The Impact on Higher Education: Is Creating a New Doctoral Degree Worth it?

— by on — Leave a reply

After reading Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal by Lee Shulman, Chris Golde, Andrea Conklin Bueschel and Kristen Garabedian (2006), I pondered if a Professional Practitioners Degree (PPD) is a step in the right direction as  I agree that having a distinction between a PhD in Education and a Practitioner’s degree is important and relevant to the times. However, after much thought, I would argue that it is more of a hindrance.

One challenge that the article failed to develop was the difficulties in creating a new degree. The article mentions that creating a new degree lets one start at “ground zero” thus being able to create the exact degree one would like (Shulman, 2006). This statement seems to ring true, however it does not acknowledge the complexities of creating a well respected degree. A new degree lacks history, proven effectiveness, and quantity in field examples. How could one presume that a new degree without any standing would gain more respect in the academic community than the current degree already in place? What then happens to people with an EdD? Are they expected to go back and get a second degree to gain get more academic respect? Who is then in charge of making sure that the new degree maintains its intended integrity? All of these questions are rather large and unlikely to have an answer until a degree is implemented. In saying this I believe that revamping the EdD is the route to go.

In the past several years, large, prestigious universities began revamping their EdD programs – University of Southern California, Harvard, University of Washington, Vanderbilt. From personal observation, when large, prestigious universities begin to make changes, other large, prestigious universities begin to make similar changes. Thus, in this case, creating a national spur of revamping and redefining the EdD. I believe this rings true for ASU as well. A couple years ago, when I first started looking into ASU’s EdD, there were two different tracks. One was demolished and the program was remodeled. Part of the remodel (rumor has it) was due to budget constraints and for redefining the difficulty and purpose of the EdD. I dont know if it was mere coincidence, or just timing, but none-the-less the EdD at ASU is being redefined even if just for growth purposes. This would seem to support the ideas that there is a national shift beginning to happen in regards to reinvigorating the EdD programs. With this shift, it would seem better to keep the EdD rather than establishing a PPD.

References

Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 43, 25-32. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from the ASU Blackboard database.

 

Self-Reflection and Cultural Relevance

— by on — Leave a reply

At what point will educators be mandated to assess their own personal biases before they assess the academic abilities of their students? Tyrone C. Howard’s 2003 article, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection, truly resonates with me, as an assistant principal in a K-8 Title I elementary school. Throughout my years in the K-12 education system I have encountered the issue of educational inequity for my minority students and have often questioned what the school system can do to do create more culturally aware educators. In a diverse society we need to ensure that all of our students have access to education, which requires educators to be aware of the needs of their specific student population. I wholeheartedly believe that in order to create a school environment that meets the needs of our heterogeneous student population we must create “culturally relevant teaching practices” (Howard, 2013, p. 198). In order to make such an elaborate change we must ask our educators to go through a process of “critical reflection that challenges them to see how their positionality influences their students in either positive or negative ways” (Howard, 2013, p.198). This idea of self-reflection is required before we can begin to address an educator’s feelings about race, culture, and social class, which shape the ways they instruct their students.

As I have experienced in the past, teachers are capable of subconsciously projecting their negative concepts of culture and race onto their students on a daily basis, which can negatively impact a student’s level of academic achievement. Unfortunately, I have witnessed teachers who project personal biases onto their students leading to an awful crushing of young academic spirits. Stephen Jay Gould (1981) speaks to the idea that humans have battled with racism throughout history, in his book The Measure of Man. According to Gould, “racial prejudice may be as old as recorded human history” (p. 31). With this being said, educators need to be aware of their own possible prejudices and determine the best ways to adjust their ways of thinking as to not project any negative thoughts onto the students. As previously stated, the first step is self-reflection in order to first determine which prejudices each person possesses, allowing the educator to move towards lessening or even possibly eliminating such biases.

