Anika Hutchinson

Finally, Something that Works!

— by Anika Hutchinson on June 19, 2014 — Leave a reply

Brooks, M., Jones, C., & Burt, I. (2013). Are African-American male undergraduate retention programs sucessful? An evaluation of an undergraduate African-American male retention program. Journal of African American Studies, 17(2), 206-221.

There are hundreds of articles about minority retention issues in higher education discussing retention programs that fail to retain minority students. However, very few discuss successful retention programs and how they can be effectively implemented in Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs). Brooks, Jones, and Burt (2013) do just that in their article Are African-American Male Undergraduate Retention Programs Successful? An Evaluation of an Undergraduate African-American Male Retention Program. Many colleges and universities have solid retention programs, particularly based on Tinto’s (1999) model. Characteristics of solid retention models are that they provide high expectations for students, give sound advice to understanding and retaining curriculum, provide excellent support in academic and social integration, enabling the student to feel valued and encouraged (Tinto, 1999). While Tinto’s (1999) approach is practical, it addresses a broad range of student populations, lacking consideration of marginalized populations whose present different retention issues than what Tinto examined. Brooks et al (2013) attack Tinto’s (1999) integration model, by proposing that retention integration models require Black students to “unlearn their culture in substitution for the established campus climate” (p. 207). Rather, Brooks et al (2013) assert that matriculation rates increase when students of color are able to maintain their cultural identities.

The goal of Brooks’ et al (2013) article is to present findings on a study that provided a retention intervention program specifically for Black males in a PWI. First, the researchers specified the importance of a college degree for African American males. The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009) showed that in 2007, 46,400 Black male students received a college degree compared to 90,990 Black female students showing the imbalance of earning potential between Black males and females which ultimately impacts the economic ability of Black families. Because Black women generally search for Black men as potential mates, the lack of Black men in college precludes them from dating, or forces them to date men who have less earning potential affecting the family socioeconomic status. Next, the researchers discussed the success of National College Athletic Association (NCAA) models in retaining Black males. In 2009, Black male college athletes graduated at a rate of 49%, while only 38% percent non-athlete Black males completed their degree program (NCAA Research Staff, 2009). An important fact, the level of support student-athletes receive (e.g. support services, orientation programs, tutoring, financial support, mentorship programs, etc.) is crucial as many athletes score low on entrance exams, yet, graduate at higher rates than Black males who do not participate in collegiate sports programs.

Using a mixed method approach, specifically a QUAN-Qual model, Brooks et al (2013) devised a four-prong approached to creating a retention program. A QUAN-qual method is research method in which both qualitative and quantitative methods are used; however, a greater percentage of the research is conducted used a quantitative approach, denoting the use of capital letters when discussing this research approach. First, they invited 136 African-American freshman males, between the ages of 18-21 years old (90 completed the study) to participate in the semester-long study. Second, participants were required to enroll in a for-credit seminar course which met for one hour each week. The course covered topics applicable to Black male college students, with lessons presented on self-esteem, academic and social support, faculty connection, and financial resources. Coping methods for how to recognize and properly deal with racism on campus were integrated into curriculum as well. Next, students were paired with upperclassmen mentors who shared similar majors, interests, and backgrounds as the freshman students. Students were required to meet with their peer-mentor once a month to discuss coursework, social, and personal issues the student may be facing. Finally, the data collection process was implemented through the pre-test at the start of the semester, and a post-test (final exam) which allowed researchers to investigate the students’ integration into college life. A forty-question final examination asked questions centered on such constructs as social integration, self-esteem, academic culture, and mentor/mentee relationships.

What Brooks et al (2013) found was that students gained an understanding of the academic acculturation process over the semester, a sound understanding of academic advising/support, and where to get help for social and academic issues such as counseling and tutoring services. Specifically important to the students was the mentorship aspect of the program. Students shared that having a personal connection with senior students provided positive role-models that helped them shape their identity as a college-educated Black male.

I love this article! Why? Because it discussed what works, rather than what doesn’t work in retention programs; not to mention it is a good example of an mixed-method, action research study. As stated earlier, anyone can learn the deficiencies in college retention programs and why they do not serve minority students, but, very little attention is paid to programs that are actually succeeding in retaining minority students. For the purpose of my research, I want to attack current retention models in PWIs that inefficiently maintain Black students, and, I want to pose a solution that works! Using the well-respected model by Tinto (1999), Brooks et al (2013) put a spin on it that targeted a very specific population that often gets overlooked. The uniqueness of this approach makes it a solid contribution to the field with solid data using both a qualitative and quantitative approach to paint a very clear picture of how such a program could be beneficial for retention efforts. I realize there are limitations to implementing this type of retention program. The university would need to approve this type of course, a coordinator of the sort would need to promote and enroll students in the course, while a faculty-person would have to be recruited to create the curriculum and teach the course. This is very challenging for many PWIs, mainly because the culture of the environment discourages of any type of ethno-subculture assimilation within the institution. That’s a conversation for another day (we can chat about it in the comments, if you wish). Nonetheless, this article is useful for future research to positively show what a minority retention program could be, what it looks like, and how it impacts academic excellence in higher education.

