaching, its not like as natural as breathing or walking, so you have to
learn. And there’s lots of sharing ideas and sharing tips is really helpful to
me. So I was very happy that there was a program like that.
The initial excitement about the program came from the opportunity to
network with and learn from the other TAs. Heather, a new TA, enjoyed the
networking opportunity created by the program. “It’s good to talk to other people to
see other ideas and different ways of doing things.” There were several comments
that the TAs made in regards to the personal benefits they gained from the program,
which facilitated their decision to continue participating in the program. “…if I’m
able to come to the meetings, I will [just] for the amount of information that is
good.”
Another discovery that emerged in the interviews came from the question
about whether the program should continue. All eight TAs said that the program
should continue and Agnes articulated a central reason why the program was
important to the TAs. “[We want] to do a good job and we also don’t want to get
eaten alive [by the students]. There’s both motivations there.” Gloria expressed her
feelings on how she would feel if there was no training program offered “I think
without this training, I probably would feel a little bit…hopeless. You know ‘cause I
have no idea what to do, no support.” Agnes articulated why the program was so
critical to the TAs,
It’s something we don’t get anywhere else really. Most of us don’t have an
educational background. We haven’t ever thought of educational philosophy
or how to teach things. We just experienced education as a student and it’s
totally different when you’re the teacher. You have to think about things and
it’s a forum for sharing different ideas or just talk about these different kinds
82
of things…We need some kind of forum for talking about how to teach and
that’s the only place we have it. And so for that reason I think it’s helpful.
If the program could not be offered in its current format, one suggestion was that it
should be required just for new TAs and optional for experienced TAs. I also
discovered through the interviews that many of the TAs felt that the $250.00 stipend,
although appreciated, was not a factor that determined their participation.
When I asked the TAs about how they learned about the training program,
they had all received an e-mail from the facilitators, yet they were unsure of what to
expect from the program or what it would be about. A syllabus for the training
program was not distributed. Not being familiar with the workshops, Crystal was
initially hesitant to participate. “I don’t think it’s important to me ‘cause…I’m really
busy.” Then, she learned that she had to attend. Pat was also not familiar with the
workshops and was pleasantly surprised that they were not what she expected.
Actually in the Wednesday meetings, I thought it was more like a feedback
thing instead of a helpful meeting where they actually show you how to do
things. I thought it was just like okay, you go in, they’re going to [give you]
feedback, feed you information that’s it. So it’s actually more than that.
Gloria’s initial thoughts about what the experience would include were also
transformed over the course of the semester.
I thought that probably we were just going to learn how to present the
material because we’re new teachers. But I didn’t know that actually they
were also going to teach us other things. You know, how to deal with the
student, that’s helpful too…I was excited because I was inexperienced. I
really need something.
The overall reaction to the training program in general was positive. Yet,
initially the new TAs did not know what to expect from the program, but were
83
pleasantly surprised. Next, I will discuss in further detail the TAs reaction to the
specific components of the training program: the workshops, the observations, and
the journals.
Reactions to the Workshops
There were 12 workshop sessions in the fall and occasionally a TA would
miss a workshop due to illness. The workshops took place in a classroom on the
fourth floor of McCarthy Hall, the first building erected on the 50-year-old campus.
Dark chalkboards envelop the room on three sides. Five rows of grey speckled
rectangular tables are neatly organized from the front to the back of the room and a
row of single seat tablet desks flank the right side and back of the room. The chairs
are black with flexible plastics back and cushioned seats. This room was probably
created for a geography or history class based on the large cluster of maps which
hang above the blackboard in the front of the room.
The TAs naturally gravitated to the same seats week after week, as if they
were assigned to them. A few of them dutifully scribbled notes during the
presentations while many of them just gazed at the screen that captured the images
projected by the overhead. In the beginning, the TAs rarely asked questions and
when prompted by a facilitator, it was typically the same people who responded.
Their behavior reminded me of a traditional undergraduate class. As the workshop
series progressed, there were three times when the facilitators modeled the behavior
of a validating instructor and had the TAs work in small groups to solve
84
mathematical problems. Small group work promotes active learning and
collaboration, characteristics of a validating environment.
The workshops were approximately 50 minutes and the sessions were
conducted informally. The first workshop took place during the second week of the
semester and it was the only meeting where an agenda was distributed (see appendix
E). The facilitators selected the majority of the workshop topics based on feedback
they solicited from the TAs during the first journal exercise and workshop #4.
Therefore, the composition of the group affected the workshop topics. For example
in the spring 2007 training program, most of the TAs were teaching general
education (GE) mathematics and the topics discussed in the workshop focused on
GE mathematics curriculum. Although the Title V Grant specifically references
training for remedial mathematics instructors, previous cohorts have been composed
of non-remedial instructors. With the majority of TAs teaching remedial
mathematics, the topics for the fall 2007 workshops focused mostly on pedagogy of
basic mathematics lessons. The facilitators showed the TAs how to teach specific
mathematical concepts. Although there was no syllabus distributed for the
workshops, I took field notes at each meeting. Here is an overview of the topics
covered in each workshop based on my field notes:
Workshop #1 (the topics listed for Workshop #1 were directly transcribed from the
agenda that was distributed)
85
Group introductions, discussion of article entitled Validating Culturally
Diverse Students, study skills and how to improve them (study posters),
journal requirements, the Title V grant and how it relates to the training
program, learning styles (modality preference inventory), important
information from the Coordinators Meeting (how to conduct a review session
before the test – too much versus not enough information)
Workshop #2
Algebra tiles (a tactile and visual method to help students factor)
Workshop #3
Planning for Learning versus Planning for Teaching (lesson planning), the
FOIL method (factoring)
Workshop #4
Anatomy of a Lesson (an observation guide), teacher questions (taxonomy
table of different question types in the classroom to get students engaged),
developing future workshop topics
Workshop #5
Systems of Equations
Workshop #6
Sharing of journal responses, Complex Rational Expressions
Workshop #7
Academic Integrity and Disruptive Behavior (Guest presenter: Julie Cole
11
)
Workshop #8
Breaking mathematics problems into smaller steps, logic in mathematics,
Bowling for Integers (interactive number exercise), sharing of journal
responses
11
Pseudonym
86
Workshop #9
Teaching observations (journal prompt of things that worked well/did not
work well), brain research and what it means to developmental mathematics
teaching and learning
Workshop #10
Planet walk (warm-up exercise), Logarithms
Workshop #11
Reflections of the TAs on their first semester teaching, facilitators share their
experience as new instructors, the required parts of a syllabus, sharing of
journal responses
Workshop #12
Training Program evaluation (appendix F)
The workshops were a chance for the TAs to learn what Gloria described as
“tricks of the trade” or how to explain or present mathematics problems to students.
Pat found the topics and the format of the presentation useful. “The basic explanation
of a problem, how they did it step by step. That was really helpful; I liked that and
was able to use it in my class.” The topics covered in the workshops seemed to be
most useful when the TAs were able to implement the lessons in their own
classrooms. These types of lessons had the most favorable reactions when I asked the
TAs about them in the interviews. Even if the TAs could not use the lessons
immediately, they may be able to use the lessons in future classes. When asked about
the usefulness of the workshop topics, Sally commented, “…even if it’s not useful
[right now], it’s nice to hear. So when I’m actually sitting in the meetings, it’s
87
always, if not helpful, it’s always good to hear. But I think it’s always…been helpful
for me.”
During workshop #1, the facilitators discussed ways to increase student
learning. It included determining students’ preferred learning methods, for example
auditory, kinesthetic, and visual. In addition, Ms. King shared examples of large
posters of mathematical formulas and diagrams that her students created. The TAs
were encouraged to use the poster exercise with their students. Some of Pat’s and
Lisa’s students did them for extra credit. Agnes liked the poster samples and used
them as extra credit for her students to help them retain information over
Thanksgiving break in preparation for finals. She said, “I’ve gotten some specific
ideas of things [from the workshop]. I would have never done the poster thing except
that [Ms. King] talked about that.” Throughout the semester, Agnes also enjoyed
hearing about the common mistakes students make in mathematics problems because
these are things instructors usually have to discover on their own after years of
experience,
So, you warn them [the students] about the kinds of mistakes they’re going to
make and help them practice so that they don’t make them, then things just
go better. The first time through, it’s hard to anticipate everything and if you
can…just be told from experienced teachers where the problems are. There’s
no way to bypass the years of experience ‘cause you just have to get it too.
But if you [the facilitators] can help some of that, that’s good I think.
The workshop on academic integrity and disruptive behavior was particularly
useful for the new TAs. Julie Cole provided them with guidelines about basic
classroom management issues. Both Sally and Crystal dealt with academic
88
dishonesty in their classes and found Ms. Cole’s presentation very helpful. Pat stated
that just the information she heard in this workshop gave her confidence to manage
her classroom as she saw fit.
Before…I wasn’t too sure like ‘oh should I do this?’ or ‘no, maybe I don’t
know if I’m allowed to do that’. But now, it’s just like ‘okay I know I can do
this’. For example, if you have a student that’s talking in the class, you can
ask him to leave. Before I wasn’t sure. Am I allowed to ask them to leave?
What if I get in trouble? But now its like okay, I know I can ask them to
leave.
The TAs did articulate suggestions for changes in the workshop. One thing
that Agnes thought would be more helpful is the opportunity to practice teaching
more in the workshops, instead of just hearing the material from the facilitators.
You know that’s part of how you learn is by practicing. And if they just tell
us stuff ‘here try this’ it doesn’t necessarily make it into the classroom, it
doesn’t necessarily make it into my repertoire….Have us practice, you know,
get us up in front of the class [workshop].”
Motivating students is an issue that TAs talked about in their interviews and also in
their journals. Gloria felt that the remedial students needed to be inspired by her
energy and enthusiasm to be academically successful because they lacked self-
motivation. Many of the TAs did not know how to motivate students to attend class
regularly, complete their homework, participate in class, and study. Agnes, Robin,
and Crystal felt that more discussion in the workshops on how to motivate students
would have been useful.
Robin also wanted more assistance in the workshops with how to plan classes
(or creating lesson plans) which can be particularly precarious for inexperienced
instructors. During workshop #3, a handout on ‘Planning for Learning’ was
89
distributed which emphasized the importance of planning a class so that the students
learn as opposed to planning a class based solely on the instructors perspective. This
learner centered teaching takes into account how the students will understand the
concepts, how content can be contextualized, and the opportunities for the students
to co-author their knowledge which creates a validating classroom. Both Robin and
Agnes described this handout as useful. In addition, the journal prompts (discussed
later in this chapter) that coincided with the workshop on planning a class asked the
TAs to reflect on how they prepare a lesson. However, the TAs journal responses on
lesson preparation were not discussed in the workshop. Even if the topic of
becoming a learner centered instructor was not covered or discussed extensively in
the workshop, some of the TAs talked about things they did in the classroom to
promote learner centered teaching.
Learner centered versus instructor centered.
Activities in the classroom can distinguish between an instructor that is
learner centered versus instructor centered. The TAs were told not to lecture too
much and were encouraged to give the students the opportunity to work on problems
in small groups. This learner centered practice is also a characteristic of a validating
classroom according to Rendon (1994) because it promotes active learning and
collaboration. During group work, the TAs walked around the room and assisted
students individually which enabled them to interact with the students and learn
about their strengths and weaknesses. Heather used the group work as an opportunity
to learn more about her students’ ability, “I really like having them do the problems
90
and walk around and see where they get stuck…you get a certain amount of that
from quizzes and exams, but I prefer more. I prefer [to get] quicker feedback.”
After observing the class of another instructor, Pat commented on what she
could do to be more learner centered. “I gotta make sure that it’s really easy for the
students to be able to comprehend the mathematics procedures I’m teaching.” She
continued to talk about the transition that she underwent, from instructor centered to
learner centered.
I guess before, I wasn’t too much focused on them. I was more like ‘oh yeah,
you know I have to do my lecture and stuff’. But as I got to know each
student individually, I guess that kind of helped them boost up their grades.
Pat did not provide reasons why her individual attention to the students had a
positive affect on their grades. The focus on learner centered practices causes Agnes
to reflect on her experiences as a student.
The focusing on the student was something I didn’t get as a student. I didn’t
think about how teaching was supposed to focus on student learning rather
than on the professor lecturing and you know professors still lectured. And
you know that everyone does that to some degree I guess. But focusing on the
student learning…it doesn’t count as teaching if they aren’t learning.
Reactions to the TA Observing Each Other
During workshop #4, the facilitators distributed a form to help the TAs focus
their observations of each other (appendix G). The plan was to have each TA observe
their peers in addition to being observed by the facilitators. The TAs reacted
positively to having the opportunity to observe other instructors, but they each
readily admitted that being observed made them nervous. One way the TAs learned
to teach is by patterning themselves after watching their own instructors in the
91
classroom. Focusing on their instructor’s teaching style can be somewhat challenging
because at the time, students are concentrating on learning the material and not on
the instructor’s pedagogical methods. Robin stated, “I’ve sat through a lot of classes
obviously, but you never go sit there and observe the teacher, their teaching style. So
yeah, it’s good to just sit down and observe how they [other teachers] are teaching.”
The observation component supplemented the discussions about teaching style that
took place in the workshops. Agnes declared,
It’s hard to explain to somebody else how you teach and really watching
them is the only way to get a sense of the variety of teaching styles. So it’s
worth it. It’s worth it to take the time for sure.
The observation component was a way for the TAs to see each other
executing their lesson plans, but did not show them the preparation that went into
planning the lesson, a topic that was important to some of the new TAs as stated
earlier. In addition, the TAs learned about themselves based on the feedback from
others. Pat summarized her general feelings of the experience. “[I was] kinda
nervous. Maybe they [the observers] might say something like ‘okay you need to do
this, do that’. But then it’s good ‘cause I don’t mind taking advice ‘cause you know
you’re always learning.”
During the observations, the TAs were instructed to pay attention to the
questions the TA asked during class and record them on the observation form.
However, the TAs received very little direct feedback from their peers afterwards.
Dr. Clark provided written feedback from his observations and the TAs found it
useful. Agnes did not get a lot of feedback from her peers, just from Dr. Clark, which
92
she described as very helpful. She went on to talk about the pros and cons of
feedback from her peers,
Because sometimes other TAs have good ideas and I’d like to hear
them…but then it also might be harder to get feedback from another TA.