Although there is a clear necessity for teacher self- reflection, I continue to ask myself if teacher training programs can appropriately address the issue of honest, in-depth teacher self-reflection. Such reflection will require educators to come to terms with their own cultural identity and personal biases.Are we ready to have these difficult conversations? In order to see the change in teacher mentality, teachers will need to ask themselves challenging questions, discuss honest answers openly, and address any concerns discovered during this internal journey (Howard, 2003, p. 198). The question still remains, how will we integrate this critical self-reflection into our current teacher preparation programs and daily lives? Also, how do we determine if teachers are reflecting in an honest fashion that allows them to create teaching practices that are more culturally relevant? These are questions that we will have to address within our educational system immediately in order to ensure that our students are receiving an excellent and culturally relevant education.

In the United States we have a very diverse population, which affects our ability to give all students access an excellent education. We must devise ways to allow all students to access culturally relevant curriculum. In order for us to determine if a teacher is being effective in their classroom we need a way to appropriately assess a teacher’s efficacy. Leading to the question: How can we accurately assess a teacher’s value in our K-12 education system? According to Pauler and Amrein-Beardsley’s 2013 article, we must have random assignment of students in each classroom in order to analyze assessment scores by means of value-added analyses and interpretations. “Value added models (VAMs) are used to measure changes in student achievement on large-scaled standardized test scores from year to year” (Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley, 2013, p. 1). This measurement system depends on random assignment of students, which is not the case in the United States, so biases are inevitable in such a test score analysis technique. With this being said, do we need a better way to determine the quality of teachers or are we able to counteract the biases that exist?

References

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher

                      reflection, 42(3), 195­202.

Paufler, N. A. & Amrein­Beardsley, A. (2013). The random assignment of students into

                   elementary classrooms: Implications for value­added analyses and interpretations.                                 

                   American Education Research Journal, 51(2), 328­362.

 

Confronting Bias

— by on — 1 Reply

Issues of race have hindered students’ access to an excellent education. Gould (1981) pointed out that racism has been around as long as “recorded human history,” (p. 31) however it has only been in recent history that there has been a biological justification by scientists that attempted to make an argument that people of color are biologically inferior. This shows that there was ‘proof’ for racism that the scholar community provided. Even President Lincoln, who had respect for freedmen who fought in the Civil War, believed that “freedom does not imply biological equality” (Gould, 1981, p. 35). These beliefs, held by historically respected academics and leaders, are sure to have been passed on to many in society, both the educated and non. Therefore, we can infer that minority groups have been long viewed as not deserving of an excellent education.

Gould (1981) described that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that “arguments did not contrast equality with inequality” (p. 31). With that, we can see that equality and access are fairly new concepts. So, as a teacher who got into teaching to serve students of color who are mostly poor, I questioned, are educators concerned about making equality a priority? What can we do to ensure that educators are concerned about this? Garcia and Ortiz (2013) made it clear that educators need to think about students’ cultural context in order to make the right decisions for them, especially students with disabilities, but unfortunately do not. Instead, “researchers and practitioners tend to locate the source of achievement and behavioral difficulties within students, without examining performance in the context of teaching and learning environments in which that performance occurs” (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013, p. 38). As Howard (2003) made it clear that our future teaching force will continue to be mostly middle class women and that our student population will increasingly be low income students of color, it is important that our educators confront their biases in order to ensure that every decision we make is in students’ best interest.

The idea of educators confronting biases in order to be culturally relevant practitioners is something that must be made a priority.   As the EdD “focuses on preparing practitioners…who can use existing knowledge to solve educational problems” (Shulman, Golde, Bueschel, & Garabedian, 2006, p. 26), I cannot begin to use this degree to solve the problem of early literacy for low-income students without examining the context that many of my students are living and learning in. For example, are they given the proper support at home? If not, are the schools supporting the parents with strategies to increase their children’s literacy? Last, are educators providing the right methodologies and interventions that respect the cultural context of their students? It seems unlikely that educators are currently making unbiased decisions with their students or even trying to. For example, in the study conducted by Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley (2013), the majority of principals were against randomly assigning students to classes, meaning that teachers and principals make those decisions. This means that students will undoubtedly be grouped based on many subjective factors, which will surely be somewhat biased.