References

Chronicle of Higher Education. (2009). Degrees conferred by racial and ethnic group. Almanac of Higher Education.

NCAA Research Staff. (2009). Research related to graduation rates of Division I student athletes 1984-2002.

Tinto, V. (1999). Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college. NACADA Journal, 19, 5-9.

Tracking = Resegregation?

— by Anika Hutchinson on June 16, 2014 — 1 Reply

Source (image): “Coming Clean Beyond the Fiscal Cliff”, http://solari.com/articles/beyond_the_fiscal_cliff

I am always amazed at how excellence in education is equated with equity. Although, I am not an elementary or secondary educator, I am often privy to my educator-friends who are assured that one of these concepts comes at the expense of the other; that a school lending itself to equity will undoubtedly sacrifice excellence. Or, that to be academically excellent, the school must limit its equity in order to properly serve high-achieving students who deserve academic consistency and progressiveness. Forgive me, but I am somewhat confused by this idea. Wouldn’t an environment that offers its best curriculum to all students be simultaneously achieving excellence?

In Margarita Pivovarova’s (2014) article , Show we Track or Should we Mix Them?, she explores the notion of tracking in elementary schools. Tracking refers to the grouping of students by ability; thereby placing high-performing students in an environment with peers of the same ability, while placing lower-achieving student with low-achieving peers. Basically, this is a fancy way of saying “put the smart kids in one classroom; put the dumb kids together in a different classroom.” You can tell by my tone, that I do not agree with this idea in any form. Pivovarova (2014) asserts that while positive effects can be seen through tracking, it greatly impacts lower-performing students in detrimental ways. She based her assertion on literature that implicitly showed that “the data does not support the linear-in-means model” (p.7), coming to the realization that the nature of peer effects within the learning environment are more complicated than the model suggests. While Pivovarova (2014) doesn’t clearly state which data set presented this finding, she mentions that some research indicated positive findings, while other research indicated no effect; she finds that peer interaction is a highly important component to achieving the success of tracking (Pivovarova, 2014). I agree with Pivovarova’s (2014) assertion here. Simply grouping students together based on ability alone is not sufficient to prove that this method achieves optimal results. Students must be able and willing to engage with peers and instructors in a way that fosters positive identity and confidence in the learning environment, therefore, producing desired results.

High school principle and author, Carol Corbett Burris (2014) discusses tracking in her book On the Same Track: How Schools Can Join the Twenty-First-Century Struggle against Resegregation pointing out that previous literature documents tracks as “racially and economically stratified” (p. 112). For example, if a high-performing Black student who comes from a low socio-economic background is put into a classroom with a large number of White students from middle to high socio-economic status would the linear-in-means model be so clear cut? Would the student feel confident to perform? Would he/she be able to relate to the classroom climate or culture of privilege within the group? While some students may perform well in this environment, some may not. In addition to the inconsistency of this model, other learning theories come into play (i.e. stereotype threat, “performing whiteness”, etc.) that can easily blur the framework of academic tracking. Tracking also puts a great burden the teacher to ensure that equity is maintained between groups; a burden that lends itself to resources, tools, and institutional support. Pivovarova (2014) concludes that a mixed learning environment is optimal, asserting that the quality of peers has a great impact on both high and low achieving students stating, “…while the average quality of peers is more important for high-achievers, adding just one more smart kid in a classroom has a larger impact on marginal kids than it has on top students” (p. 28).

Tracking, in my opinion, lends itself to labeling as well. In a society where emphasis is placed on the level of coursework studied by the student, it is no wonder that parents will work the system to ensure their child is put into high-achieving classrooms to ensure that all social and academic opportunities are made available to them. Labels such as “gifted”, “honor student”, “special needs” and “remedial” are identities placed on the student which often confirm the student’ identity of self-worth, and so very often students perform to the label by which they are identified. Why not eliminate the curriculum gap in an effort to close the achievement gap? I am sure there is no easy solution to this issue, but we must work harder to ensure educational equity, or risk repeating the injustices of the past.

References

Burris, C. C. (2014). On the same track: How schools can join the twenty-first-century struggle against resegregation. Boston: Beacon Press.

Pivovarova, M. (2013). Should we track them or should we mix them? Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.

The Misappropriation of College Retention Programs

— by Anika Hutchinson on June 12, 2014 — 2 Replies

inLove, B. J. (1993). Issues and problems in the retention of black students in predominantly white institutions of higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 26(1), 27-36.

Barbara J. Love (1993) takes a strong look at retention issues in her article, Issues and Problems in the Retention of Black Students in Predominantly White Institutions of Higher Education. Published over twenty years ago, this article presents solid information about Black student retention in White universities and factors that cause Black students to drop-out prior to graduation. As a means for future study, this article provides a historical perspective on the issue of Black student retention which can be compared to recent literature on the topic.