He’s [Dr. Clark] good about. It’s pretty easy to hear it back from him. He’s
gentle and he’s got years of experience and hearing from another TA might
be harder.
The TAs received some indirect feedback from the observations when they
completed journal #6 ‘Write down some observations from your own class or from a
visitation from another class regarding strategies that have worked well and
strategies that have not worked well’. Their journal responses were briefly discussed
in the workshop, although names were not attached to the observations so it was
impossible to determine which observation was about a particular TA. The TAs
wrote about how students behaved in each other’s classes and how their peers
facilitated the students’ learning.
Some of the TAs were not told in advance when they would be observed.
This surprise visit increased the TAs nervousness. Furthermore, because some of the
observations occurred toward the end of the semester, the TAs had little opportunity
to implement the feedback from the observers into their classroom routines. Pat said
“I will actually apply what they told me in the spring.”
Reactions to Journal
Ms. King e-mailed the TAs journal prompts and they submitted their
responses electronically to her prior to each workshop. She sent the TAs responses to
me. Beginning with workshop #6, the facilitators shared the TAs anonymous
93
responses with the group. This led to a regular distribution of the responses to the
group and the opportunity for the TAs to read what their peers had written. Here are
the journal prompts:
Journal #1
Please list a topic or two that you would like to have addressed at a future
meeting
Would you be interested in a lesson on the use of algebra tiles? Also please
let us know if you have ever used them before in your teaching or learning of
algebra.
Name one of the most successful activities or lessons that occurred during
your first two weeks of teaching along with one that you feel did not work
very well.
Journal #2
Explain in detail how you are preparing for teaching your courses.
Journal #3
To prepare for class do you read each section to be taught in the text?
Do you encourage your students to read each section to be taught in the text?
Do you work out the homework problems that you assign?
How do you engage the student (how do you encourage participation)?
Do you take time to consider the common points of struggle for your
students? How do you address this in class?
How do you determine questions to ask of your students?
What kinds of questions do you ask in class? Mostly yes or no, thoughtful
questions to encourage understanding of concepts, or some of both?
How do you begin a lesson each day?
94
How specifically do you encourage students to work on mathematics outside
of class?
If you asked your students if you as a teacher enjoyed his/her job as a teacher,
what do you think they would say?
How are you encouraging students to improve/learn study skills?
Do you arrive to your class a few minutes early in order to settle yourself, to
settle your students, to model prompt arrival and to great your students as
they arrive?
How do you assess student learning other than homework, quizzes, or exams?
How long do you wait after asking a question to allow students to answer?
What do you do when you ask a question and no students volunteer an
answer?
Journal #4
Please write down three questions that you have asked your students during a
lesson that you consider to be thoughtful and mathematically engaging.
Journal #5
Think of one additional question (or problem) you have encountered since the
beginning of the semester that would be a good one for the group to discuss.
Journal #6
Write down some observations from your own class or from a visitation to
another class (do not have to mention names!) regarding strategies that have
worked well and strategies that have not worked well. These can be with
reference to pedagogy, class management, or content. Specifically, please
send two examples of teaching (or managing) that worked well in the
classroom and two examples that did not work so well.
95
Journal #7
We want to know from each of you which days we cannot visit your classes
during the month of November due to exams/quizzes/activities. Please let us
know this so we can make our visitation schedule.
Journal #8
Reflect on two of the topics of lessons over the semester that you feel went
well for you and/or your students. Please describe the topics, lessons, details,
etc. regarding why these particular lessons were successful for you and/or
your students.
Journal #9
What will you do differently? For example, classroom management, lesson
plans, group activities, teaching, etc.
The TAs generally had a positive reaction to many of the journal prompts.
Sally said, “It made me realize things I’m not doing or that I am doing…it was kind
of an eye opener of things that I should be looking out for if I’m not already.”
Crystal went into even further detail with the reasons how the journals prompted her
to think about changes in her teaching style. As a new instructor, it was difficult for
her to discern what to expect in the classroom. Some of the journal prompts caused
her to think about her classroom management and how she would teach certain
topics.
The TAs were also interested in seeing how their peers responded to the
prompts. During the second half of the training program, the facilitators began to
share journal responses in the workshop. This elicited a positive response from Pat,
“I actually like it [reading other peoples] because I get to read what other people’s
96
opinions are instead of just mine.” Robin enjoyed being able to read the other TAs
responses to the journals because it provided ideas that could be utilized for students.
Although the feedback about seeing each other’s journal entries was generally
positive, Heather suggested that the responses could have also been shared in a
discussion format instead of just distributed. She admitted not reading the journal
responses when copies were provided in the workshops.
Although it was the longest one, the journal prompt that received the most
positive feedback was journal #3. The purpose of this journal was to have the TAs
reflect earnestly on how much preparation they put into student learning. The TAs
also felt indifferent about some of the journal prompts. Gloria shared her thoughts,
“you know, some of the topics are good. I mean I really have something to say.
Some of them, I just don’t have anything to say. It was hard to come up with
something, it’s really difficult.” Sally also talked about her struggles with some of
the journal prompts,
It’s kind of like a homework assignment, this journal. I have to think of
something. So those kind of journal entries where I really don’t have
anything to say but I feel like I have to because it’s like homework.
However, journal #3 helped Sally to think about what she needs to do differently and
she found that journal really helpful. Gloria felt that some of the questions required
some more teaching experience and so were difficult to answer. For example, journal
#8 asked the TAs for two topics of lessons they presented that worked well. TAs in
their first semester may attribute multiple circumstances as to why a lesson worked
97
well and felt that it may take several opportunities to teach a lesson to determine its
success.
Even before the responses were shared anonymously with the group, I had
the opportunity to review the journal responses each week. Here are some of the
questions that the TAs raised in their journal responses:
How do you improve students study habits?
How can I get students to care?
How do I get students to study?
Is it a lost cause to try to motivate students that do not like math?
Students do not ask questions about poor quiz scores. What can I do?
Any suggestions to encourage more involvement [in class]?
How do you make group work really work?
These questions seem to place the responsibility for student success completely with
the student. For example, assuming that students do not care removes the TA from
being responsible for helping the students understand the relevance of mathematics
to their future. This way of thinking among novice educators is common because of
their lack of knowledge regarding students of color.
Lack of specialized knowledge about racial and ethnic minorities may
prevent practitioners from seeing that behavior patterns seeming to suggest
low motivation indifference are often learned coping strategies.
Consequently, when minority students do not perform well academically, and
do not exhibit the behaviors and attitudes of the archetypical student,
practitioners who lack knowledge of students’ history and cultural lives are
likely to attribute poor outcomes to lack of integration, involvement,
engagement and effort. (Bensimon, 2007, p. 453)
98
The questions from the TAs show that they do need to acquire knowledge in order to
combat their negative perceptions of student ability. It is these perceptions that
indeed hinder student success and is contrary to their development of the TAs as
culturally responsive instructors.
The TAs reaction to the workshop was positive; however they did articulate
suggestions for changes. They also enjoyed observing their peers in the classroom
but were nervous when being observed. And finally, the TAs generally had a positive
reaction to many of the journal prompts and the opportunity to read each other’s
responses. Kirkpatrick’s second level of evaluation is discussed in the next section.
Learning
Learning is a major component of the training program and is the next area of
Kirkpatrick’s framework to be analyzed after reaction. Learning in the workshops
informed their perspective of their classroom experiences and vice versa. Learning
mathematics content and pedagogy was only a part of what the TAs learned. They
also learned about classroom management techniques and students. Learning about
students is covered more extensively later in this chapter. When the TAs were asked
in their interviews about what they learned, they articulated a variety of examples of
what they learned and from where. Here is an overall summary of what the TAs said
they learned about classroom management:
99
Table 7: Teaching Associates’ Learning about Classroom Management
Pseudonym Learning about classroom management (and from where)
Robin “Heather gave her quiz at the end of the period and that worked a lot
better.” (learning from other TAs)
“It takes a lot to do a lesson plan. A lot more than I thought it would,
That’s one of the toughest things to do…to make a good lesson plan.
A lot of it was trial and error. (learning from facilitators and
experience)
Sally “How to deter students from leaving class early – don’t count their
quiz for that day.” (learning from facilitators)
“How she organizes the classroom, what she does first in
class…does she review homework, how does she have the quiz.
Getting all these ideas from different TAs really helps.” (learning
from other TAs)
“I got real good advice from Julie [Cole – in Workshop #7]. She said
don’t let them have the opportunity to cheat.” Have the students use
a cover sheet. (learning from the experts in the workshop)
Heather “Calling on students, I think that works” As a way to encourage
student participation in class while making a conscious effort to call
on every student equally. (learning from facilitators)
Agnes “Ways of getting people more involved [in class]. The idea of
sending people to the board is something I got from them [the
facilitators].” (learning from the facilitators)
“Classroom management ideas.” (learning from facilitators)
Lisa “How to prepare a lesson plan” (learning from other TAs)
Crystal “We learn how to present the material and also how to deal with
students.” (learning from facilitators)
“Giving the homework solutions at the beginning of the class, just
writing on the board so they can check [them].” (learning from
observations)
“I learn a lot from them. How to deal with the students. When to
give the quiz. (learning from other TAs)
Gloria “I started giving group work in class”. (learning from facilitators)
“[How to deal with] academic dishonesty.” (learning from the
experts in the workshop)
100
This next table reviews the TAs statements about learning about pedagogy.
Table 8: Teaching Associates’ Learning About Pedagogy
Pseudonym Learning about pedagogy (and from where)
Robin “I find that my second class goes a lot smoother than the first one
and that’s only ‘cause I do trial and error. I do the first part and then
I realize when I get out that there was a better way to do this…a
more clear way. And I do a lot better on the second class.” (learning
from experience)
Pat “The basic explanation of a problem, how they [the facilitators] did
it step by step. That was really helpful. I liked that and was able to
use it in my class.” (learning from facilitators)
Agnes “I’ve gotten some specific ideas of things. I would have never done
the poster thing, except that they talk about that.” (learning from
facilitators)
“Common mistakes students make [on mathematics problems].”
(learning from facilitators)
Lisa “I had [students] make the study posters.” (learning from
facilitators)
This final learning table reviews TAs statements about learning about mathematics
content and where they learned it from.
Table 9: Teaching Associates’ Learning about Math Content
Pseudonym Learning about mathematics content (and from where)
Sally “They’ve [the facilitators] shown examples of how to work with
rational expressions. They showed how to do a simple arithmetic
problem and they get into algebra.” (learning from workshop)
Crystal “I learn a lot. How experienced professors teach. How to present
some of the material, like how to solve rational equations. How to
prove formulas.” (learning from workshop)
Gloria “How to factor a binomial” (learning from observation)
“The rule of the exponent” (learning from workshop)
101
The training program could have provided a vehicle for helping the TAs
‘unlearn’ whatever negative perceptions they may have about students and their
behavior, including how ethnicity and gender plays a role in learning. Generally, the
topic of ethnicity was not discussed except during the first workshop although the
grant was written to specifically to help Latino/as in STEM majors. In the interviews,
the TAs talked about learning about themselves through their experience in the
classroom, learning from each other, and what they learned about students both in
general and on an individual basis. These are covered in more detail in the following
sections.
Learning from Experience in the Classroom
The six new TAs were especially cognizant of what they learned through
their experiences in the classroom. Learning from experience was a central theme in
their interviews and the discussion in workshop #11. The TAs talked about what to
expect in the classroom during the meeting with Mr. Thompson (the faculty member
who coordinates the remedial mathematics courses) before the semester started, but
it was actually experiencing it themselves that made a larger impact on their
perceptions of self and who their students are. Gloria felt that “it’s different when
you have not experienced it,” and Agnes described her initial teaching experience as
“a pretty big shock,” much different from what was expected. The training program
enabled the TAs to think about and discuss things they had not yet had the chance to
experience and therefore would not have thought about on their own.
102
The students’ behavior contributed to the TAs learning experience in the
classroom. The average remedial mathematics class size in the fall of 2007 semester
was 37 students. In addition to having a well planned lesson, the execution of the
lesson depended on the behavior of the students (e.g., talking during class, not
paying attention to the TA) in these large classes and the TAs reaction to the
students’ behavior. Several of the TAs expressed a lack of knowledge on how to
manage their classrooms when it came to issues of students talking during class and
even academic dishonesty. Gloria said,
Of course at the very beginning I’m nervous, the first day especially. Then
you get used to it, not [as] nervous. But students’ behavior, because [I] never
taught before, [I] wouldn’t know how to deal with it…I’m also worried about
other things, like what’s [the] appropriate thing to say, you know? I don’t
want to offend anybody.
The incidents of negative student behavior caught the TAs by surprise. Gloria
summarized her first semester teaching, “it’s been lots of painful lessons ‘cause I’ve
had ups and downs, just simply reacting [to the difficult students]. It just came as a
surprise, but next semester I know what to do, so that’s a good thing.”
With more experience in the classroom comes a certain level of comfort. This
was articulated by TAs who taught previously. Sally stated, “as far as teaching goes,
it’s going smoother because obviously it’s the same lecture that I’m doing as last
semester. I do know from last semester [mathematics] problems that didn’t work.” A
semester of experience in the classroom also increases the TAs confidence in their
ability.
103
It’s hard to teach the first time…When you teach again, I know how much
I’m going to cover, I know which parts I need to emphasize because that’s
going to be important later. This time, the first time through, it’s just like ‘did
I need to talk about that so much, or is that never going to come up again. If I
forget or spend time on something that’s not really important, that’s not
serving anybody well.
This statement also speaks to Agnes’s concern for the students’ learning and
addresses how having a common syllabus and lesson plan affects the autonomy of
the TAs in the classroom.
According to Gloria, as the semester went on and the material got harder,
some of the students became discouraged. In order to encourage the students, she
gave them practice assignments in class; however, the students did not ask questions
in class. She attributed this to the students’ shyness. So to get them more involved,
she changed her strategy and put them into small groups so they could help each
other. The students responded enthusiastically. Gloria learned from this experience
that sometimes she had to change her strategy in order to help the students. Although
the students in Gloria’s class were amenable to working in groups, Robin’s students
had the opposite response. “I was like ‘you guys can work in groups if you want’ and
nobody did….And I’m trying to get a better way to encourage them to work in
groups.” Robin got ideas from other TAs about how they divide the class into groups
and plans to use this technique next semester. The facilitators suggested that in order
to get the students more involved in class, the TAs should call on them individually.