Therefore, in thinking about my own research in investigating the best ways to teach students how to read, I will need to consider how and why students were grouped. I will need to consider their educational settings, such as Special Education (SPED) inclusion, English Language Development (ELD), cluster (gifted), heterogeneous, homogenous, etc. and the rationale for putting students into those settings. Lastly, I will need to look at the training and beliefs of the teacher to get a sense of why they are implementing certain instructional strategies. Overall, this week’s readings made me see that action research must consider the culture of students in order to actually make change.

 References

Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47.

Gould, S. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Teacher Reflection and Race in Cultural Contexts, 42(3), 195–202.

Paufler, N. A., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2013). The Random Assignment of Students Into Elementary Classrooms: Implications for Value-Added Analyses and Interpretations. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 328–362. doi:10.3102/0002831213508299

Shulman, L. S., Golde, C. M., Bueschel, A. C., & Garabedian, K. J. (2006). Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25–32. doi:10.3102/0013189X035003025

Critical reflection of identity toward access, excellence, and impact

— by on — 1 Reply

Knowing oneself intimately, in part through a practice of critical reflection – independently as participant in dialogic exercises with those whom you share a history and a worldview – is integral to becoming a socially responsible scholar, activist, or teacher.  This is a challenge we must pose to ourselves, as we embark upon our roles as educational leaders; regularizing reflexivity may make us more aware of our roles as learners ourselves, and our immense obligation to our students and our institutions to participate in a culture of excellence, providing all students with equitable access to fruitful learning experiences.  Parallels between the important messages of Aurora Levins Morales in Medicine Stories (1999) and Tyrone Howard’s “Culturally Relevant for Critical Teacher Pedagogy: Ingredients Reflection” (2003) emerge around one’s own identity and the relationships one has with content and their context, including the fabrication of “the other.”  The experiences, cultural traditions, positionality in terms of power and the socio-economic landscape, and education are part of what make up one’s identity.  These factors also cultivate the perspective, including judgments, biases, and imaginings, one carries with him/her.  Critical reflection is a “personal and challenging” process of looking at “one’s identity as an individual person and as an active professional” (Howard, p. 201), and that “gives attention to one’s experiences and behaviors, [wherein] meanings are made and interpreted from them to inform future decision-making” (p. 197).

 

My professional agenda involves developing a college preparatory independent learning program, delivered online, for grades 7-12.  It is precisely the broad acknowledgement that each individual student has his/her own context, impacting his/her learning needs, preferences, and abilities that led to this endeavor.  The new charter school is a part of the Arizona Online Instruction Program, and will attempt to support each student to clarify goals, connect academic expectations to nonacademic interests, and creatively pursue aspirations within the flexible program structure.  I recently engaged in research on online learner characteristics, which proposed that certain characteristics seem to lend to greater success in online education settings (or, that the absence of these characteristics may require more substantial or targeted support and intervention strategies).  This work helped me think about how I would build a program that understood and was designed to adapt to each student’s characteristics/context from the moment of our first meeting.  The combined works of Morales (1999), Howard (2003), Garcia and Ortiz (2013), and Gould (1996) have helped me see the immense value of my participating in the exploration of [my own] personal characteristics and how they may impact my performance as mentor, program advisor, parent counselor, facilitator, and administrator.