The goal of Love’s (1993) article is to identify issues in retention programs that are not traditionally addressed in Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs). For years, graduation rates for minorities students, specifically Black students, have been dismal in PWIs. Historically, Black students graduate approximately one third less frequently than their White counterparts (Love, 1993). As a means to remedy the stagnation of Black graduation rates, higher education institutions created significant retention programs to address attrition issues without significant results. However, Love (1993) identifies a research gap between what Black students identify as factors causing them to drop, and what PWI institutions identify as retention issues. Accessible literature showed that most retention programs focus on changing the student and their behaviors, while failing to examine issues of institutionalized racism (Love, 1993).

Using James Meredith, the first Black student to be admitted to the University of Mississippi, as an example of the growing number of Black students who enroll in White institutions, Love (1993), reveals that more students of color are now enrolled in college than ever before, yet there are still low graduation rates. The U.S. Census Bureau data showed that 34% of Black high school graduates attended college in 1976 dwindling down to just 27% in 1983 (Evans, 1985). Additionally, more Black students enrolled in junior or community colleges rather than in four-year institutions (Love, 1993). In 1985, Blacks comprised only 12% of the U.S. population, yet represented only 8% of undergraduate students. PWIs admit nearly 80% of Black college students; however, only 60% of those students received Bachelor’s degrees from those institutions (McCauley, 1988). The drop-out rate for Black students is eight times higher than White students enrolled in the same institution. Love (1993) presents this data to show the discrepancy of Black students enrolled in PWIs as compared to those who actually complete their degree pointing toward a “revolving door that cuts short the promise of educational equity” (p. 28).

Love (1993) draws on Marvalene S. Hughes’ (1987) article, Black Students’ Participation in Higher Education, in which Black students enrolled in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) described factors that contributed to their success. Students reported feeling welcome and comfortable in the learning environment in HBCUs. Students attributed the ability to “hang out” with other Black students in their major and residence halls as factors in their comfort. Additionally, students felt at ease talking with professors and staff making connections to student and academic services accessible. On the contrary, experiences for Black students at PWIs are quite different. Black students typically find themselves ignored in classrooms, blocked from campus social life, and harassed by campus police (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985). Love (1993) goes on to say that “Black students in PWIs must be strong self-starters who are fully independent, with strong defenses to combat stereotypes, fears, alienation and loneliness” (p. 28). Although retention programs have been implemented to improve Black graduation rates in PWIs, however, none address institutionalized racism as a factor in attrition. Love (1993) lists seven categories of factors contributing to Black student retention:

White racism: overt and covert systems of racial prejudice, bias, and hatred toward Black and other students of color, resulting in the loss of opportunities or advancement
Institutional leadership: strength of administration to recognize and combat racism within the institution
Finances: awareness, and availability of financial support through government funding, or personal or familial finances
Social interaction, cultural dissonance, and environmental incongruence: intra and interpersonal relationships with other students in the institution; the divide between the student’s personal culture and the university culture; the capability of the university to respond to the student’s needs, goals, and aspirations
Faculty-student interaction: how students feel toward White professors, and comfort level in asking for additional instruction, advice, or information
Student services: the awareness and friendliness of dining halls, residence halls, gyms, counseling services, and student work positions
Student characteristics: student’s familial and academic background, self-image, self-esteem and “locus of control” (belief that either internal or external factors decide one’s fate)

Love (1993) uses a study by Noel, Levitz, and Saluri (1985) entitled, Increasing Student Retention, in which the authors evaluated several college retention programs examining the factors mentioned above. They found that no program addressed issues of racism or leadership within the institution, and the majority of programs were focused on student characteristics as the main factor of Black student attrition. Love (1993) concludes and recommends that retention programs in PWIs must address the full range of retention problems affecting Black students rather than concentrating on factors institutions feel most comfortable addressing. White institutions should develop programs to eliminate racism by examining policies, practices, and individual attitudes of students and faculty, which may have an effect on the student’s course load, academic major choice, satisfaction with the university, and overall performance (Love, 1993). Finally, training for institutional leadership should be required for the efficacy of all retention programs. The administrations of PWIs are traditionally comprised of White men who attended White institutions themselves during an era where Black enrollment was not a topic of interest. Such training enables institutional leaders to understand and recognize racism in order to provide access and educational equity.