During the first set of interviews, the new instructors were optimistic about
the numbers of students who would pass their class. At the end of the semester, I
104
asked the TAs if there were students who would not pass. By this point, the TAs
were less optimistic about their students’ academic success and more reflective about
what they could do as instructors to help the students. This change in belief about
student ability stemmed from the TAs experience in the classroom. They were able
to witness that some students may start academically strong in the beginning of the
semester, and then for a variety of reasons, such as a decreasing amount of effort as
the semester progresses and the increasing difficulty level of the material, they do
not complete the class with a passing grade. The TAs also learned through their
experience in the classroom and from assessing the numbers of students that would
not pass, that they were unable to motivate every student to be academically
successful. As mentioned earlier, Robin, Agnes, and Crystal wished that the
workshops had addressed this issue more.
Learning from Other TAs and Networking
One of the benefits of the training program that the TAs reported was the
opportunity for them to interact with each other, which facilitated their learning.
They could discuss issues and learn other ideas from their peers. The lecture style
workshops offered limited opportunities for the TAs to interact during the 50
minutes allotted. Nevertheless, the workshops planted the seed of networking, which
was further nurtured in the part-time faculty office the TAs shared. There they
continued discussing things like how they prepared and graded their quizzes and
dealt with incidents of negative student behavior. Sally described the bonding that
developed among the TAs.
105
And you know these TA meetings, they go further than just on Wednesday’s
from 12:00 to 1:00. When we’re in 521 in our office, the TAs are constantly
talking to each other…we already know each other and we know that we can
ask each other questions.
This sense of camaraderie was a byproduct of the training program and helped
increase the TAs comfort level during their first semester teaching. Sally declared,
I just felt totally alone and lost and so when I came to this class in the
meeting, I saw some of my old classmates in there and so that was nice...I felt
like I could ask them questions which I did. I asked other TAs a lot of
questions about how things are run. So it helped me out.
The group developed into a collegial cohort that felt comfortable sharing ideas with
each other. Agnes articulated how the cohort supported each other, “I still feel like I
have so much to learn about teaching so I’m happy I can help some others but I also
look to other people for help.” Crystal shared an example of her learning experience
from a TA who helped her learn how to use algebra tiles. The TAs were exposed to
this tool in workshop #2 which she had missed.
[At] first I don’t like algebra tiles. I don’t even know [about] algebra tiles, so
I’m confused. I look at it and the way she [another TA] does it like ‘wow!’
And…when we saw each other in the office, I’m like ‘can you help me go
[through] this step by step so I can teach my students? And she did that [for]
me.
Learning about Students
In their interviews, the TAs spoke the most about what they learned about
students specifically in two main areas: students’ academic success and student
behavior in the classroom. Through both of these learning areas, the TAs were also
able to determine their role as instructors.
106
During the interviews, I asked the TAs to describe their students and they
tended to categorize them into two groups: those who understand the material and
are doing well in the class, and those who do not. According to several of the TAs,
the students who do well are the ones willing to do the work. The ones who are not
doing well are not willing to put in the time and energy. It is what a TA decides to do
with that second group that can affect the outcome of the students’ learning. Robin
said,
Some of them that really get the stuff. And I don’t know why….they just got
placed there so now they’re waiting to get on to the next level. ‘Cause for a
lot of them it comes real easy…it’s just remedial stuff. And then other
students, I don’t know, some of them I don’t think they quite grasp the
concept of being in college. I don’t think they’re ready for it. Some of them
don’t come to class very often and they do bad, but they don’t ask for help
and I stress it.
The additional challenge for TAs comes when they have a mix of these two groups
of students in the same class. Heather articulated this particular challenge when her
class used the algebra tiles.
For one thing, the low ones seem to get it and kind of understand it and it was
a help for them. The ones that are doing really well are like ‘this is hard, this
is awful, why can’t we do it the other way, I don’t like it, I hate this stuff’ and
you know whining and complaining.
In the interviews, I asked the TAs to share their thoughts about why students
did not do well in class. Their entrenched knowledge about students in basic skills
influenced what the TAs thought about their students’ capability. Several of the TAs
comments inferred that students did not like mathematics and therefore were not
good at it:
107
“I’ve got a couple who I don’t know if they’re going to make it or not…math
is not their thing.”
“Some of them are just weak. Math is not their subject.”
“They didn’t like math, I could tell. Two-thirds of them have to be
motivated.”
“I can tell that some of the students they don’t like math because in high
school they had a very bad experience in math.”
This entrenched knowledge about student ability and achievement can be
discouraging for the instructor and may lower their expectations for student
achievement. According to Agnes, some students also self-report their lack of
mathematical ability. They made statements like “I can’t do it.”, “I’ve never been
good at math.”, “My mind doesn’t work that way.”, “It’s always hard for me.” These
negative student comments could also contribute to the TAs entrenched knowledge
about their students’ ability and achievement. In one of the workshops, Dr. Clark
encouraged the TAs to talk to the students about the struggles the TAs have in
mathematics as a way to bolster the students’ self-esteem. When I asked Agnes why
students might have these attitudes and fear of mathematics, she replied,
I get anxious about it too. So I get it to some degree, but obviously on a
completely different scale than they do, so I understand that they have it
much more seriously than I do, but it’s scary. It’s scary because there is a
right answer and there’s a wrong answer and you don’t know if you‘re going
to get it…. And I think also there’s just a lot of baggage they come [with].
They’ve been told that they can’t do math, or they just have this idea that
they can’t do math from the 3
rd
grade. You know another reason I think that
people have this more with math than with other things is ‘cause it really
builds on itself and if they missed some piece way back when even if they’ve
kind of gone past that, they still feel like their foundation’s missing or
something because it builds on itself so much.
108
Because Agnes understands that her students may be anxious about mathematics, she
tries to incorporate warm-up exercises into her classes to help the students ease into
the lesson. She also puts a few easier questions in the beginning of the quizzes to
help increase the students’ confidence. Agnes learned these methodologies from her
previous teaching experience. She also re-assures the students that she will teach
them everything they need to know and that they will not be held responsible for
things that they may not have learned in the past. This affirmation of the students’
capability validates their worth as powerful learners (Rendon 1994). Sally took a
more optimistic perspective about the abilities of the remedial students saying, “I
think anybody could understand math. If they don’t understand math, it’s just they
haven’t found their way.” Her previous teaching experience has also helped Sally
understand that students learn in different ways, a characteristic of the constructivist
model of teaching, the fourth strand of Villegas and Lucas. “Teaching is like a
puzzle in itself ‘cause you have to try and think of different ways of explaining the
same thing for each individual person until they get it.”
The TAs also attributed students not doing well primarily to poor class
attendance. This directly impacted the students’ ability to learn. Poor attendance
combined with missing daily quizzes or occasional tests, quickly placed the student
below the 70% necessary to pass the class and receive the necessary credit to
advance to the general education mathematics class. Other reasons that the TAs felt
students were not academically successful included lack of studying, choosing not to
do the optional homework, or not seeking help. In the interviews, the TAs attributed
109
these reasons to the students’ lack of trying. Gloria said, “I gave extra credit
opportunities, but they didn’t do it…I give them [the] opportunity also to review
right before the exam, that day they should have showed up, right?...They didn’t
show up.” Agnes shared her thoughts on one particular student. She felt that his lack
of trying stemmed from his feelings that he would not be successful.
Part of that [his lack of trying] is because he feels like he can’t do it. You
know if he felt like he would be able to do it, if he felt like he was going to be
successful, then he probably would take the time and actually do it. He’s too
scared to try because he really belongs in a lower level. I imagine that there’s
some students like that…they feel like they can’t. You’re not even going to
try and jump over a 3 foot thing if you know you can only jump 2 feet.
What’s the point in that?
After working with the students for a semester, Pat was able to sum up the
students’ keys to success. The students need to “participate, practice, and study. If
you’re not going to set your mind to it, you’re not going to do well.” She described
these students’ characteristics as not caring and not even trying, but generally the
ones who make the effort and take advantage of office hours are “really good kids”.
She said, “To me, I believe that if they [the students] tried, they’d probably do it,
they’d probably participate, they’d probably pass the class, but they’re not trying.”
Gloria also expressed disappointment with the student effort. “There’s not much I
can do. I mean it’s two parts, I do my part, you gotta do your part, otherwise it’s not
going to work.”
The topic of getting the students to care about their success was not covered
in the workshops. While there is not an easy solution to this problem, it was a
110
concern expressed by several of the TAs during their interviews. Agnes admitted that
she did not have a solution to the issue.
How to turn the learning over to them…how to make it so that they feel like,
‘I own this and it’s up to me whether I make it a success or not’ and not have
them say ‘you didn’t teach it…And I don’t know how to do that, I mean,
that’s my intention, but I don’t know how to do it.
Pat expressed a very different perspective on what an instructor could do to
encourage the students to care about their learning. She stated,
I don’t really think it’s actually our fault. I think it’s more like the students
fault whether they care or not. You can’t really change their opinion. You can
try and try and try but I think they think you’re just an annoyance.
Pat’s self-efficacy about her ability to help students succeed affects her development
as a culturally responsive instructor.
Sally, a more experienced TA, can anticipate which students will be
successful. “It’s just so predictable as an instructor, you pretty much know who is
going to pass and who’s not just by, you know like the homework. These students
don’t even show up for class...they don’t care” She would tell the students “my job is
to help you, take advantage of it…I want to pass everybody. You know if it were up
to me, I’d pass everybody, but I can’t.” Agnes readily admitted that her main goal
was for the students to pass. She encouraged students to show up and do their best.
Lisa expressed disappointment with students who came to class but expected to be
“spoon fed” the material without making the necessary effort to learn on their own.
Pat described students passively sitting in class expecting to learn as having a “high
school mindset.” Agnes planned to get her students more involved next semester by
111
having them do problems at the board. This would deter them from coming to class
and “waiting to be filled like an empty vessel”. Most of the new TAs said they were
not sure how to help students who were not doing well. Robin pondered one option,
“I don’t know if I should just approach them and be like ‘hey you’re not going to
pass the class if you don’t try harder or do something.’” A few of the TAs attempted
to reach out to the students in effort to save them from failing. Heather stated, “I just
try and be really available to them and if they don’t do well, I’ll write them a little
note ‘please see me and get help with this.’” Some students came to see her after this
intervention. Heather and Gloria both e-mail students who miss multiple classes to
encourage them to seek more help from either them or the tutoring center.
Agnes attributes the reason that students do not ask for help is that they hope
this time they will do well in mathematics, although that may have not been the case
in the past. Other TAs also expressed concern with the low numbers of students that
sought help during office hours. Several TAs felt that if the students came in for
individual help, they would be more successful. Each TA reported that there were
only two or three students who came to office hours on a regular basis, but they did
not know how to remedy the situation. Agnes commented, “So if I could figure out
how to get them to come in more, it would be great. But when they do come in and
the lights go on, it’s great. But I don’t know how to do it.” In addition to encouraging
the students to utilize office hours, Robin, Lisa, and Heather recommended that
students use the Math Tutoring Center if they needed help. The TAs’ knowledge of
the campus resources is the preliminary step to becoming an institutional agent.
112
Armed with this knowledge, the TA can escort students to the resources and model
practices of how to use the services successfully. However, none of the TAs
articulated taking this additional step with their students.
TAs also offered extra credit and earnestly encouraged students to take
advantage of the opportunity in an effort to pass the class. But as Pat described, the
students who did well in the class did the extra credit, and those who are not, did not
do it. So she has decided not to offer extra credit in the future and was also deterred
from offering it by the amount of time it took her to grade the extra credit.
Throughout the fall, the TAs reported that they learned about how to manage
their classrooms, about how to teach mathematical content, and about students. They
learned from their experiences in the classroom, from each other in the workshop
and through the observations. In the interviews, the TAs reported that they learned
the most about students, specifically their academic success and their behavior in the
classrooms. This learning led to them making decisions about what they planned to
change about their practices in the classroom. The next section goes into further
detail about what the TA will do differently in future semesters.
Self Reported Changes in Practice
Based on what the TAs learned from the workshop, their peers, and
experiences in the classroom in the fall semester, all of them articulated changes they
made to their teaching practices immediately or will make in the spring 2008
semester. Robin, Pat, and Crystal also talked about changes they noticed in
113
themselves. Here is an overall summary of what the TAs said when asked about their
changes:
Table 10: Teaching Associates Change in Practice
Pseudonym Reported Change in Practice
Robin “I’m trying to get a better way to encourage them [the students] to work in
groups.”
Give the quiz at the end of the period (instead of the beginning, so that
students can leave when they are done).
“I talked to some of the other TAs and they said they would just choose the
groups. They number off like 1, 2, 3, 6 and then the people who had the
same number, they would get in the same group. I think I’ll try that next
semester.”
“As far [as] just the presence I set, just try to move up in front of more
kids.” (in the classroom stetting, move among the students instead of
standing at the front)
“I’m able to convey my ideas and thoughts to the students. I feel more
relaxed and comfortable being up there [in front of the room] so I think that
makes me a better teacher.”
“I was thinking I should try to find some warm-up activities to do.”
Sally “If [the students] decide to make it a habit and leave unexcused, then [their]
quiz doesn’t count…They don’t just walk out anymore and that was a good
improvement.”
“Next semester, day one, I’m just going to be real firm. And then little by
little, bring out the friendly [side]. So I will improve on that.”
“[The facilitators] lesson [on rational expressions], I’ve actually been using
that technique for a lot of stuff.”
“Next semester, I will start the course by passing out cover sheets for every
exam.” (this is to discourage students from cheating off of each other)
Heather “I’ve been trying a lot of things they suggest in the program. I’d have them
[the students] do a problem and while they’re doing a problem, I’m walking
around and looking at what they’re doing. And so you try and individually
help those [students]. Another thing is trying to put them into groups and
seeing if they can help each other.”
“If I teach again, I think I need to ask permission, but I’m going to push the
test back [to] give us an extra day [to review].”
“I’m going to collect homework more often.” (to encourage students to do
the assignments)
114
Table 10, continued
Pat “The basic explanation of a problem, how they [the facilitators] did it step by
step. That was really helpful, I liked that and I was able to use it in my class.”