 

Howard quotes Palmer (1998) who wrote that “we teach who we are,” and “knowing myself is as crucial to good teaching as knowing my students and my subject” (Howard, p. 198).  It may be that our positionality enables a blindness to our beliefs and the behaviors that stem from them.  Teaching is not a neutral act (Howard, p. 200), neither is storytelling (Morales, p. 25).  Morales encourages us – scholars, teachers, socially-responsible citizens of the global society – to make ourselves visible (to ourselves, in our writing, in verbal our story telling), as she has chosen to do.  This, in and of itself, is an act of resistance against the dominant approach – the imperial history is one where the narrator is detached, and makes no explicit moral judgment, or demonstration of partisanship, though, this story is an unabashed construction of the oppressors.  For Morales, the work of the “oppressed” or the underprivileged breaking silence and voicing memories, experiences, including and especially about trauma, offers a pathway for collective healing, empowerment, and a way to restore our sense of humanity.  The author advocates for the crafting of “medicinal histories” which “seek to re-establish the connections between peoples and their histories, to reveal mechanisms of power, the steps by which their current condition of oppression was achieved through a series of decisions made by real people to dispossess them; but also to reveal multiplicity, creativity and persistence of resistance among the oppressed” (Morales, p. 24).

 

Morales’s “handbook” for medicinal histories recommends similar actions as Howard, the broad purpose for both seems to be to enhance the access to personal and collective narratives not born entirely from the dominant narrative, and enhance equitable access to quality education and to achievement, not entirely fraught with invisible devices of the privileged, that unconsciously or consciously deploy to impact learning opportunities and outcomes.  Morales urges the inclusion of nonwritten, and, for lack of a better characterization, nonobvious or mainstream media or sources of “evidence.”  By this she does not mean fabricating data to report it as science (which might invite the reader to recall the example of craniometry, which was hailed as scientifically justifiable in the nineteenth century (Gould, 1996)); rather, the objective is to offer a space or an ear to the voice of the silenced, which may yield a yet untold story or perspective.   She encourages proposing questions as an important investigatory tool, even very broad-based or seemingly unanswerable ones, as they can lead you in directions perhaps underrepresented in the dominant narratives.  The author contends that we perpetuate injustice by not revealing power dynamics and by not revealing the agency and the “real people” among the oppressed; the new narrative must be as complex as the reality it tells, embedded within and expressing connections from its context.

 

Then, it is up to the story teller to further make meaningful the narrative through careful choice of language and approach, and an understanding of the contexts within the audience – much like a teacher.  By not making accessible, which for Morales involves the actual “delivery,” or digestibility (p. 36) of the story, the narrator has effectively excluded some.  Sharing stories and working to understand each other’s contexts may help denigrate the myth of the monolithic oppressed or “unprivileged” class, reducing cultural variations, and rendering insignificant major differences within groups – including within one classroom.  As Garcia and Ortiz (2013) point out, “a master category like race/ethnicity fails to account for within-group diversity based on people’s multiple social identities” (p. 36), which, in the context of teachers and students, can have real impact on how educational institutions address the particular learning styles and needs of individuals.  Much as “ecology undermines ownership” (Morales, p. 100), because it is inherently full of highly variant, dynamic, and interrelated components, whole groups of people, irrespective of their commonalities, cannot fairly be referred to as a unit devoid of internal contradictions, inconsistencies, and uniqueness.

 

Howard is concerned particularly with deficit-based characterizations of non-dominant or culturally diverse students, suggesting that this may lead to the reification of these individuals as better suited for special or remedial education or even directly impact their achievement.  Culturally relevant pedagogy may well be a way to help “increase the academic achievement of culturally diverse students;” it “uses ‘the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning more relevant to and effective [for students]. …It teaches to and through strengths of these students. It is culturally validating and affirming” (p. 196).  Strategic critical reflection among teachers, facilitated by skillful and open teacher-educators is the neverending process that can engender culturally relevant pedagogy.  It must be guided by specific questions or foci, e.g. “Who am I? What do I believe? Does who I am and what I believe have ramifications for the students I teach?” (p. 199), the musings on which inform one’s behavioral modifications.