As stated previously, this article is quite dated; yet, it provides significant historical data that will allow me to compare factors in Black student retention in decades past to current factors. Love (1993) uses a clear, concise writing style makes each section of the article understandable and purposeful; there is no uncertainty in the content. She introduced the article by discussing the disparity of Black student retention, which immediately caught my attention, before moving into significant factors and accessible literature on the topic showing cohesiveness within the content. Additionally, Love (1993) shows no trepidation about the issue of institutionalized racism; a topic typically avoided and deemphasized in higher education research. This article is essential for my research because it focuses specifically on retention programs and the lack of recognition of racial factors in Black student graduation rates. The most intriguing point of this article for me is that Love (1993) takes issue with placing responsibility on the student to manage their own educational experience, and that retention programs focus on the student’s personal characteristics and their ability to integrate themselves into the university culture; an immense, and unbearable task for marginalized students. I plan to explore the area of student responsibility in retention and integration in PWIs within my own research. Additional areas of research could be to compare successful Black students at PWI’s to those who are unsuccessful using information from such research to improve current retention programs. Also, the connection to “locus of control” and retention should be examined to see if Black students typically feel that external factors such as campus climate, student services, faculty, social and academic organizations are ultimately responsible for their experience at White institutions. Overall, Love’s (1993) article compliments my research initiatives by providing uncomfortable, yet important information on how retention programs have failed Black students, giving me a foundation to explore current issues and trends in minority student retention.

References

Berry, B. (1983). Blacks in predominantly white insitutions of higher education. In J. D. William, The state of black america (pp. 295-318). New York, NY: National Urban League.

Evans, G. (1985, August 7). Social, financial barrier blamed for curbing Blacks’ access to college. Chronicle of Higher Edcuation, 1-15.

Hughes, M. (1987). Black students’ participation in higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 532-55.

Love, B. J. (1993). Issues and problems in the retention of black students in predominantly white institutions of higher edcuation. Equity & Excellence in Education, 26(1), 27-36.

McCauley, D. (1988). Effects of specific factors on blacks’ persistence at a predominantly white university. Journal of College Student Development, 45-51.

Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

“Barbershop” as an Entity of Cultural Wealth

— by Anika Hutchinson on June 9, 2014 — Leave a reply

Short video clip here:

(Source: Story, T. (Director). (2002). Barbershop [Motion Picture]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_tNwz5Bxwk)

This weekend, the film Barbershop, starring rapper Ice Cube, was on television. One of my favorite movies, the film chronicles the everyday life of “Calvin”, played by Ice Cube, who has inherited his father’s barbershop. Not just your ordinary barbershop, a long-standing, well-known, “pillar of the community” barbershop opened by this father during the civil rights era. The cast is comprised of old and young men, loan sharks, criminals, congressmen, and other colorful characters that frequent the barbershop on a daily basis. Calvin, who has other aspirations of his own, is reluctant to keep the shop open, but is quickly schooled by “Eddie”, the senior barber on the staff, who reminds him of the history, purpose and value of the ‘shop, saying, “This is the barbershop! The place where a black man means something! Cornerstone of the neighborhood! Our own country club! I mean, can’t you see that? “Through this exchange, and other insights Calvin begins to understand that closing the shop would mean the demise of a major cultural institution in his predominately Black community (Story, 2002).

I saw a direct connection from this film to Tara J. Yosso’s (2005) article, Whose Culture has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth. While Barbershop is not about education inequity, the themes in the film have strong connection to cultural wealth in the Black community. Yosso (2005) uses Critical Race Theory in drawing attention to how minorities draw on the values, wisdom, and inspiration that are deeply rooted within their own cultural community. Yosso (2005) begins her sentiments by discussing the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1977), and his idea of cultural wealth to explain why minority students do not excel as frequently as White students. According to Bourdieu, students obtain capital through cultural means (i.e. language, education), economic means (i.e. finances, assets), or social means (i.e. “who you know”), and such capital is received from one’s formal education or through their family connection (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). However, Yosso (2005) takes issue with Bourdieu’s position which openly presents the White, middle-class culture as the standard by which to judge others cultural wealth and value.

In my own life as a Black girl, I was responsible for getting my younger sister and myself to and from school every day. I was to cook breakfast, put our clothes on, pack our backpacks, lock the door, catch the city bus to the school, deliver my sister to her school, and walk to my own school. Our mother worked two jobs, so light grocery shopping, cooking dinner, answering the telephone, bathing my sister, homework, and bedtime were left up to me as well. Basically, I could manage our home! However, these skills were not as valuable as those obtained by my White classmates who had cars to take them to and from school, and whose parents could provide them with technology to help them excel in school, which was expected in the school system at that time. Today, my seven-year-old daughter is often assigned online homework. Again, this supports Yosso’s (2005) statement that White-middle class culture is considered the normative, excluding many marginalized who families do not own a home computer, nor do they have access to the internet, which is clearly the expectation in our school systems.

Yosso (2005) goes on to explain that Communities of Color foster cultural wealth on different principles than White communities do. Aspirational, familial, social, linguistic, navigational, and resistant capital are building blocks that create a foundation for rich, cultural capital in minority communities. Interestingly, Barbershop shows several of these types of capital within the movie. Many of the patrons talk about their dream jobs, goals, and plans for their futures while getting their hair cut (Aspirational). Calvin often leans on his wife for advice and moral support, while being reminded of the historical value of the barbershop by others (Familial). Congressmen and lawyers who patron the barbershop, as well as citizens step up to help keep the ‘shop open, and the staff employed when the city attempts to tear down the business for upgrading by persuading officials to keep it open (Social). Finally, the patrons often come to barbershop not only to get their hair cut, but they also come for a weekly dose of strength and support in dealing with racial and social injustice issues within their jobs, schools, and community (Navigational and Resistance).