“The [workshop] actually brought me more up front and not that much shy
anymore.”
“Give more time for group work and less time lecturing. [The students] focus
more if it is group work. ”
Agnes “Instead of having them ask me homework problems me do them on the board,
have them go to the board. ‘Cause they’ve watched me do the examples the day
before, if they were going to learn from watching me do examples, they would
have. Turning the responsibility [of their learning] over to them instead of having
me just do it.”
Lisa “Give them the answers to the quiz right away. They can find out which ones
they missed and hopefully won’t make the same mistake again.”
“I think I have to constantly remind them [to see me during my office hours].”
“Be more assertive about classroom order. I would put in writing the rules for
students to follow.”
Crystal “I’ve gained confidence [about teaching]. I feel more comfortable.”
Have the students write journals about lessons and what they learned.
Encourage students to work in groups.
“The first thing that I’m going to do for next semester [is] start asking them to fill
out background information.” (to get to know the students)
Start using overheads and not just the chalkboard.
Gloria “I didn’t give them [the students] enough time to answer the questions, but I
always felt I needed more time to finish the material. From this feedback [after
being observed] I kind of know how to change and what to change.”
“I will give a comprehensive exam the first day of the semester to have a clear
idea of everyone’s weakness.”
The TAs responses to these questions are varied and even the TAs who had
taught previously continued to evolve and change their practices. Sally’s changes
focused on classroom management strategies. Heather is considering changes that
can help her students be more academically successful. Pat will move from a
transmission form of teaching (i.e. lecturing) to a constructivist view. Her comments
115
in earlier parts of this dissertation reveal that she felt lecturing took her focus away
from the students. Crystal will implement methods to get to know her students and
Gloria wants to gain an understanding of what areas her students struggle with
mathematics before the course begins. Some of these changes can lead to the TAs
exhibiting traits of culturally responsive instructors.
Many of the proposed changes arose from experiences they had in the
classroom and several changes came from information they acquired through the
training program. The changes mainly stemmed from issues of classroom
management, including the behavior of the students. During the interviews and as
part of their response to the final journal prompt (What will you do differently?), the
TAs expressed displeasure with the amount of talking that the students did during
class. Many felt they were not “firm” or “tough” enough in setting their expectations
from the very beginning of class and this led to students talking during class, coming
in late, and leaving early. Ms. King did address this issue in one of the last
workshops when she suggested the TAs start off strict at first with the students then
slowly show their friendly side. With this way of thinking, the TAs will not have to
be as concerned about taking control of an unruly class towards the end of the
semester. Gloria hypothesized on how she will handle the situation differently.
If I’m going to teach again, things [are] gonna change…because I never
taught before so at the beginning of this semester, I didn’t know that I should
be really firm about my expectations. You gotta be firm, so they know what
to expect. I wasn’t clear in terms of discipline, so…they probably tried to find
out [the] boundaries. So as they keep pushing, they found out….I told some
of the students that wouldn’t stop talking to leave…and most of them
116
[did]…[Afterwards] I let them know it’s their behavior [that’s] not
acceptable, nothing personal…it’s the disruptive behavior.
In Gloria’s opinion, setting boundaries early helps the students know what to expect
so they know “what’s appropriate, what’s acceptable and what’s not and what the
consequences [are].” She did not set boundaries because she expected that the
students would know how to behave as young adults. Towards the end of the
semester, she began to relax her expectations of student behavior because she felt it
was more important that the students stay in class, do well on their exams, and pass
the class. So instead of asking them to leave like she had previously, she let the
students stay. Crystal was motivated to be friendly with her students in the beginning
of the semester with the hope that they would feel comfortable approaching her with
questions and so that she could get to know them better. “I feel like I’m not even a
teacher to them. I [am] just a friend helping them to learn math.” She even gave the
students her cell phone number because she wanted to be readily accessible to them
if they really needed help. This openness to her students’ needs is a trait that she also
appreciates in her teachers and is a characteristic of a validating instructor. “Lots of
my professors are friendly…so it’s really easy for me to [approach them].” By the
end of the semester, her attitude had shifted. In her journal response to what she was
going to change for next semester, Crystal vowed to be “more tough because I was
so friendly this semester.” In our second interview, I asked her about this statement.
Her response gave insight to her changing views about the relationship between
students and teachers.
117
I was so friendly and I think that is a good way because I think [that] if my
teacher is friendly to me, it’s easy for me to talk [to them] because I was a
shy student…So I try to [act] friendly to make them talk and communicate
back to me. But some of the students take advantage of that. They start
talking in class, they start not listening and they make [it hard so the] other
students cannot concentrate [on] what I’m teaching…Because I’m too
friendly to them, I can not take it back now. It’s like one day left before the
semester ends. So I think I’m going to be [tougher] but then still [be] friendly
to them [next semester].
She articulated that being tougher means not allowing the students leave and return
to the class when they want and using their cell phones in the class. She found that
by allowing students to do this, it was disruptive to the class. Agnes views the
discipline issue from the students’ perspective.
I am still going to let little side conversations go on if they’re about math and
they’re little ‘cause I think it’s important for people not to feel like they’re in
a military dictatorship or something….I’m really not sure how to handle it
because I do want to let some [talking go on]…but if you let some go on and
then all of the sudden you say no, they’re like, ‘but wait, yesterday we could
do this, what happened?’ And so imposing new rules is harder than just
having rules from the beginning.
Sally describes the balance she has developed, “I’m firm, yet friendly. So I think the
classroom environment, it’s a really nice atmosphere ‘cause we can joke with each
other, we can be friendly, but they know their limits also.”
The tone and expectations for student behavior is established in the first few
classes of the semester. The TA training program started half way through the
second week of the semester and the majority of the TAs were inexperienced.
Therefore, the information about classroom management and disruptive behavior,
which was discussed primarily in the workshop #7, would have been more useful to
the TAs before the semester began.
118
In addition to classroom management issues stemming from student
behavior, the TAs hypothesized on things they could do differently to help students
become more academically successful. Witnessing several students not passing led
one instructor to reflect on changes in practice for the next semester. In order to
encourage the students to improve their learning, Robin started with the practice of
making general announcements about getting help to the class as a whole. But there
was no impact on student behavior. Robin said, “‘if you guys don’t understand this,
get help somewhere.’ But some of them just sit there. There’s a couple of them that
just sit there. They don’t ask questions and they are not doing that great.” Now that
Robin saw that students did not respond to the suggestions, and that some students
will need to repeat the remedial mathematics course the following semester, Robin’s
view of the role of an instructor was transformed. Robin thinks a faculty member can
play a big role in students’ success.
It can play a big role if they’re willing to approach me or me maybe asking
them. And maybe I’ll try doing that the next time a little earlier. Maybe
approaching them and asking if they need any help….I addressed the class
but I think next semester I might consider doing that individually. But it also
comes from them too. I mean if you approach them individually then you
might, I don’t know, alienate them or sometimes they might not enjoy that,
you know, if you confront them about it. But I don’t know, I might try that
‘cause sometimes maybe they need you to pull them along.
Keeping the students informed about their progress in the class is a practice
that Robin will do more next semester. This stems from learning that the students did
not know if they were even passing the class.
119
They didn’t have a clear understanding of what was going on. That was one
thing I think I should do a better job of [is] just informing them of what their
grade to date is ‘cause I think some of them, they didn’t have any clue that
they were not doing so great…which is mind blowing.
Robin learned from Heather that she posted the students current grades on
Blackboard and let the students know what they needed to get on the remaining tests
in order to pass the class. Robin plans to do the same in the spring semester.
Taking into account that some students will not pass their remedial
mathematics course and have to repeat it in the spring, Heather realized that the
students would benefit more if she does not teach the class using the same methods.
“When we’ve got the ones in Math 40 who have failed the first one, I don’t want to
teach [it] the same way. I don’t want to give them the same homework problems.”
This change in practice stemmed from Heather’s concern for the students success
and belief that her actions can influence student achievement.
One of my interview questions asked about the TA’s ability to get to know
the students on an individual basis, which a characteristic of a validating and
authentic caring instructor. Heather and Agnes used a technique used by some
faculty in the Department. They asked their students to fill out index cards with their
name, what their last mathematics class was, and their grade. Heather also asked the
students to include anything else interesting about themselves and learned that one of
her students was the first one in her family to go to college. Agnes asked the students
what mathematics teachers did previously that helped them and what mathematics
questions they would like to have answered. This information gathering technique is
120
a tool for the TAs to learn about their students, the fifth strand of Villegas and Lucas.
The TAs who had not used the technique during their first semester reported that
they were going to incorporate this practice into next semester’s classes in order to
get to know their students better, particularly what their academic weaknesses are
with the goal of addressing those more succinctly before the semester tests began to
erode the students’ grades. This is one example of a change in practice that will help
the TAs become more culturally responsive. Agnes also anticipated an added bonus
from the exercise. “I can get to know them a little bit and they know I’m interested in
them as people.”
Chapter Summary
This chapter provided an analysis of the data collected, using characteristics
of culturally responsive teaching and Kirkpatrick’s program evaluation as a
framework. I conclude that the TAs generally had a favorable experience in the
training program and will continue participating, especially the new TAs who felt
they still had a lot to learn. Suggestions can be made for improving the program
based on the TAs feedback and the original intent of the Title V Grant. These
suggestions are discussed in the fifth chapter of this dissertation.
121
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications
Introduction
The final chapter of this dissertation begins with a summary of findings in
relation to the three research questions. The chapter continues with implications of
the research findings for the stakeholders. After that, recommendations based on the
findings from chapter 4 and the literature reviewed in chapter 2 are discussed. Next,
the implications for future research and evaluation of the TA training program are
reviewed along with the research limitations. The chapter closes with my perspective
of how this research has influenced me.
Research Questions and Findings
The first research question of this dissertation was to find out in what ways
the Teaching Associates experienced and evaluated the training program during the
fall 2007 semester. From their interviews, I found that the TAs generally had a
positive experience in the program, even without knowing what to expect from the
program on a weekly basis. Both returning TAs and new TAs valued their
experience in the program and described it using such words as “helpful” and
“supportive”. All of the TAs felt the program needed to continue and that new TAs
should be required to participate. The program helped create a sense of community
among the TAs and provided them with the opportunity to network and learn from
each other. All of the TAs articulated changes they were making to their classroom
management techniques, teaching methods, or interactions with the students based
on their experiences in the training program. They found the workshop topics useful,
122
especially when they were able to implement them in their classes immediately. The
TAs liked to observe their peers because it enabled them to learn from each other,
although they readily admitted that being observed made them nervous. The TAs felt
the facilitator’s feedback from the observations was useful. The TAs generally had a
positive reaction to many of the journal prompts, but some TAs also felt indifferent
about a few of the journal prompts when they felt they did not have a meaningful
response to the prompt.
During the final workshop, the TAs had the opportunity to evaluate the
usefulness of various program aspects through written feedback (see appendix F).
The evaluation form also included open-ended questions about changes to the
weekly meetings and suggestions for future meeting topics. Their feedback provided
tangible information for the faculty facilitators to use for revisions to the training
program. The faculty facilitators incorporated two changes in the fall 2007 that were
well received and will continue in the program. The first change was sharing the TAs
journal responses in the weekly workshops. The TAs responded favorably to this
change as reported in the interviews. They were interested in seeing how their peers
responded to the prompts. The second change incorporated into the program was TA
presentations. During the final workshop, the facilitators announced that each of the
TAs would be required to conduct a presentation in the spring training program on a
topic of their choice. The TAs were encouraged to present during the fall semester,
but only two TAs did. Having the TAs conduct presentations shifts the workshop
from one in which the facilitators impart all the knowledge to the TAs, to an
123
interactive environment in which the learning is shared between the TAs and
facilitators. This simple change to the workshop in the spring semester is an
opportunity for the TAs (as students) to share information, a classroom behavior that
Rendon (1994) characterizes as validating.
The second research question was to determine in what ways did the
activities, organization of the program, and composition of the cohort influence the
experience of the participants. The activities of the training program (workshops,
observations, and journals) provided different formats to facilitate the TAs’ learning.
However through my observations, I found that in many weeks each component
seemed to operate independently of each other. There were many occasions when the
journal prompts were not organized to directly relate to the weekly workshops, nor
the observations. This may have led to the TAs responding least favorably to
completing the journal prompts as compared to attending the workshops or
participating in the observations. The workshops in fall, 2007 focused on
mathematical concepts taught in remedial mathematics because that was what the
majority of the TAs participating in the training program taught. Therefore, the
composition of the cohort did influence the topics of the workshop and in turn
influenced the overall experience of the participants in the workshops. In previous
semesters, different mathematics topics were covered in the workshops because the
majority of the TAs in the training program taught general education (non-remedial)
mathematics.
124
The third research question of this dissertation was to determine in what ways
did the Teaching Associates learn about or exhibit characteristics of culturally
responsive instructors. The Title V Grant, which funded the training program, did not
provide any detailed framework for the training program on how to train culturally
responsive instructors. Through my workshop observations and interviews with the
TAs, I found that none of them saw a direct link between the goals of the grant and
the training program. This is due to the brevity with which Title V Grant was
mentioned in the first workshop. The discussion of race and ethnicity was not a
central theme to the training program or to the TAs ways of thinking, as
demonstrated by their interview responses. In the first workshop, there was a brief
mention of issues specifically related to Latino/a students in mathematics. The TAs
did have the opportunity to read the Laura Rendon (1994) article, Validating
Culturally Diverse Students, however in their interviews, many of them admitted not
reading the article or could not articulate what the article was about. I found that this
was due to the lengthiness of the article. Shorter articles based more on practitioner
knowledge would be more useful for the training program.
In regards to the TAs exhibiting characteristics of culturally responsive
instructors, I found that all of the TAs were able to visually categorize their students
based on ethnicity. In addition, there were comments made by the TAs in their
interviews which could be interpreted as encompassing the characteristics of
culturally responsive instruction: validating, authentic caring, and institutional
agents. The TAs had high expectations of their students and attempted to get to know
125
them on an individual basis (Gay, 2000; Rendon 1994). In contrast, I also found that
some of the questions the TAs asked in their journal responses placed the
responsibility of student success completely with the students. When practitioners do
not have specialized knowledge about students of color, they may attribute students’
poor performance to lack of engagement and effort (Bensimon, 2007).