 

It is through purposeful critical self-reflection, along with iterative, reflexive, behavior change that we may be able to push back against the status quo to strive for excellence in our educational institutions, providing an environment better suited for all students to feel comfortable and to participate fully in the learning experience toward individual academic success.  At the very least, we can use this as a tool to interrogate that which guides our own behavior and the potential impact it has on those around us, particularly our students, and remind us that part of our identity is as active participants in the context within which we engage with our students and our schools.  Sounding the rallying cry of a sustainability scholar (which appeals particularly to me, having done my graduate work in sustainability), Morales writes that “the denial of our interrelatedness is killing the planet and too many of its people” (p. 14).  It is not just to the detriment of our ecosystem that we ignore the interconnectedness of all things, it is a social justice issue and truism that can guide teacher critical reflection.  Because of this role and our individual and collective desire to have a(n) [evermore] positive impact on our students’ intellectual pursuits and lives more generally, we have a responsibility to make visible the invisible, including things about ourselves, from where we came, our positions [of privilege], and interrogate and take action on how they affect our outlook and approach.

Garcia, Shernaz B.; Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47.

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. In The Mismeasure of Man (p. 444). Norton.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: ingredients for critical teacher reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.

Morales, A. L. (1999). Medicine stories: History, culture and the politics of integrity (p. 135). South End Press.

Who We Are…Culture and Education

— by on — Leave a reply

In the article, “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Reflection” by Tyrone Howard (2003), the author argues that in order for teachers to be most effective in teaching culturally diverse populations, they must first go through their own critical, self-reflection, with regards to their own cultural identity, and how that identity is reflected in their teaching style.

In addition to experience, education, training and a specific skill set(s), teachers also bring into the classroom their own cultural values, and cultural identity. According to Howard, teachers must “reflect on their own racial and cultural identities and to recognize how these identities coexist with the cultural compositions of their students” (p. 196). Only when teachers have an understanding of their own cultural identity, can they create a learning environment best suited for their students. Howard goes on to say “Effective reflection of race within diverse culture requires teachers to engage in one of the more difficult processes for all individuals – honest self-reflection and critique of their own thoughts and behaviors” (p. 198).

This was a powerful statement as I began to reflect on my own culture, and the how my cultural identity impacts me as an action researcher.

Having been raised in a predominantly Caucasian, affluent community, I have often thought back on how my own upbringing shaped my attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts regarding race, ethnicity and my own cultural values. As I now consider my own cultural identity, I wonder how that identity influences my ability to effectively, or ineffectively, engage students in the work that I do.

While I am not a teacher in the classroom context, I am an educator. As such, I can see how this information might also apply in my own work with students in higher education. While the aim of the article is primarily from the context of ethnicity, language and race, I wonder, to what extent, more subtle cultural contexts also play into the development of cultural identity. For example, how they were parented, the community where they grew up and the values that their community espoused.

Recently, I had the opportunity of working with a student who had been caught smoking marijuana. As I met with the student, and learned more about the context for why they made the decisions that they did, I learned that their family dynamic and community culture, partially formed the basis for their decision making process. The student was from a state where marijuana was legal. The student’s parents smoked marijuana in their home, and allowed their children to smoke at a young age. In her small community, it was common place to smoke socially.

While this situation does not fall into the cultural categories indicated in the article, I believe it raises further questions as to what other values and cultural identities should be considered when engaging with students in the work that we do.

Understanding my own cultural identity, and how that identity was reflected in those conversations with this particular student, impacted my ability to connect with and understand the cultural context for which this student came from, and ultimately my ability to engage the student in a meaningful way. In looking ahead to my own area of research, I wish to explore how meaningful conversations, programs, resources, and targeted outreach efforts improve retention in already at-risk students. Namely, low income, first generation, and students with disabilities.

While Howard focused primarily on the educational process and self-reflection of teachers and teacher educators with regards cultural relevance, I would suggest that those who work with students outside of the classroom, might also benefit greatly from critical reflection with regards to their own cultural identity and values.