So, while Barbershop’s script is not based on education, it does show the paradigm of cultural wealth in the Black community. Furthermore, educational entities should take note on how valuable such cultural institutions are and partner with them to help marginalized students succeed. Yosso (2005) draws upon Gloria Anzaldua’s (1990) sentiments of “de-academizing” educational theory putting it to practical use by connecting educational institutions to the community. Schools should partner with local churches, beauty shops, barbershops, athletic coaches, and recreational centers within marginalized communities to re-structure the mainstream standard of cultural wealth in an effort to see these institutions as valuable and practical for people of color; a concept I deeply agree with. After school tutoring programs could be held at neighborhood places of worship, or perhaps, “real world” learning credit can be earned for students who have part-time jobs, or who work in a family business. Recognition of cultural wealth is essential for change to happen.

References

Anzaldua, G. (1990). Haciendo Caras/making face, making soul: creative and critical perspectives by women of color. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Press.

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

Story, T. (Director). (2002). Barbershop [Motion Picture].

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91. doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006

Subtle Behaviors, Large Impact

— by Anika Hutchinson on June 3, 2014 — Leave a reply

Solorzaro, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60-73. Retrieved from http://facstaff.necc.mass.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/understanding_promise_of_community_cultural_wealth.pdf

In my quest to begin compiling information on micro-inequities in higher education, I thought it would be great to find some historical literature on the topic. While there is a great deal of information pertaining to the corporate sector, there is menial information on micro-inequities as it relates to higher education and student retention. Colleges and universities, nationwide, seemed to be continuously in the hunt to “fix” access and retention issues for minority students. From my personal and professional experience, the fix isn’t necessarily the access, but, rather the campus environment (campus climate) that makes retention such a challenging issue.

This article, by Solorzano, Ceja, and Yosso uses critical race theory as a framework to discussing microaggressions and campus climate as it relates to African American college students. The authors studied a group of thirty-four African American students at three Research 1, predominantly white institutions to discover the types of racial discrimination experienced, and how students responded to those experiences. None surprising, they conclude that the effects of covert, subtle microaggressions can be more harmful to the student than the blatant racism that is so often discussed.

This article was simply fantastic in that it clearly defined the difference between race, racism, and microaggressions. For the sake of the article, race is defended as the socially constructed “colorized” category created to show differences between ethnicities which is further used to show superiority of one race, namely White’s, over other races. The author’s use Audre Lorde’s definition of racism as the basis of the study: “the belief in the inherent superiority of one race of the all others and thereby the right to dominance” (p. 61). While this is a solid definition of racism, I prefer Manning Marable’s view on racism as a “system of ignorance, exploitation, and power to oppress African Americans, Latinos, Asians, Pacific Americans, American Indians and other people on the basis of ethnicity, culture, mannerisms, and color”. Manning’s’ definition is appealing because it puts a multi-ethnic face on the issue of racism, which is usually centered on the relationship between Black and White (Solorzaro, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000).

As mentioned earlier, the study was conducted through a series of focus-groups with thirty-four African American college students at three predominately white institutions (two public institutions, and one private institution). I was most intrigued by the fact that the researchers selected participants based on pre-determined criteria, although that specific criteria was not made available. With permission, the conversations were tape recorded, transcribed, and coded for data analysis. Using a qualitative approach with both open and closed-ended questions allows for liberal answers from participants which shows the intersectionality of several themes about race, gender, class, age, and disability.

The article was organized so that the connections between campus climate, academic microaggressions, and social microaggressions impact both the academic and social counter spaces. The information on microaggressions in the classroom is really impactful, as it serves as a segway into why Black students choose certain majors, why they are noticeable absent from STEM degrees, and why Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) still serve a purpose in higher education. Participants in this study reported that they are often the only student of color within the classroom, which leads to feelings of being ignored, and isolated. What I found particularly interesting was the intersection between the faculty perception and the student’s perception of themselves. One student who scored well on a math examination, was called into the professor’s office to be questioned about how he achieved the score, and was asked to re-take the examination a second time.

Additionally, the authors made a solid connection to the effects of microaggressions to counter spaces, which can be likened to the idea of “high stakes information networks as a source of community cultural wealth” (p. 542). as stated by Liou, Antrop-Gonzalez, and Cooper (2009) in their article on Community Cultural Wealth. Counter spaces include social networks, and organizations that minority students depend on for academic, moral, and spiritual support (i.e. Black student organizations, fraternities and sororities, church groups). This is important to my research because this shows not only the effects of the behavior, but, the alternative ways in which students cope with these small, yet, damaging form of racism.