Implications of the Research Findings for the Stakeholders
The leadership of the Department of Mathematics is the primary stakeholder
of the training program. However, the administration overseeing the implementation
of the Title V Grant, who funded the training program, also has a vested interest in
the outcomes of the training program. The research findings outlined in this
dissertation can help the stakeholders make decisions about the training program.
The Title V Grant will end in October of 2009 and at that point the grant committee
will report its final outcomes to the Department of Education. Also at that time,
decisions will need to be made about the future of the TA training program. The TAs
positive response to the program and the research reviewed in chapter 2 (Grubb,
AMATYC) support the need for some variation of a training program to continue
after the grant expires. Paul Ramsden’s book Learning to Teach in Higher Education
states that it is the institutions and departments responsibility to encourage effective
teaching. “If it [the institution] wants teachers to change, it must direct resources
towards helping them to change; and it must reward them when they do so”
(Ramsden, 2003, p. 9).
126
In addition to the direct implications that the TA training program has for the
Department of Mathematics and the Title V Grant committee, preparing the TAs to
teach mathematics also affects students’ access to STEM degrees. As discussed in
chapter 1, proficiency in mathematics is a gatekeeper for science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics fields. In order to remain competitive in a global
economy, the United States needs to increase STEM majors. With student enrollment
becoming more ethnically diverse and a disproportionate number of these students
placed in remedial mathematics, increasing the knowledge and skill of the TAs
creates a more beneficial learning environment. Also, exposing the TAs to issues
surrounding race and ethnicity and its impact on learning helps the TAs take steps to
becoming culturally responsive instructors.
Mathematics courses are not only gatekeepers for students obtaining STEM
degrees at four year institutions, but also students’ academic progress at community
colleges. Since many of the TAs in the CSUF masters program move on to teach at
community colleges, it is even more important that they be prepared not just to teach
mathematics content but also learn to become culturally responsive instructors
because the composition of the student body at community colleges is increasing in
its racial and ethnic diversity.
The CSU system is responsible for training future teachers not just at the
community college level, but also in K-12. Data from fiscal year 2001 showed that
CSUF provided 70% of the K-12 teachers in Orange County
http://campusapps.fullerton.edu/news/press/EconomicImpact.pdf . The CSU system
127
provides 55% of California’s graduates in teacher education annually
http://www.calstate.edu/impact/teachereducation.shtml. The responsibility of
training future teachers should influence the curriculum of the mathematics masters’
program and credential programs. A comprehensive TA Training Program helps
alleviate some of the drawbacks of utilizing novice instructors in the CSUF
classrooms. The goal is to create a training program that is thorough not only
because of the immediate impact it could have at CSUF, but also because it ensures
that CSUF is preparing competent instructors as they graduate and transition into
their teaching careers.
Recommendations
Based on the literature reviewed in chapter 2 and the findings reported in
chapter 4, I propose recommendations that can strengthen the training program and
experience of the TAs. These recommendations are categorized into three main
themes: revising the M.A. curriculum, aligning the TA training program with Title V
goals, and revising the TA training program.
Revising the M.A. Curriculum
The first recommendation is that the training program becomes part of the
curriculum for the graduate students in the teaching concentration of the M.A.
Mathematics degree. This would make participation in the program mandatory.
Hiemae, Lambert, & Hayes (1991) stated that a mandatory program provides TAs
with a foundation based on a core of common knowledge. Buerkel-Rothfuss and
128
Gray (1991) found that only 50% to 80% of the teaching assistants participated in
training programs when they were not mandatory.
Currently the M.A. students take classes on mathematical academic content,
not classes on pedagogy or methodology, so the addition of the training program to
the curriculum would enhance the graduate students’ degree as they move into full
time teaching jobs. Since the majority of the TAs plan to teach at the community
college level, they need to have pedagogical knowledge which will help them adapt
to the needs of their diverse students (AMATYC, 1992). Furthermore, W. Norton
Grubb (1999) found that the quality of teaching at community colleges can be
improved if institutions foster good teaching through instructor training.
After investigating the curriculum of the mathematics masters program, I
discovered that the 30-unit masters program enables the students to complete the
program in 5 semesters (two academic years and one summer). Following this
schedule allows the students to take two, three-unit classes per semester and retain
their status as part-time students. If any units were added to the curriculum for one
semester to accommodate a training component, the students would have to pay full-
time fees, a difference of $717.00 dollars
12
. Since adding units to the curriculum
increases the cost for the students, the Department of Mathematics must find ways to
fund the program or reduce the cost of fees to the students.
12
Based on fall, 2007 registration fees.
129
Aligning the TA Training Program with the Goals of Title V
The training program can help the TAs become more aware of issues of race
and ethnicity and its impact on teaching and leaning. In addition, discussions about
culturally responsive instruction expands the TAs knowledge about their influence
on student success. If the TAs possessed characteristics of culturally responsive
instructors, they would be better equipped to help and encourage students of color in
the classroom. This in turn will increase the probability of success for students in
mathematics thereby increasing the potential for Latino/a students to complete
STEM majors, the goal of the Title V Grant. Therefore, incorporating dialog about
race and ethnicity throughout the training program will help align the program with
the goals of Title V. The literature by Tice et. al. (2005) and Villegas & Lucas (2002)
discuss the importance of incorporating culturally based aspects into teacher
education programs. Fennema & Franke (1992) and Villegas and Lucas (2002) wrote
that effective instructors need to know about cultural and ethnic diversity. The
integration of discussions regarding culturally responsive teaching throughout the
training program is also supported by the research of Schoem (1995). He found that
integrating diversity topics throughout the training program was well received by the
teaching assistants as opposed to having a special session on the topic. In order for
the training program to tap into the underlying goals of the Title V Grant and for the
TAs to become more culturally responsive instructors, discussions should occur
about how race and ethnicity affects the students’ experience in mathematics and
how ethnicity affects the instructors’ response to the students. In order for these
130
dialogues to occur, research on discussions about race and ethnicity can serve as
resources. One example is Mica Pollock’s book Colormute (2004). This book
outlines Ms. Pollock’s story of teaching at a racially diverse high school and the
dilemmas faced when issues of race and ethnicity, a critical piece to learning, were
discussed. Her suggestions provide a framework for “safe” race discussion among
educators such as the TAs. These suggestions include:
Discussing human-made racial categorization in an effort to make a shift
from natural inequality to making things equal.
Taking the time to learn and inquire about how race matters to relationships.
Recognizing that language that is inclusive of “everyone” may make it
difficult to address inequalities disaggregated along racial lines.
Taking the time to analyze how race still matters to the complex system of
opportunity in society.
Having a common understanding that equitably educating all students
benefits the nation and that it is a communal responsibility.
Acknowledging that not talking about race in relation to social problems
(being colormute) increases the role race has in those problems.
In the final 18 months of the grant, its administrators and the Department of
Mathematics should dialogue about the disconnect between the accountability
measures outlined in the grant and the measurement outcomes used to assess the
success of the training program. Currently, the training program’s success is being
judged on the satisfaction (or reaction) of the TAs and facilitators and not the
131
number of students who pass remedial mathematics with a “C” or better, which was
an expected outcome outlined in the grant. The stakeholders have a vested interest in
the evaluation of the training program and therefore, should be involved in its
execution. “If stakeholders participate in the evaluation process, change can occur in
stakeholders’ behaviors, attitudes and knowledge levels” (Kim & Cervero, 2007).
Revising the TA Training Program
The final set of recommendations revolves around the theme of revising the
TA training program. The TAs generally responded positively to the program in the
fall, but if the program became a permanent part of the M.A. curriculum, it is critical
that these recommendations be implemented in order to help strengthen the program.
The structure of the program (workshops, observations, journals) should
continue. The research of Buerkel-Rothfuss and Gray (1991) found that common
components of training components included observing classes, visits by other
instructors, and peer assistance. Tice et. al (2005) and Fuhramann and Grasha (1983)
referred to observations by peers as a useful learning tool. Observations of peers
should continue as the majority of the TAs responded favorably to this aspect of the
training program. However faculty and peer feedback from the observations should
immediately follow the class so that the suggestions are easy to recall and can be
implemented promptly. Instead of submitting the responses to the weekly journal
prompt via e-mail to the faculty facilitators, the TAs responses should be
electronically submitted on Blackboard. Blackboard is an on-line website that allows
132
individuals to post and respond to each other’s submissions. The TAs ability to
respond to their peers’ journals creates more of an interactive, ongoing dialog.
In order to improve the experience of the TAs in the program, similar weekly
topics should be used across the activities of the program (workshops, observations,
and journals). This seamless delivery of the content can facilitate the TAs’ learning
and heighten their appreciation of the program, in particular the journals and
observation components. In order to organize a seamless training program that
includes multiple activities (workshop, observations, and journals), the facilitators
need to plan the workshop topics before the beginning of the semester. If the
facilitators acquired knowledge of the TAs’ background, experiences, and
expectations of the program prior to its start, this would enable the facilitators to
tailor the program topics based on their specific needs. Knowledge of the TAs’
backgrounds and experiences could also help the facilitators conduct discussions
leading to the TAs disclosing their attitudes toward teaching, learning, and students
in general.
Once the topics of the workshops are determined, a formal syllabus should be
created. Many of the new TAs disclosed in their interviews that they did not know
what to expect from the program. A syllabus would alleviate some of the uncertainty.
Additionally, the training program syllabus should be a model that the TAs could use
as a reference for their remedial mathematics syllabus. Although a common syllabus
is used for the remedial mathematics classes, the TAs can supplement their syllabi
with additional information. The University does have a policy on what information
133
needs to be included in a syllabus (see appendix H). Based on the recommendations,
I have developed a sample syllabus for one semester of the training program. The
proposed syllabus includes workshops about pedagogy of basic mathematics lessons,
which was covered primarily in the fall, 2007 semester. Villegas and Lucas (2002)
said that academic based content was the typical focus of graduate preparation
programs. In addition, based on the responses of the TAs in chapter 4 and the
literature reviewed in chapter 2, additional topics have been woven into the existing
mathematics content-based topics. Buerkel-Rothfuss and Gray (1991) found that a
variety of topics were covered in training programs including classroom
management and lesson preparation. In their interviews, these were two topics that
the CSUF TAs felt were important topics to discuss in the workshop. The workshop
activities should be centered on the needs of the TAs and provide information about
campus resources for their success. Several of the TAs expressed feeling lost when
they first started, and a training program syllabus that includes resources for them
would help alleviate these feelings. For example, if they knew about the Faculty
Development Center or the Office of Judicial Affairs, they would realize that there
are resources on campus to help them transition into their roles as instructors. Since
all of the TAs except one expressed interest in teaching at the community college
level, there should also be topics dealing with these environments. Grubb (1999)
found that there was a lack of empirical literature on community college teaching.
Additional workshop topics include facilitation of group work, the assessment of
students, culturally responsive teaching, and motivating students.
134
The workshops will still be 50 minutes on a weekly basis, with the exception
of the first two workshops, which are extended to two hours. These extended
workshops will be held prior to the start of classes but after the TAs meet with the
remedial mathematics coordinator, Mr. Thompson
13
. This past fall, the training
program began the second week of classes. However, since the first day of class sets
the tone for the rest of the semester, the training program would be more useful if it
started prior to the first day of the semester. That will give the TAs information on
setting the tone for classroom expectations and ease the TAs anxiety about the first
day of teaching. The one-hour meeting with Mr. Thompson is prior to the fall
semester and reviews the basic mechanics of the class, the syllabus, the book, etc.
However, it was the ongoing workshops that made the TAs feel supported. I selected
the readings for the workshops keeping in mind the TAs lack of exposure to
educational topics such as pedagogy, motivation, and culturally responsive
instruction. Based on the reaction to the Rendon article, the length of the readings
was also considered. The next section describes the workshop topics in further detail.
The complete sample syllabus is included as appendix I.
Workshop topics.
The first workshop session, extended to two hours, will allow time to cover
syllabus development, basic classroom management, and campus resources prior to
the TAs first class meetings. In addition, the TAs will watch and discuss pod casts
produced by the Department of Biological Science for their teaching assistants.
13
Pseudonym.
135
These brief pod casts deal with different issues the TAs face such as grading, the first
day of class, and balancing life and school. These challenges for new instructors are
shared across multiple disciplines.
The second session, also a modified two hour session will enable the
facilitators, a guest presenter from the Multicultural Leadership Center (MLC), and
the TAs to delve into conversations about ethnicity, culture and its effect on teaching
and learning. The Multicultural Leadership Center, a campus resource, specializes in
diversity and social justice issues. Discussions about race talk can be facilitated in
trusting and engaged groups. The small cohort design of the TA training program
supports this recommended format. The most important factor to facilitate the
discussion is the individuals’ willingness to consider and admit their own racializing
acts. This dialog could be a first step and lead the TAs to become more conscious
about ways in which they relate to students, thereby helping the TAs unlearn any
preconceived notions of race and ethnicity’s influence on education. Overall,
promoting race talk well “requires an immense amount of care, analytic energy, and
time” (Pollock, 2004, p. 214). This session could also help facilitators (with the
assistance of the MLC guest presenter) to identify what assumptions the TAs might
have that could be obstacles to them as well as their students’ success. Literature by
Tice et al.(2005), Rubenstein and Bright (2004), and Fennema and Franke (1992)
reviewed in chapter 2 supports the needs for these conversations.
The third and fourth workshops, lesson planning and academic integrity were
topics that received positive feedback from all of TAs in the fall 2007. Workshop
136
five is focused on student assessment and feedback and is a topic the TAs will use
throughout their teaching career. Several of the workshops, specifically six, eight,
and ten, cover mathematics content topics from previous training programs.
Workshop seven promotes the goals of the Title V Grant by discussing the topic of
culturally responsive teaching and the characteristics of validating, authentic caring,
and institutional agents. The writings of Villegas and Lucas (2002), Rendon (1995),
Stanton-Salazar (1997), and Valenzuela (1999) referenced throughout this
dissertation, give credibility to including this as a workshop topic. A guest speaker
from the College of Education will be invited to facilitate this discussion.
Many of the TAs, as reported in chapter 4, found it difficult to motivate
students and get them to ask for help. This will be the topic of the ninth workshop.
Five weeks of the workshop will be dedicated to the TA presentations. The TAs need
the opportunity to practice their techniques in the safe environment of the workshop.