References

Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Know Thyself

— by on — 1 Reply
The famous maxim in its original Greek. (Photo Credit: etsy.com)

The famous maxim in its original Greek. (Photo Credit: etsy.com)

For the readings this week, there was a common theme between a couple of the pieces that really resonated with me, and probably because I see direct correlations with my field of study, which is education abroad.  That theme is identity.  Not only do I see a relationship to my field, but I find the theme of identity applicable to our course’s guiding question on access, excellence and impact. Let me explain…

In Garcia and Ortiz’s 2013 piece, Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education, their argument is that it is impractical to hope to draw conclusions or prescribe solutions when dealing with a disparate group of individuals; you must acknowledge that every individual is comprised of multiple identities which colors their experiences and how they perceive the world.  As they explain, “A master category like race/ethnicity fails to account for within-group diversity based on people’s multiple social identities. Concomitantly, the education system’s failure to account for within-group differences renders these sub-groups invisible, and increases the risk that some students with special needs are overlooked and may not receive services to which they are entitled” (p.36).  By choosing to examine a subset through the lens of just a single, superficial identity, such as race, we as educators, fail to acknowledge that what works for one member of that racial group might not actually be what is best for another member of that same racial group who also identifies with another subset.

When I think about this principle in my field, one example might be concerning the dearth of African-American participation in education abroad.  When we make sweeping generalizations that the reason for why this population is under-represented in education abroad is because of economic deterrents, we fail to account for other factors that might be contributing to their decision to pursue this opportunity.  Perhaps they also identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender and have reservations about navigating another culture with this identity because of difficulties living with this identity at home. Or perhaps their parents never had the opportunity to study or travel abroad and so they do not even have the background from which to ask the right questions and start the research to take part in this opportunity.  The possibilities are as infinite as there are unique identities.

Perhaps more interesting to me, in terms of drawing comparisons to my field, was the 2003 article by Howard, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection.  In my current position, I lead our Student Orientation and Re-entry Team (SORT). The SORT team is responsible for organizing our students’ pre-departure orientation meetings before they depart for their programs abroad.  As recently as this past year, I had a quintessential light-bulb moment when I realized that we were going about preparing students for their short-term programs the wrong way.  We had been focusing on introducing students to their host culture when really, one cannot begin to understand another culture before one understands their own culture, and more specifically, their own identity.  In a similar fashion to Howard’s argument that teacher’s need to engage in critical reflection to understand the particular biases that they bring into the classroom environment, so to do our students who are going abroad need to understand who they are as a person and an American and how that will influence their perceptions and understandings of a host culture.

Therefore, identity is perhaps one of the central foundations of problems related to access, equity, and impact because it is identity which raises the questions of who has access, is there equality across all involved, and what is the impact for individuals?  In terms of education, identity seems as though it may forever be the guiding light to which educational leaders must continually return in order to solve the issues related to these areas.

References

Garcia, S. B., & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

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

Intersectionality and Impact

— by on — 1 Reply

Impact

One of the readings from this week, Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education, was truly life changing and perspective altering (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013). This article was particularly eye-opening because it highlighted and delved into an area of research that I have rarely considered nor at the depth that the authors covered it. As a classroom educator, I’ve often considered my identity, positionality, the funds of knowledge that all stakeholders bring to the classroom, and even the power that I personally held by covering or not covering topics, the texts that were selected and even the people that I recognized historically. In the article, Garcia and Ortiz gather a arsenol of research to really support and propose a framework of intersectionality in research in special education. Through their article however I really have connected with the importance of delving deep into my many identities, the identities of my prospective research community, my insider/outsider status in relation to that community, my biases and stereotypes, the nature of my research, the appropriateness of the knowledge that is to be gleaned, and even who will benefit from that knowledge.