One critique I have on this article, is that there could have been more statistical information provided in the method and findings section. The interviews were informative and gave life to the study, yet, it would have been better to understand the number of students who share the same feelings discovered in the interviews, and solid proof of their findings could be better understood through hard numbers. Also, the interview questions should have been in included in the article so that the nature and angle of the questions, and thus, the answers would be better analyzed by readers to see if there could be follow-up questions, or further areas of examination that were not included in the interview questions. The literature review was noticeably absent from the article, so I am not quite sure what other theories or previous studies have been conducted on the topic. However, the study’s conclusion was reasonable and coherent based on the examples and survey answers given by the participants.

While the study of microaggressions (microinequities) is not new, how we apply them to the educational environment greatly enhances the view from minority students and how they perform in in their respective programs. Personally, I have experienced microaggressions in my everyday life. They have been more apparent since I began working in higher education in a mid-level position, where there are few people of color in mid and senior-level positions. I see the relevance of this research as a practice-based issue in higher education as many practitioners are trained to apply student development theory to the educational process, but are not required to undergo any microaggression training to aid practitioners and faculty in identifying, and repudiate this form of bias.

References

Liou, D. D., Antrop-Gonzalez, R., & Cooper, R. (2009). Unveiling the promise of community cultural wealth to sustaining latina/o students’ college going information networks. American Educational Studies Association, 534-555.

Community Cultural Wealth and High Stakes Information

— by Anika Hutchinson on June 1, 2014 — Leave a reply

“I do all kinds of work with people in the community. I work with the Private Industry Council and help people get jobs. I also work with the Historical Society. These jobs keep me busy and focused on school and help me meet lots of interesting people.”

-from “Unveiling the Promise of Community Cultural Wealth to Sustaining Latina/o Students’ College-Going Information Networks” by Liou, Antrop-Gonzalez, and Cooper.

The word “community” means different things to different people. For me, my community is multi-faceted. My blood family, my in-laws, my spiritual influences, and now, my doctoral program cohort, are all part of my community through shared passion, interests, and goals. I see my community as more than people; they are a network of resources for me to draw from for knowledge and support. The article, Participatory Action Research and City Youth: Methodological Insights From the Council of Youth Research discussed the collaboration of students, teachers, researchers and other community entities engaging in action-research to identify and solve systemic issues in education (Bautista, Bertrand, Morrell, Scorza, & Matthews, 2013). Wegner (2000) discussed how organizations should design themselves to act as social learning entities to foster a “sense of belong” thus enriching the community of practice holistically. The authors of Keeping up the Good Fight used Flores v. Arizona as a basis for presenting a framework, and approach to having a purposeful discussion on English learning programs and the ways in which the community offers rationalities in support of such programs (Thomas, Aletheiani, Carlson, & Ewbank, 2014). Communities, whether social, familial, educational, and practice-based should be the network in which educational capital and success is cultivated.

In my effort to formulate research focused on micro-inequities and their impact on student retention in higher education environments, I found Liou, Antrop-Gonzalez, and Cooper’s (2009) article on community cultural wealth to be a strong connection to not only my research interests, but to the theme of how community systems impact student learning and their aspirations to attend college. In short, the article discusses the ways that college-orientated information is shared between teacher-educators and students who have college aspirations, primarily those who come from Latina/o communities. This is a different argument entirely from the large amount of research centered upon access to higher learning for minorities. Rather, this argument seeks to expose the ways in which minority students are not provided with necessary information, also known as “high stakes” information, to be successful in obtaining a college degree (p. 542). An example of this finding can be seen when a guidance counselor holds a belief that all students shouldn’t go to college because there would be no car mechanics, landscapers, or housekeepers in society, further suggesting that these positions are of value to those who’ve obtained a higher-economic status as validation for the argument (Liou, Antrop-Gonzalez, & Cooper, 2009).

The findings of the article discovered that the Latina/o students analyzed within the study found alternative ways to seek high stakes information to fulfill their collegial dreams through social, familial, navigational, and linguistic information networks (e.g. building relationships with fellow church members and pastoral staff for guidance and encouragement to keep aspirations intact). This is in comparison to White students who are given a wealth of information such as ACT/SAT supplies, information on Advanced Placement (AP) courses, Dual Enrollment courses, and pre-professional materials (health professions and legal professions) because there is a general belief that they should reasonably be able to attend, and succeed in college.

The negation in delivering high stakes information is, in fact, a micro-inequity because the teacher-educator makes an assumption that students of color, especially those with undereducated parents, shouldn’t be expected to attend college, and thus, denies the student high-stakes information to prepare and succeed in a collegial environment. This act is largely different than overt discrimination, because it is a very small message that is sent to the student throughout their schooling that suggests they have no place in higher education. Unfortunately, some students will succumb to this aggression choosing menial employment positions which perpetuates poverty within their community, while others will use this experience to fuel their aspirations leaning on those information networks mentioned previously.