This also gives them an opportunity to learn from each other and can lead to more
interaction and cohesion among the group. Each TA will be able to present a session
on a topic of their choice.
The focus of the workshop in the 16
th
week is community colleges. Since
most of the TAs will teach in the community colleges, this information is directly
applicable to their futures. The final workshop will provide an opportunity for the
TAs to reflect on how their semester went and complete written evaluations of the
program.
137
Throughout the semester, the workshops should include scenarios or case
studies to help the TAs apply the discussions to daily practice. A constant discussion
about student success (or lack thereof) may be useful to the TAs. Many of them were
very optimistic in the beginning of the semester about the number of students who
would do well and ended up being surprised and disappointed at the number of
students who did not pass. The TAs were bewildered about what role they played in
the students’ success.
The next section of this chapter outlines recommendations for future research
and evaluation of the training program.
Implications for Future Research and Evaluation
In order for the Department of Mathematics to determine the value of the TA
training program, further formative evaluation research needs to be conducted. At
minimum, exit interviews should be conducted with the TAs to determine how they
experienced and evaluated the program. This offers a broader view of the
effectiveness of the program beyond the current evaluation form (see appendix F).
My research took place over the course of one semester and in the interest of gaining
a more accurate picture of the TAs experience, future research needs to take place at
minimum over the course of one academic year, perhaps even extending into the
TAs’ second year of teaching and beyond. This would determine the program’s long-
term effects, in particular whether the TAs have transitioned smoothly into
community college teaching positions and if what they learned in the training
138
program was applicable to their new environments. Students could also be
interviewed to find out how they evaluate the TAs performance.
In addition to the expansion of qualitative research, quantitative evaluation
measures can be included. First, a longitudinal study of student grades in remedial
mathematics should be conducted to find out whether there are any differences
before and after the training program was implemented, although it is difficult to
establish a direct cause and effect. Buerkel-Rothfuss and Gray (1991) found that
surveying the students of the TAs is a way to gage effectiveness of training
programs. Further study of the outcomes of the training program will justify the need
for the program beyond the surveys completed by the TAs. According to the Basic
Skills Professional Development Initiative
14
,
It is common practice to conduct surveys that assess the number of
participants, their satisfaction with the activity, and their perceptions of the
relevance of the development activity. However, the connection between
faculty development and student learning is much more elusive.
Secondly, the students in remedial mathematics can be surveyed to determine if they
feel the TAs exhibited characteristics of culturally responsive instructors. This
survey can be enhanced by periodically observing the TAs in the classroom, which I
was unable to do because of the limited time of my research.
Limitations of this research
Although the interviews supplied a lot of information, there were times
during the interviews when opportunities to probe further were missed. This was due
14
http://www.cccbsi.org/
139
to my inexperience in conducting qualitative interviews. In addition, the first set of
interviews took place in October with the follow up interviews in December. If the
TAs were interviewed before the program started, there may have been a more
significant change in their responses between the first and second interviews.
Use of the Kirkpatrick Model
The Kirkpatrick model provided the initial framework for my evaluation of
the TA training program. The first three levels reaction, learning, and behavior (the
term practice was used for this dissertation) were useful as a launching point to
create the interview questions. The fourth level of Kirkpatrick, results, was not
studied, but it could be incorporated in a longitudinal, in-depth research project that
includes interviewing the TAs who previously participated in the training program.
There were however, some limitations with the Kirkpatrick model. It was
insufficient in addressing all of the intricacies of the TA training program. For
example, while the model focuses on learning based on improved knowledge,
changed attitudes, and/or increased skill as a result of the program, it does not
specifically address the measurement of learning (or unlearning) beliefs. As new
instructors, the TAs beliefs about themselves and their students’ learning are critical
components of evaluating the training program. In addition, becoming a culturally
responsive instructor requires the TAs to examine their beliefs about students of
color and their ability to help them succeed. The Kirkpatrick model also does not go
beyond measuring changes in beliefs (or changes in practices for this dissertation). It
does not provide guidance to assess the ways that people, in this case the TAs,
140
changed their thinking. The complexity of the TAs experiences went beyond the
purview of the three Kirkpatrick frames and therefore the strands of Villegas and
Lucas (2002) were incorporated in the research design.
The Kirkpatrick model is not without its published critics. Watkins et al.
pointed out that the model, originally introduced in 1959, is not compatible with
modern organizations and is insufficient in addressing their needs of continuous
improvement (Watkins, Leigh, Foshay, & Kaufman, 1998). Watkins et al. created an
expansion of the Kirkpatrick model that distinguishes between proactive and reactive
methods for program improvement using an evaluation model. The authors also
believe that obtaining information about the “opportunity cost” of implementing a
training program helps determine its value and outcomes. With the limited financial
resources of the Title V Grant, could the money for the training program have been
used more effectively on other programs to improve the success of Latino/a students
in remedial mathematics for example, providing tutoring or supplemental
instruction?
My Perspective of the Research
My initial decision to conduct this research project stemmed from my
involvement with the Title V Grant at CSUF. I was specifically interested in
facilitating an evaluation component for the TA training program. In addition by
conducting this research, I was able to explore the topic of how college instructors
learn how to teach. In other words, how do instructors learn to convey their content
knowledge (which they often have advanced degrees in) to others? This question was
141
personally relevant to me because I had taught a University 100 class for seven
semesters. The course covered topics such as university expectations versus high
school expectations, changing relationships with family and friends, academic
honesty, time management, and campus resources. Many of the students I taught
matriculated into CSU Fullerton through the EOP
15
program and were concurrently
enrolled in remedial mathematics or English. They were primarily Hispanic, African-
American, and Asian. As a college instructor for first-time freshman, I was given
very little direction about the material to cover and had no knowledge about how to
become a culturally responsive instructor. I had no formal training on how to teach
or deal with classroom management issues and developed my teaching practices
based on the previous semesters’ outcomes.
Reflecting back on my actions as an instructor, I recall exhibiting the same
behaviors that many of the new TAs reported to me in their interviews. I never
consciously acknowledged the ethnicity or background of the students that I taught.
My attitude was that if the students cared about their education, they would try
harder and they would seek help. I did not want to coddle the students in an effort to
prepare them for what they would potentially face throughout their college careers. I
wanted the students to succeed academically not just in University 100, yet I
identified them based on whether they were passing or failing the class. I was most
aware of students who were outspoken i.e. the good students, or the ones who
15
EOP is the Educational Opportunity Program for “low-income and educationally disadvantaged
undergraduate students” (http://www.fullerton.edu/academicservices/eop/eligibility.htm April 17,
2008)
142
disrupted the class. Now that I am completing my degree, I plan to teach University
100 again. As I prepare to re-enter the classroom, how will I utilize my new
knowledge on culturally responsive teaching? I was never proactive in getting to
know my students on an individual basis. I lectured for most of the classes, unaware
of constructivist views of learning and teaching. I have begun to ask myself, ‘What
learner centered practices can I incorporate into the lessons that can also help the
students succeed in their remedial coursework?’ This dissertation has given me the
time to step back and look at how I can teach more effectively. When I return to the
classroom, I will have a better understanding for the differences I can make in the
students’ experiences based on the knowledge I gained. I have gone through my own
experience of Kirkpatrick’s framework. I had a positive reaction to my research
experience, learned about new teaching approaches, and as a consequence, plan to
change my practices once returning to the classroom.
Another reason I had an affinity toward this research project was the ability
to conduct the research at the campus where I work. I knew that my role as Assistant
Dean in the College and my involvement with the Title V Grant increased the
likelihood that findings from the research would be used to improve the training
program. Additionally, the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) Program at USC has the
goal of training educational leaders to be practitioner change agents using “data-
based decision making and problem solving” (Dembo & Marsh, 2007, p. 5). This
program taught me how to conduct research on institutional issues in order to
understand them and be a more constructive problem solver.
143
The research process posed a dilemma for me that I had not anticipated.
Specifically, I felt empathy for the TAs who faced the same challenges in the
classroom as I did when I started to teach. I hoped that their challenges would be
addressed thoroughly in the training program. On the other hand, I understood that
workshop facilitators selected topics that were most familiar to them. Being on the
Title V Grant committee, I knew that the workshop facilitators did not receive strong
guidance or direction from the grant administrators. In addition, with the subsequent
death of Dr. Jacob Gonzalez
16
, the principal investigator, the committee was left to
their own devices on how to implement the grant.
Through my experience in student affairs and research for this dissertation, I
knew that a substantial amount of time and knowledge was needed to create a
thorough training program that would address the implied links between the
participation and success rates of Latino/as in STEM fields and the TA training
program. I believe that the facilitators designed and executed the training program
with enthusiasm. Their intention was to create a meaningful learning experience for
the TAs and based on the TA’s interviews, this was accomplished.
Conclusion
It would be a disservice to CSUF students to continue to place novice
instructors in the classroom with little or no formal support. The meeting the TAs
have with Mr. Thompson before the semester while useful to convey general course
information, is not enough to sustain the TAs through their experiences during 15
16
Pseudonym.
144
weeks of the semester. “There is little evidence that ‘one-shot’ workshops produce
any change in pedagogical practice; and, even when workshops do affect faculty
performance, the improvements are short-lived unless they are reinforced and
developed with ongoing staff development activities” (Basic Skills Professional
Development Initiative). The fact that the TAs share a common office helps them
learn from each other to some degree. However, because CSUF is a teaching
institution and the Department of Mathematics is responsible for preparing future
community college instructors, a permanent, systematic method of training could
positively impact the quality of instruction at CSUF and potentially the community
colleges where the TAs will eventually teach. According to the Basic Skills
Professional Development Initiative for the California Community College System,
“there is overwhelming evidence that graduate programs in most colleges and
universities provide little or no training in the art of teaching”
(http://www.cccbsi.org/Websites/basicskills/Images/staffdevelopment.pdf). The
result of this knowledge gap is that most instructors teach the same way they were
taught. Furthermore, if these instructors never took basic skills courses as a student,
then it becomes more challenging for them to relate to the experiences of their
students. The training program offers a step in the right direction to help the TAs
become more effective instructors.
145
References
Aliaga, M. (1995). How I Teach Mathematics to Minorities. In D. Schoem, L.
Frankel, X. Zuniga & E. A. Lewis (Eds.), Multicultural Teaching in the
University (pp. 172-179). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Anderson, B. J. (1996). Strenthening Mathematics Education: Critical Skills for the
New Majority. In L. I. Rendon & R. O. Hope (Eds.), Educating a New
Majority: Transforming America's Educational System for Diversity (pp.
201-217). San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Anderson, J. (1991). Instructional Variety and Student Diversity: Producing Success
in the Classroom. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff & J. Sprague
(Eds.), Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow To Teach. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Banks, J. A. (1991). Teaching Assistants and Cultural Diversity. In J. D. Nyquist, R.
D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the Professoriate of
Tomorrow to Teach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The Underestimated Significance of Practitioner
Knowledge in the Scholarship on Student Success. The Review of Higher
Education, 30(4), 441-469.
Brown, C., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a Mathematics Teacher. In D. A. Grouws
(Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp.
209-239). New York Macmillan Publishing Company
Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., & Gray, P. L. (1991). Teaching Assistant Training: The
View from the Top. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff & J. Sprague
(Eds.), Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow To Teach. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Cano, J., Jones, C. N., & Chism, N. V. (1991). TA Teaching of an Increasingly
Diverse Undergraduate Population. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H.
Wulff & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow to
Teach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Contreras, F. E., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (in press 2008). An Equity-
Based Accountability Framework for Hispanic Serving Institutions. In B.
Gasman & C. Turner (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Understanding
Minority Serving Institutions: SUNY Press.
146
Darling-Hammond, L., & Hudson, L. (1990). Precollege Science and Mathematics
Teachers: Supply, Demand, and Quality. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of
Research in Education (Vol. 16, pp. 223 - 264). Washington DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Dembo, M. H., & Marsh, D. D. (2007). Developing a New Ed.D. Program in the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California:
University of Southern California - Rossier School of Education.
Evensky, J. (2005). The Lecture. In S. L. Tice, N. Jackson, L. Lambert & P. Englot
(Eds.), University Teaching: A Reference Guide for Graduate Students and
Faculty (pp. 8 - 29). Syracuse, New York Syracuse University Press.
Farmer, J., Hauk, S., & Neumann, A. M. (2005). Negotiating Reform: Implementing
Process Standards in Culturally Responsive Professional Development. The
High School Journal, 88(4), 59-71.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on Learning to Teach. In F.
B. Murray (Ed.), The Teacher Educator's Handbook. San Francisco Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers' Knowledge and Its Impact. In D. A.
Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and
Learning (pp. 147-164). New York Macmillan Publishing Company.
Fuhramann, B. S., & Grasha, A. F. (1983). A Practical Handbook for College
Teachers Boston: Little, Brown and Company
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching New York: Teachers College Press.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1978). Looking in Classrooms (2nd ed.). New York,
NY HarperCollins.
Gray, P. L., & Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L. (1991). Teaching Assistant Training: The
View from the Trenches. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff & J.
Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow To Teach.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Grubb, W. N. (1999). Honored but Invisible: An Inside Look at Teaching in
Community Colleges. New York: Routledge.
147
Guidelines for the Academic Preparation of Mathematics Faculty at Two-Year
Colleges. (1992). Paper presented at the American Mathematical Association
of Two-Year Colleges Indianapolis, Indiana.
Guiffrida, D. (2005). Othermothering as a Framework for Understanding African
American Students' Definitions of Student-Centered Faculty. The Journal of
Higher Education, 76(6), 701-723.
Hart, L. E. (2003). Some Directions for Research on Equity and Justice in
Mathematics Education In L. Burton (Ed.), Which Way Social Justice in
Mathematics Education. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers
Hiemae, K., Lambert, L., & Hayes, D. (1991). How to Establish and Run a
Comprehensive Teaching Assistant Training Program. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D.
Abbott, D. H. Wulff & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the Professoriate of
Tomorrow to Teach (pp. 123-134). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing
Company.
Johnson, H. P. (2007). Can California Import Enough College Graduates to Meet
Workforce Needs? Retrieved. from.