Garcia and Ortiz highlight the importance of this researcher reflexivity because of its nature to impact what we deem as important research, the methods we employ and even the communities we involve in that research. It is possible that my past experiences, skills, and knowledge base comprise, in essence, who I am and therefore who might or might not be integrated into this research that I orchestrate. The authors do an excellent job of highlighting that the inclusion or exclusion of certain subgroups extends our knowledge of them and builds on the holistic body of research that exists. On the flipside of the coin, if our research does not include certain peoples, our knowledge of them does not increase and nor does that information, perspective, unique knowledge become a part of our holistic knowledge from research.

The authors even highlighted an important element of value within the research community that stems from the What Works Clearinghouse which excludes interventions for ELL students that are performed in languages other than English (pg 39). This inherent valuing of interventions done in English over others that are performed in other languages hurts the overall body of research on supporting ELL students as it automatically excludes a whole other body of work that appears to not align with the organizations socio-political beliefs on language instruction. If The Clearinghouse is supposed to be a gathering of what works so that this information can guide political, district and school leaders in a decision-making process, then all interventions surrounding this population should be considered and analyzed.
Throughout my entire reading, highlighting and notetaking of this article I found myself continuously nodding my head in agreement, saying, “huh, hmmm, huh”. I really connected with the topic and found myself convicted in analyzing my own scholar/researcher identify closely, the community of learners who will and will not be a part of my research, the knowledge that I hope to glean, who will benefit from that knowledge and the methods in which it will be gathered. One question or nagging thought that has persisted throughout the article and continues to surface at the conclusion of reading it would be, when is it healthy or right to participate in research and when isn’t it and who helps to make that call? What if, in my researcher reflexivity, I illuminate areas of bias and stereotypes within my own lens, how do I go about remediating these deficiencies? How do I even notice that I have these? Is this something that can only be explored and identified in groupings of “different’ people? If I have biases, does that mean I should not participate in research at all, to some degree, or only in community of others? How do I move forward after my initial reflection and declaration of my position? Do I engage in this process at every stage of research seeing as that it is often the acquiring of knowledge and interaction with others that does alter one’s identity?

I guess the “bottom line” or greatest connection I feel as though I can take away from this article, is that I have a lot of identity searching and clarifying to do and that it appears that the only way that I can most “safely” traverse the difficult task ahead is to be transparent and in communion with many different people to engage in the reflective and growing process. Earlier, I stated that this article was perspective altering, which it has been, but even more honestly it appears to have been spring-boarding in its effect. It deeply causes me to ask, “What IMPACT will the act of my researching have? Really, what impact and why?”.

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

— by on — Leave a reply

The ability to reflect and analyze individual actions or attitudes and behavior can have a significant positive influence on personal and professional growth.  Howard (2003) discusses the importance of having teachers participate in honest self-reflection and critique of their own thoughts and behaviors as it pertains to race in cultural contexts (2003). The goal of critical teacher reflection would be to give pre-service or practicing teachers a space to reflect on and analyze important issues such as race, ethnicity, and culture and recognize how their own attitudes and beliefs can dramatically impact outcomes for students. The act of reflection gives attention to one’s own experiences and behaviors. The meaning that is developed from the act of reflection can help inform future decision making (Howard, 2003).   Through this process, pre-service and practicing teachers can develop pedagogical practices that are racially affirming, culturally relevant, and socially meaningful. This type of awareness and development of culturally relevant pedagogy, I feel will help teachers provide equal access to education for all students regardless of their cultural or ethnic background. In the article, Howard (2003) discussed how Ladson-Billings (1994) argued that one of the key components of culturally relevant pedagogy is the authentic belief that students from culturally diverse and low-income backgrounds are capable learners and if students are treated in that manner, then they will ultimately demonstrate high degrees of competence.