Information networks are crucial parts of cultural capital, especially for minority students (Yosso, 2005). Where a White student will contact a tutor or guidance counselor for information or advice, minority students may choose to talk to a family member or church parishioner for support. Various experiences and identities contribute the overall cultural wealth and capital of the community. As teacher-educators, it is of the utmost importance that we continue to build and draw upon the identities of our own and those of our students to maintain cultural relevance within our practice.

References

Bautista, M. A., Bertrand, M., Morrell, E., Scorza, D., & Matthews, C. (2013). Participatory action research and city youth: Methodological insights from the Council of Youth Research. Teachers College Record, 115(100303), 1-23.

Thomas, M. H., Aletheiani, D. R., Carlson, D. L., & Ewbank, A. D. (2014). Keeping up the good fight: The said and unsaid in Flors v. Arizona. Policy Futures in Education, 12(2), 242-261.

Wegner, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization Articles, 7(2), 225-246.

Yosso, T. J. (n.d.). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91. doi:10.1080/1361332052000341006

Research Topic Post – Online Learning Readiness Assessments

— by Anika Hutchinson on May 28, 2014 — Leave a reply

With the dramatic increase in online learning deliverables seen within K-20 environment, researchers have begun to examine not only the validity of this mode of education, but also the student’s preparedness for web-based learning, and success for the online learning environment. Using Kerr, Kerr, and Rynearson’s (2006) framework for assessing online learning readiness, the author’s found that students felt they were indeed ready for online learning, but, that their self-assessment was based on their own experiences with technology leaving room for additional variables to be examined.

The authors of this article were familiar with previously conducted survey findings presenting information on student readiness for web-based learning; however, the results of those surveys provided limited information and translating that information into tangible data was challenging as stated by the researcher. Therefore, the authors of this article conducted a study to develop a more detailed tool to determine student readiness for online learning through a three-phase study: the survey development phase in which faculty/experts reviewed questions for clarity, the item analysis phase where the content of the tool and research questions were refined through focus groups and interviews, and finally, the survey validation phase in which questions from previous surveys were combined with new questions to cover topics relating to student demographic, learner characteristics, and technological ability (Dray, Lowenthal, Miskiewicz, Ruiz-Primo, & Marczynski, 2011).

The participants in their study were comprised of 26 graduate students pursuing a degree in educational computing. The results of the study showed that many of the students were scored as ”ready” for online learning, yet, the implications of study were direly impacted by the lack of sub-groups based on age, sex, or socioeconomic influences on their preparedness. This has importance because results may show that certain ages, genders, or socioeconomic factors play a role in determining whether the student is prepared for web-based learning. For example, if a student is under the age of thirty, they may rank as being prepared for online learning because it is reasonably assumed that students in this age group use online communication daily through social networking. Researchers also determined that the term “readiness” needed further clarification for the study’s purpose, as oddities were discovered as to whether readiness was determined by one’s technical ability or by their use and engagement of web-based tools, equipment, and material (Dray, Lowenthal, Miskiewicz, Ruiz-Primo, & Marczynski, 2011).

This article proves beneficial to my study in that the literature review coherently presented previous research done on the topic along with critiques of the strengths and weaknesses of each article reviewed. The authors found literature gave information on general learner characteristics, interpersonal communication abilities, and technological skils(word processing, using spread sheets, use of search engines, etc.). However, noticeably absent was information on the student’s work schedules, access to technology, and the expectations for being successful in an online course. I found it interesting that the authors found an unexplored angle of questioning based on self- concept, esteem, and efficacy which could lead to quite different results of surveys proving to be an excellent contribution to the field. The authors of this article likened their study to that of Kerr, Kerr and Rynearson (2006) whose article, “Student Characteristics for Online Learning Success” also discussed student esteem, efficacy, and self-confidence as a means to determine success in online learning.

The authors create a stimulating argument, showing that readiness is a complex term, and must be defined as more than general characteristics. I found the first phase of their survey to have the strongest argument where skills regarded as being part of traditional learning can be easily carried over into online learning. Such skills include writing and expression, time management, and responsibility. Additionally, the authors were diligent enough to alter questionnaires where inconsistencies were present. For example, during the first phase of their study, it was found that students were answering questions based on their personal experience with web-based tools, rather than within the education context as expected. Therefore, the authors revised the prompts to require the students to answer the questions from their educational experience.

The article presented the questionnaire through its various stages of reconstruction showing how questions were revised during each phase of the study. However, the article lacked a clear definition of how the surveys were administered. Was the survey an in-person sheet where students entered answers long-hand? Was the survey administered online through a course management software program, or was the survey collected in focus group setting in a qualitative manner? These are questions that presented areas of concern as the setting in which the survey was administered could possibility present differing data results. While the authors presented information the ages, ethnicities, and major of study for the participants, the study failed to present information on the whether participants were taking an online course for the first time, and what distance learning model was used for this specific course in which the survey was given (completely online, hybrid, etc.). Additional areas of study could examine the comparison between undergraduate student online learning preparedness, and graduate student preparedness in online learning environments to see if results of the study vary between the two populations. Another area of exploration could be centered on how the level of social media experience of the participants impacts online learning success. Finally, the study could be extended to present data on minority student success in online learning environment, including information on whether one’s socioeconomic status has an impact on online learning. The further study, as suggested, would prove to as an effective analysis for researchers and teacher-educators to examine underrepresented populations.