Kim, H., & Cervero, R. (2007). Understanding the Impact of Organizational Power
on Evaluation Outcomes. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(1),
45-58.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs: The
Four Levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Malloy, C. E., & Malloy, W. W. (1998). Issues of Culture in Mathematics Teaching
and Learning. The Urban Review, 30(3), 245-257.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Murray, F. B. (1996). Beyond Natural Teaching: The Case for Professional
Education In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The Teacher Educator's Handbook:
Building a Knowledge Base for the Preparation of Teachers. San Francisco,
CA Jossey-Bass.
Nasir, N. i. S., & Cobb, P. (2002). Diversity, Equity, and Mathematical Learning.
Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2&3), 91-102.
148
Ortega, R. M., Jose, C., Zuniga, X., & Gutierrez, L. (1995). Latinos in the United
States: A Framework for Teaching In D. Schoem, L. Frankel, X. Zuniga & E.
A. Lewis (Eds.), Multicultural Teaching in the University Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. .
Pickett, J. P. (Ed.). (2004). The American Heritage College Dictionary (4th ed.).
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Pollock, M. (2004). Colormute. Princeton, New Jersey Princeton University Press.
Quayle, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (2007). Faculty Accountability for Culturally Inclusive
Pedagogy and Curricula. Retrieved April 20, 2008
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2nd ed.). London
RoutledgeFalmer.
Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating Culturally Diverse Students: Toward a New Model
of Learning and Student Development. Innovative Higher Education 19(1),
33-51.
Rendon, L. I., & Jalomo, R. (1995). Validating Student Experience and Promoting
Progress, Performance, and Persistence through Assessment Paper presented
at the Conference Name|. Retrieved Access Date|. from URL|.
Rubenstein, R. N., & Bright, G. W. (Eds.). (2004). Perspectives on the Teaching of
Mathematics. Reston: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.
Schoem, D. (1995). Constructing a Teaching Assistant Training Program with a
Multicultural Emphasis. In D. Schoem, L. Frankel, X. Zuniga & E. A. Lewis
(Eds.), Multicultural Teaching in the University Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. (2004, May 4, 2004). Retrieved April 20,
2007
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 Publishing
Company.
149
Silverman, D. (2003). Analyzing Talk and Text In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (2nd ed., pp. 340-
362). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A Social Capital Framework for Understanding the
Socialization of Racial Minority Children and Youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1).
Tice, S. L., Jackson, N., Lambert, L. M., & Englot, P. (Eds.). (2005). University
Teaching: A Reference Guide for Graduate Students and Faculty (2nd ed.).
Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: U.S. - Mexican Youth and the Politics
of Caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating Culturally Responsive Teachers
Albany State University of New York Press.
Watkins, R., Leigh, D., Foshay, R., & Kaufman, R. (1998). Kirkpatrick Plus:
Evaluation and Continuous Improvement with a Community Focus. ETR&D,
46(4), 90-96.
Wilkening, L. (1991). Teaching Assistants: Training for the Professoriate. In J. D.
Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the
Professoriate of Tomorrow to Teach (pp. 12-16). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company.
150
Appendix A: Fostering a Validating Classroom (Rendon, 1994, p. 48)
Academic Invalidating Model Academic Validating Model
1. Students treated as empty receptacles 1. Students bring rich reservoir of experience
and/or as incapable of learning, and are motivated to believe they are capable
learning.
2. Students expected to disconnect with 2. The past is a source of strength and knowledge.
the past.
3. Faculty assault students with information 3. Faculty share knowledge with students and support
and/or withhold information. students in learning.
4. Faculty instill doubt and fear in students. 4. Faculty structure learning so that students are able
students to see themselves as powerful learners.
5. Faculty are experts, the sole source 5. Faculty are partners in learning with students.
of truth and authority.
6. Students are oppressed, silenced and 6. Students are allowed to have a public voice and
cast in subordinate roles. share their ideas openly.
7. Faculty focus on abstract thinking. 7. Faculty recognize the importance of experience as a base
of knowledge and that out-of-class learning is equally
powerful.
8. Students are passive. 8. Faculty employ active learning techniques such as
collaborative learning, demonstrations, simulations,
field trips etc.
9. Evaluation instills fear and is objective 9. Learning standards are designed in collaboration
and impersonal. with students and students are allowed to re-do assignments
until they master them. Faculty praise success and encourage
motivation.
10. Faculty and students remain separated. 10. Faculty and students interact frequently.
11. The classroom is fiercely competitive 11. Students work together in teams and are encouraged to
share information.
12. Fear of failure permeates the classroom 12. A climate of success is fostered by faculty and
environment. students.
13. Teaching is linear, flowing only from 13. Teachers may be learners; learners may be
teacher to student. teachers.
14. Students validated at the end of the term. 14. Students validated early and validation continues
throughout college years.
15. The core curriculum is male-centered and 15. The core curriculum is inclusive of the
Euro-centered. contributions of women and minorities.
16. Students encouraged to give automated and 16. Learning allows for reflection, multi-perspectives
rote responses. and imperfection.
151
Appendix B: Fostering a Therapeutic Learning Community
(Rendon, 1994, p. 50)
Interpersonal Invalidating Model Interpersonal Validating Model
1. Students expected to get involved 1. Faculty and staff actively reach out
in institutional life on their own. to students to help them get involved in
college.
2. Cliques/exclusive groups are allowed 2. All students considered important
to form. and equal. Student organizations
and activities are open to all groups.
3. The college climate is perceived as 3. The college promotes pride in
sexist, racist, and/or intolerant of cultural, gender, and sexual
certain students. orientation through college
sponsored activities and organizations.
4. The college climate is cold and 4. Faculty and staff are available to
insensitive. students in- and out- of class.
5. Students are expected to shed their 5. Cultural pride is recognized and
culture. fostered in- and out-of-class.
6. Few opportunities are available for 6. Faculty and staff meet with
out-of-class involvement. students at athletic events, in
cafeterias, patio areas, in tutoring
centers, in the library, etc.
7. Students feel stressed, unable to 7. Counselors meet with students to
make decisions. teach them stress management,
decision-making techniques, and
college coping skills.
8. Students feel isolated. 8. Students encouraged to help each
other, i.e., providing positive
reinforcement, forming friends
during orientation, living with and
interacting with peers.
9. Students feel unloved and unsupported. 9. Events that bring families together
with students (i.e., achievement
nights, athletic events, etc.) are
held throughout the year.
152
Appendix C: List of Codes
• TA acknowledges non-academic circumstances that place students in
remedial math.
• TA acknowledges non-academic circumstances that prevent students from
being successful.
• Role of the faculty
• TA action that shapes student behavior
• Expectations of student behavior
• TA background: education
• TA background: experience
• Classroom management: student talking
• Classroom management: student cheating
• TA learning about self
• TA learning about students
• TA learning from others
• TA learning on their own
• Behavior: self
• Behavior: others
• Positive responses about program (i.e. reaction)
• Negative responses about program (i.e. reaction)
• Program recommendations
• Orientation toward the subject of math (i.e. “math is not their thing”, “slow at
math”)
• Autonomy in the class
• Authority of the math department
• Entrenched knowledge
• TA positive thoughts on students
• TA negative thoughts on students
• TA thoughts about students
• TA thoughts about community colleges
• TA thoughts about learning
• TA thoughts about teaching
• TA awareness as an indication of change
• TA experience in workshop
• TA experience with observations
• TA experience with journal
• Validation
• Authentic caring
• Institutional agents
• Teacher-centered practices
• Student-centered practices
• Self-reported changes in behaviors
153
• Self-reported changes in language
• Self-reported changes in ways of making sense of the problem
• Self-reported changes in how the problem is framed
154
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
Overall Guiding Research Question: In what ways do the remedial math
instructors experience the instructor training program.
Researcher’s Method: Individual face-to-face interviews will be conducted using
semi-structured and open-ended questions.
Interview Protocol:
The first set of interviews are designed to obtain information about the instructors’
background and their initial reactions about the training program:
“I would like to start off by talking about your background and your students”
What are your long-term career goals?
What are you teaching?
Follow up: tell me about the math class you are teaching.
How does this class compare to the classes you took in math?
What are your students like?
Follow up: What were your initial thoughts about your students?
How do you get to know your students?
Follow up: How do you encourage students to come see you during
your office hours?
Which students come to see you?
How do the students compare to other students you have taught at other
times?
How would you describe your first few weeks of teaching?
Follow up: Have their been particular highs and lows?
“Now I would like to discuss your initial reactions on the training program….”
How did you hear about the training program?
What were your initial expectations of the program?
Follow up: Were there particular aspects of the program that you were
looking forward to?
155
Now that 4 weeks have past, have your initial thoughts and expectations
changed?
The second set of interviews are designed to obtain information on the changes in the
instructors’ reaction to the program, what they have learned and if they have noticed
any changes in their behavior.
“Now that you have spent a semester in the program, let’s start off by talking about
your experiences in the program so far…”
What do you think the purpose of the program is?
If you had to use one word to describe the program, what would it be?
If the head of the Department called you to ask if the program should
continue, what would you say?
Follow up: Why would you say that?
What was most helpful about the weekly workshop sessions?
Follow up: What was the least helpful?
Tell me about the observation component of the workshop?
Follow up: What was the purpose?
Are there things you do differently as a consequence of
them?
What do you think about the electronic journal component?
What are your thoughts on the assigned readings and handouts?
Follow up: Tell me about the article on validating students?
Is there anything in particular you got out of it?
Overall, what are your feelings about the training program?
Could you list for me what you have learned so far in this course?
Follow up: Which of those things have been helpful?
“For this final set of questions, I would like to discuss how you noticed any changes
in your teaching practices and your students since you went through the training
program…”
Can you think of things you are doing differently now than when you started
the training program?
Follow up: Did the training program facilitate this differences?
156
Overall, what are your thoughts on how the program has affected your
teaching?
Are there teaching approaches that you use in class that the students respond
especially well to?
What does an instructor need to know to teach a diverse class?
Are there ways in which the students’ learning process is assessed in addition
to the students’ learning outcomes?
What does a student need to do in order to do well?
Follow up: How does the student know this?
Can you think of a student who did not do well in the class?
Follow up: Why do you think that student was not successful?
Think of a few students in your class. Can you talk about what their
experiences have been in their high school mathematics courses?
How do you get to know your students?
Follow up: Have you asked them about their previous math
experiences?
Have any of your students articulated how they view math as part of their
future careers?
How do you know if your students are learning?
What role do you think faculty play in a student’s success?
Do you think any of your students will become STEM majors?
157
Appendix E: Training Program Workshop Agenda
Title V Grant
Meeting Reminder
Wednesday, Aug 29
12:00 – 1:00pm
MH 484
AGENDA:
Introduction: Professionalism
Distribute TA schedules
Discuss article entitled Validating Culturally Diverse Students
Summary of important information for instructors from Coordinators
Meeting with Chair and Vice-Chair
Study Skills and how to improve them!
Journal requirements
Questions and concerns
Looking ahead
158
Appendix F: Title V Grant Workshop Evaluation Form, Fall, 2007
Your instructors would like to receive your input on the weekly Teacher Associate
meetings we have had throughout the year. Your comments are greatly appreciated.
You do not have to sight your name.
Topics Very
Useful
Useful Not
Useful
Discussion of content problem areas of students and
varied approaches
Classroom visitations by peers (as the one who is
visiting)
Classroom visitations by peers (as the on being visited)
Shared feedback with peers after classroom visitations
Discussion of review strategies for Students
Classroom management techniques
Peer journal reflections as provided in written form
Invited guest from Judicial Affairs
Written debriefs from classroom Visitations
Presentations by TAs
Opportunity for collaboration with other teachers
Weekly meetings in general
Please provide written comments in the spaces provided:
What would you like to have changed in weekly meetings?
What would you like to see included in future meetings?
Is there anything else you would like to comment on?
159
Appendix G: Anatomy of a Lesson
Instructor ________________ Class_________________
Name____________________ Date_________________
1. What was the concept (or goal) of today’s lesson?
2. Say a few words about the lesson you observed today.
3. Write some examples of the questions the instructor asked the students in today’s
lesson. What happened when a student did not answer the questions or when students
answered questions too quickly?
4. Write some examples of the questions the students asked the instructor in today’s
lesson.
5. What concepts did students struggle with? Did it seem as though these concepts
were anticipated in today’s lesson? How were the students’ struggles addressed in
today’s lesson?
6. How was student learning assessed during today’s lesson?
7. Did it appear students had access to today’s lesson? Was anything offered to help
increase student accessibility to today’s lesson (if applicable).
8. How many students seemed to participate in today’s lesson?
9. How was the lesson received by the students, that is how do you think they felt
about today’s lesson? What were the indicators?
10. Did students move forward mathematically during today’s lesson? How are you
determining this?
11. What should the focus be for tomorrow’s lesson?
160
Appendix H: University Policy Statement,
California State University, Fullerton
UPS 300.004
POLICY ON COURSE OUTLINES
Course outlines which shall be compatible with approved course proposals on file in
the Office of the Associate Vice President, Academic Programs, and with course
descriptions in the University Catalog must be provided to students in writing or
electronic format within the first full week of classes. At a minimum, course outlines
shall give detailed information on the following matters:
1. Faculty information to include office location, telephone number(s), E-mail
address, office hours;
2. Course information to include course name, course number, course objective,
text(s), and learning goals;
3. Grading standards and criteria to include a statement indicating whether or not +/-
grading will be used;
4. Grading policy to include examinations dates, "make up" policy (if any), required
materials and equipment, penalties for academic dishonesty, and attendance
policy;
5. Class assignments to include papers (number, length, due dates, etc.), required
projects (group/individual), and calendar of topics;
6. Information about students’ right to accommodations for documented special
needs via the Disabled Student Service Office, UH 101, (714) 278-3117 or as
documented at www.fullerton.edu/disabledservices/;
7. Information about CSUF policies on academic integrity (see UPS 300.021);
8. For courses that meet General Education requirements (see UPS 411.201):
a. A statement of the specific General Education requirement(s) that a course
meets.
b. An inclusion of the learning goals for the General Education category or
categories in which the course carries credit.
c. Courses in Oral Communication (I.A.), Written Communication (I.B.),
Critical Thinking (I.C.) and Mathematics (III.A.1) shall include a
statement that “A grade of “C” (2.0) or better is required to meet this
161
General Education requirement. A grade of “C-” (1.7) or below will not
satisfy this General Education requirement.”
d. An indication of the way in which the General Education writing
requirement shall be met and assessed.