This article can be compared to Lau and Shaikh’s (2012) article, “The Impacts of Personal Qualities on Online Learning Readiness at Curtin Sarawak Malaysi” in which the authors of the article developed a questionnaire to gather information on student’s personality characteristics as diagnostic tool for both faculty and instructional designers (Lau & Shaikh, 2012). Where Lau and Shaikh’s study shows a higher level of evidence is that they surveyed over 350 participants in their study as compared to Dray, Lowenthal, Miskiewicz, Ruiz-Primo, and Marczynski’s study in which only 26 graduate students were surveyed. The findings of Lau and Shaikh’s (2012) study were that students were less satisfied with online learning in comparison to traditional learning environments and felt less prepared for the objectives of the course. Both articles support my research in different by equally necessary ways: Lau and Shaikh’s (2012) article presents compelling statistical data on online learning readiness, while Dray et al (2011) article provides information on how to compose efficient survey questionnaires.

References

Dray, B. J., Lowenthal, P. K., Miskiewicz, M. J., Ruiz-Primo, M., & Marczynski, K. (2011). Developing and instrament to assess student readiness for online learning: A validation study. Distance Education, 32(1), 29-47. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2ae58e61-960f-4907-be25-93dcd5ba5c38%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=120

Kerr, M., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2006). Student characteristics for online learning success. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 91-105.

Lau, C. Y., & Shaikh, J. M. (2012, July). The impacts of personal qualities on online learning readiness at Curtin Sarawak Malaysia. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(20), 430-444.

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Self Reflection

— by Anika Hutchinson on May 26, 2014 — Leave a reply

According to Tyrone Howard (2003), “the formation of a culturally relevant teaching paradigm becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, without critical reflection. The nature of critical reflection can be an arduous task because it forces the individual to ask challenging questions that pertain to one’s construction of individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds” (p. 198). As an academic advisor, I am often the very first person a new student meets upon being accepted to the university. Therefore, I am constantly mindful of how my past experiences, expectations, and biases can be passed on to my students which can result in a positive or negative first impression of the university on the part of my students.

This article was particularly poignant in that it identified a problem of practice and posed a relevant solution that can implemented in a variety of educational settings. The issue is that teacher-educators lack self-reflection in determining how their biases affect their pedagogy. The article posed the question, “what does race have to do with teaching?” Teachers generally build curriculum based on theory and desired learning objectives rarely considering the cultural and ethnic background of their students. While viewing students as learners, regardless of their cultural experience, is one way of leveling the playing field between students, it omits the tendency of students to relate principles to their own experiences. To remedy this problem of practice, Howard (2003) presents the notion of cultural reflection in which teacher-educators become culturally relevant by reflecting on their own experiences and biases in order to see how their position in the learning process affects the student in a positive or negative way.

Howard (2003) proposes a solution to the question at hand by suggesting that teacher-educators engage in a self-reflective process to examine their own biases and how their pedagogy and classroom environment are impacted by those biases. I agree with Howard’s point that the process of cultural reflection poses a challenge for teacher-educators because it forces them to question their own construction and ideas of students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Facing the arduous and possibly painful process of reflection in which the educator must identify the complexities of teaching students who are from backgrounds different from their own. Howard (2003) suggests the process is often painful because it forces the educator to recognize their views on cultural differences were instilled by family members who may have impressed their prejudiced views on the educator, which innately impacts the learning process in the classroom, especially for ethnic minorities.

Cultural reflection also requires that teacher-educators take personal accountancy for their own pedagogy and teaching methods (Ladson-Billings, 1995). While the district or university may mandate certain curricula and learning objectives in the classroom, educators must take personal action to ensure the academic and social competence of their students remains intact. This notion can prove to be challenging as it calls educators to find a balance between the student’s home life and school environment, however, doing so will produce students who are successful academically, are culturally competent, and socially equitable (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

As an African American, I greatly understand the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy in the learning environment. When I was in first grade my teacher sent me home with a homework assignment. The following week we would be studying the 1950’s in class. The teacher asked us and our parents to conduct some research about the decade, and come dressed in the fashion of the day to share with our classmates. The purpose of the exercise was for us to reflect on the “good times” of the decade and pay homage to the happenings of the era. Needless to say, my mother, who was a child during the ‘50s was extremely angry with this assignment, for the era was anything but “good times” for people of color. Sadly, the assignment objectives were completely lost on me as the cultural difference between my teacher and myself (family) were at odds. While the intent was not necessarily one of malice, the learning objectives were not socially, nor culturally relevant to me. Howard’s notion of cultural reflection could have been applied to this example resulting in greater impact for the classroom environment.

References

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagody: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.