Faculty members are also recommended to specify the following:
1. Extra credit options (if any). Such options shall be available to all students on an
equitable basis;
2. Instructor classroom management procedures (if any). Instructors have the
authority and discretion to set policies to foster student learning in the classroom.
For example, instructors may specify expectations regarding classroom
participation, entering/exiting class during the class period, student seating, the
use of electronic communication devices (cell phones, pagers, etc.), laptop use,
or other behaviors;.
It shall be a normal and reasonable duty of each faculty member to provide this
information in accordance with the above provisions. Within the first full week of
classes, the faculty member shall provide a printed copy of the course outline to the
department chair. Students shall be informed of this policy in the University Catalog
and the Class Schedule.
Faculty shall not be bound to adhere to their course outlines on a strict day-to-day
basis, but should follow their outlines as much as is reasonably possible.
After distribution of course outlines to students, major assignment or course
requirement changes (e.g., additional term papers or examinations) must be
announced to students with a reasonable timetable for completion.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 7, 2007
Supersedes: UPS 300.004 dated June 16, 2004 and ASD 07-82
Source: Faculty Affairs Committee, 3-5-07
Academic Senate Approval Date: May 17, 2007
Transmitted to President’s Office: June 15, 2007
President Signed into Effect: August 7, 2007
162
Appendix I: Proposed Syllabus
California State University, Fullerton
Department of Mathematics
Teaching Associate Training Program
Fall, 2008
Facilitators:
Dr. Jeff Clark Ms. Mary King
Email: jclark@fulerton.edu Email: mking@fullerton.edu
Office: MH 154 Office: MH 154
Office phone: 714-278-3631 Office phone: 714-278-3631
Office hours: by appointment Office hours: by appointment
Program Objective and Overview
This program was established in spring of 2006 with the focus of retaining Hispanic
students and underrepresented students in mathematics and science courses. The
workshop will deepen the participants’ knowledge of mathematics teaching. The
workshop includes strategies for helping all students, teacher-tested standards based
materials for classroom use, and collaboration among teachers in a professional
environment.
Participation in this program is required for at least the first two semesters of
teaching. Stipends are provided for TAs who miss no more that two workshop
sessions, present one workshop topic, observe at least one peer, and complete all
journal reflections.
• Workshop sessions: Wednesdays 12:00 p.m. – 12:50 p.m., MH 488
• In-class observations: times to be determined
• On-line journal responses: post your response to Blackboard by Monday at
12:00 p.m.
• Each TA will present a 20-minute workshop on a topic of their choice (math
content, pedagogy, student learning, classroom management techniques).
Topics and dates will be determined during workshop #2.
Readings
Readings for the workshop are posted on Blackboard in PDF format.
Resources
These resources are useful to you as you acclimate to the campus and your role as an
instructor:
163
Faculty Development Center (FDC)
The FDC designs and implements a comprehensive program of support for all
instructional faculty across a broad spectrum of professional activities.
Location: Pollock Library 48A
Phone: 714-278-2841
Email - fdc@fullerton.edu
Website: http://fdc.fullerton.edu
Office of Judicial Affairs
Provides assistance with academic integrity, civility, and student conduct issues.
Location: Titan Student Union 235
Phone: 714-278-4436
Website: http://www.fullerton.edu/deanofstudetns/judicial/index.asp
These resources are useful for your students who need additional assistance:
Math Tutoring Center
MH 154
Hours: Monday through Thursday: 8:00 – 5:00, Friday: 8:00 – 12:00, no
appointment necessary
University Learning Center
Provides free tutoring for general education courses including mathematics
Pollock Library North – 2
nd
floor
Hours: by appointment 714-278-2738
Assistant Deans for Student Affairs
Provide a variety of resources available to students through their academic college
and the Division of Student Affairs.
Location: varies by college
Website: http://www.fullerton.edu/assistantdeans/
Counseling and Psychological Services
Provides individual and group counseling and workshops on a variety of personal
issues that may interfere with students’ educational progress. Topics include
transition and change, anxiety, relationships, depression, stress management,
substance abuse, and self-esteem.
Student Health and Counseling Center East Building
Website: http://www.fullerton.edu/shcc/caps
164
Workshop Overviews
Workshop 1 – August 13
th
Please note: this meeting will be two hours.
Objectives: During this session we will review the syllabus for the training program
and discuss how to create a syllabus for your own classes. We will also discuss
resources available to you and your students with the goal of academic and personal
success. Basic classroom management techniques will be reviewed.
Readings:
Druger, M. (2005) Advice for Teaching at the University Level. In S. L. Tice, N.
Jackson, L. Lambert & P. Englot (Eds.), University Teaching; A Reference Guide
for Graduate Students and Faculty Syracuse, NY Syracuse University Press.
Evensky, J. (2005) The Lecture. In S. L. Tice, N. Jackson, L. Lambert & P. Englot
(Eds.), University Teaching; A Reference Guide for Graduate Students and Faculty
Syracuse, NY Syracuse University Press. Read the section titled: Creating a
Constructive Class Culture pp. 11- 14
Hollenback, S., & Morfei, M. (1996). Balancing Roles as Teacher, Student, and
Person. In L. Lambert, S.L. Tice, & P.H. Featherstone (Eds.), University Teaching:
A Guide for Graduate Students (pp. 137-140). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University
Press.
Lardy, L. J. & Porter, M.K. (1996). Office Hours and Tutoring. In L. Lambert, S.L.
Tice, & P.H. Featherstone (Eds.), University Teaching: A Guide for Graduate
Students (pp. 137-140). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Read section on
office hours pp. 50-52
Watch Biology TA Podcasts: hear how other TAs experience their first time
teaching: http://www.hummingbirdreserch.com/ta_podcasts.html
Additional resources:
From the FDC - Syllabus Preparation:
http://fdc.fullerton.edu/newfauclty/syllabus_prepartion.htm
The FDC also offers a workshop titled: The Syllabus: The Tip of the Iceberg and a
Treasure Map
Check the FDC website http://fdc.fullerton.edu for dates and registration
information.
University Policy Statement on Course Outlines:
http://www.fulleton.edu/senate/PDF/300/UPS300-004.pdf
165
Workshop 2 – August 20,
2008
Please note: this meeting will be two hours
Objective: Learn about the needs of students in remedial mathematics and discuss
your role in their success. Discuss how ethnicity affects the students’ experience of
math. Review the purpose of the Title V Grant. (guest presenter: Sharon Moar
17
from
the Multicultural Leadership Center)
Readings:
Aliaga, M. (1995). How I Teach Mathematics to Minorities. In D. Schoem, L.
Frankel, X. Zuniga & E.A. Lewis (Eds.), Multicultural Teaching in the University
(pp. 172-179) Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Evensky, J. (2005) The Lecture. In S. L. Tice, N. Jackson, L. Lambert & P. Englot
(Eds.), University Teaching; A Reference Guide for Graduate Students and Faculty
Syracuse, NY Syracuse University Press. Read the section titled: Diversity: A
Challenge and an Opportunity pp. 14- 16
Long, J. Devore, W., & Lapp, I. (1996). Gender, Race and Ethnicity in the
Classroom. In L. Lambert, S.L. Tice, & P.H. Featherstone (Eds.), University
Teaching: A Guide for Graduate Students (pp. 107-125). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press.
Additional resources:
From Institutional Research and Analytical Studies – Statistics on CSUF students
and remedial coursework:
http://www.fullerton.edu/analyticalstudies/
From the CSU System Wide Analytical Studies website – Freshman Proficiency
Rates
http://www.asd.calstate.edu/performance/proficiency.shtml
August 23, 2008
– First day of classes
Workshop 3 – August 27, 2008
Objective: The discussion focuses on the steps to planning a lesson. How do you
plan you lesson so that students will learn and move away from a transmission
format of teaching. Planning for learning versus planning for teaching. The use of
cooperative learning (group work) in the classroom will be discussed. Scheduling of
in-class observations.
17
Pseudonym
166
Readings:
Evensky, J. (2005) The Lecture. In S. L. Tice, N. Jackson, L. Lambert & P. Englot
(Eds.), University Teaching; A Reference Guide for Graduate Students and Faculty
Syracuse, NY Syracuse University Press. Read the section titled: Preparing for a
Lecture: Some General Thoughts pp. 23-29
Mills, S. (2005). Cooperative Learning at the Post-Secondary Level. In E.G. Ralph
(Ed.), College Teaching (pp. 69-75). New York, NY: Novinka Books.
September 1, 2008 – Labor Day – Campus Closed
Workshop 4 - September 3, 2008
Objective: Learn about Academic Integrity and Disruptive Behavior (guest presenter:
Julie Cole
18
)
Workshop 5 – September 10, 2008
Objective: Discuss aspects of student assessment and providing meaningful feedback
to students
Readings:
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to Teach in Higher Education (2
nd
ed.). London
RoutledgeFalmer.
Chapter 10: Assessing for Learning pp. 176-190.
Workshop 6 – September 17, 2008
Objective: Learn a tactile way to convey a method of factoring: The Algebra Tiles
Workshop 7 – September 24, 2008
Objective: Learn and discuss the characteristics of culturally responsive teaching
(guest presenter: Dr. Juanita Garcia
19
from the College of Education)
Readings:
Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating Culturally Responsive Teachers.
Albany State University of New York Press. Read section titled: Strand Six:
Cultivating the Practice of Culturally Responsive Teaching pp. 91-111.
Workshop 8 – October 1, 2008
Objective: Learn about how to teach systems of equations. Determine topics and
dates of TA presentations.
18
Pseudonym.
19
Pseudonym.
167
Workshop 9 – October 8, 2008
Objective: Learn about ways to motivate students and help seeking behaviors.
Readings:
Bogle, E. (2005). Motivating Strategies. In S. L. Tice, N. Jackson, L. Lambert & P.
Englot (Eds.), University Teaching; A Reference Guide for Graduate Students and
Faculty (pp. 46-56) Syracuse, NY Syracuse University Press.
Small, R. (2005) About Motivation. In S. L. Tice, N. Jackson, L. Lambert & P.
Englot (Eds.), University Teaching; A Reference Guide for Graduate Students and
Faculty (pp. 30 -45) Syracuse, NY Syracuse University Press. Read section titled:
An Integrating Framework pp. 34-45
Workshop 10 – October 15, 2008
Objective: Learn how to teach complex rational expressions
Workshop 11 – October 22, 2008
Objective: TA Presentations (2)
Workshop 12 – October 29, 2008
Objective: TA Presentations (2)
Workshop 13 – November 5, 2008
Objective: TA Presentations (2)
November 11, 2008 – Veterans Day – Campus Closed
Workshop 14 – November 12, 2008
Objective: TA Presentations (2)
Workshop 15 – November 19, 2008
Objective TA Presentations (2)
November 24, 2008 – November 28, 2008 – Fall Recess – No Classes
Workshop 16 – December 3, 2008
Objective: Learn about the role of faculty in the community college.
Two workshops are offered by the FDC on an annual basis:
Community College Panel Discussion: Launching Your Career in a California
Community College
168
Community College Round Table Discussion: How to Succeed as a Teacher in a
Community College
Check the FDC website http://fdc.fullerton.edu for dates and registration
information.
Workshop 17 – December 10, 2008
Objective: Objective: Discuss how your semester went, propose topics for spring
semester, and complete written evaluations of this semesters training program.
In-class observations
Each TA will be observed at least once by their peers and a workshop facilitator. The
observation will be discussed following the class and written feedback will be
provided. There will be guidelines on what to observe.
On-line journal responses:
Each Wednesday afternoon, a journal prompt will be posted to the Blackboard. The
topic will be related to that week’s workshop. Please respond to the prompt by 12:00
on Monday and read everyone’s responses by the next course. We will begin each
workshop with a brief review of the previous week’s responses.
Workshop Presentations
Each TA will present a 20-minute workshop on a topic of their choice (math content,
pedagogy, student learning, classroom management techniques). Presentations will
take place October 22
nd
to November 19
th
. Topics and dates will be determined
during workshop 8.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This qualitative research study explores the experiences of eight graduate students who taught remedial mathematics at a large public university. These students participated in a training program in the fall of 2007 which was facilitated by faculty members in the department of mathematics and funded by a Title V Grant from the Department of Education. The goal of the Grant was to increase the number of Latino students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: a collaborative inquiry approach
PDF
Improving and sustaining math achievement in urban high schools: a case study of a southern California high school
PDF
The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change
PDF
Literacy practices of 1.5 generation Korean American parents with three to five year old children
PDF
Passing CAHSEE but failing math and English: what best predicts high school classroom achievement?
PDF
Superintendents and Latino student achievement: promising practices that superintendents use to influence the instruction and increase the achievement of Latino students in urban school districts
PDF
Native Hawaiians and college success: Does culture matter?
PDF
The intersection of curriculum, teacher, and instruction and its implications for student performance
PDF
An evaluation of the impact of direct instruction intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Mathematics identity and sense of belonging in mathematics of successful African-American students in community college developmental mathematics courses
PDF
Predictors of success in meeting the high school mathematics and English requirements for college entrance: a longitudinal study
PDF
Promising practices of California community college mathematics instructors teaching AB 705 accessible courses
PDF
The perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in developmental math
PDF
School culture, leadership, professional learning, and teacher practice and beliefs: A case study of schoolwide structures and systems at a high-performing high-poverty school
PDF
Reading prereferral intervention: developing, implementing and monitoring
PDF
The predictors and consequences of eighth grade algebra success
PDF
The impact of restructuring the language arts intervention program and its effect on the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Systems and structures at a high performing high poverty school: A case study using RTI to promote student achievement
PDF
The role and value of educational technology in California fourth and fifth year (2006-2007) program improvement elementary schools that achieved AYP growth targets
PDF
Why high school struggling readers in an affluent public school receive little reading remediation
Asset Metadata
Creator
Woods, Rochelle Camille
(author)
Core Title
Training culturally responsive remedial math instructors
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
07/11/2008
Defense Date
05/08/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
culturally responsive instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest,remedial mathematics,Teacher education
Language
English
Advisor
Bensimon, Estela Mara (
committee chair
), De Land, Paul (
committee member
), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
rwoods@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1332
Unique identifier
UC1234164
Identifier
etd-Woods-20080711 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-82424 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1332 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Woods-20080711.pdf
Dmrecord
82424
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Woods, Rochelle Camille
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
culturally responsive instruction
remedial mathematics