I personally place a high value on teacher self reflection in all areas of teacher pedagogy for both pre-service and practicing teachers. When I think about my teaching experience over the last 13 years, I believe that my success has had a lot to do with natural reflection in my teaching experiences. While I feel that it is innate for most people to reflect on experiences, I think the real skill that brings reflection to life is the ability to honestly engage in reflection in a way that takes a critical look at personal beliefs or actions and makes use of the success or failure of them to make changes that will improve future experiences. Sometimes it can be true that a teacher may not recognize the key areas in their teaching where reflection is needed. This is where mentoring comes into play. Having a mentor to guide the reflection process is crucial for active reflection to be successful. My research interest is in the area of looking at the translation of knowledge and experiences from teacher preparation programs into successful teaching experiences for beginning teachers. For many of the student teachers I have mentored, the act of reflection seems to be a bit unfamiliar. Sometimes pre-service teachers place “blame” on factors that are seemingly out of their control when discussing a lesson that was taught or an interaction with students that may not have gone as planned. As a mentor, I attempt to help student teachers reflect on how their beliefs or actions may have impacted the lesson or the situation. In the area of culturally relevant pedagogy, and awareness of how your beliefs have an effect on your expectations and interactions with students of different ethnic or cultural backgrounds can help pre-service and practicing teachers avoid deficit based-thinking when teaching. It will also allow students to have access to an education that views each individual as equally capable regardless of background and sets a level of high expectations for success for all students.

References

Howard, T.C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: 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.

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Self Reflection

— by on — 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.

 

 

 

Best Practices for Researchers – Be(a)ware of Yourself!

— by on — 4 Replies

The readings for this week seem designed to initiate us to the reflexive, multi-faceted look at educational practice that our program aims to inculcate in us.  I strongly agree with this approach. I applied to this program so that I can be a better teacher – more reflexive, more culturally sensitive, and better educated about best practices and how to design and assess innovations.  In Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education by Garcia and Ortiz (2013), they write “…educational questions beg to be conceptualized and analyzed through more than one axis” and “…categories of difference are dynamic and produced by the interaction of individual and institutional factors.”   To help students be successful will take acknowledgement of various intersecting aspects of their culture and abilities.  Designing a curriculum and/or a program to help students will take consideration of multiple factors such as race, generational cohort, familiarity with college environment, language acquisition, and institutional assumptions.  That suggests to me that a cookie-cutter approach to designing a program or teaching a class will not suffice.  That is why I don’t want to simply copy a program or syllabus from another college or teacher; I want to learn more about the intricacies and intersection of factors that can lead to student success.

In addition, I will need to continue developing awareness about how my language, instructional practices, grading practices, and casual interactions with my diverse community college students might influence them.  In Culturally Relevant Pedagogy by Howard (2001), I read that “reflection is never-ending” and “teaching is not a neutral act.”  Howard’s proposal that pre-service teachers need to engage in on-going reflection is consistent with training for counselors.  As a graduate student in counseling, my training included written and guided reflection with a supervisor after each encounter with a client in my counseling practicum.  Years later when I was supervising interns in clinical practice, I continued the process of written and verbal reflection with my interns.  In order to come up with a thoughtful treatment plan for each client, interns examined what they knew about a client, we uncovered and challenged assumptions, and examined possible approaches and potential outcomes for dealing with each individual.  Like education, therapy is not a neutral act and calls for continual reflection.  Because culture continues to evolve, so does theory and best practices.

As evidenced by the chapter from Gould’s 1981 publication of the Mismeasure of Man, as scientific observation/tools become more sophisticated, ideas will evolve and there will be missteps as scientists attempt to provide reasonable theories to support new evidence.  However, there is the danger that the questions asked and the data examined will unconsciously support the prejudices of the one asking and looking which is how Gould explains the seemingly scientific data gathered by Morton that supported a theory of racial hierarchy based on skull size.  Gould writes that he re-examined Morton’s data and describes the seemingly unconscious mistakes Morton made.  I believe contemporary practitioners have the same danger of seeing data through the lens of our biases which is why I am devoted to the practice of on-going reflection, being as transparent as I can, and discussing with others in hopes of minimizing my unconscious biases.

Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates by Shulman et al (2006) presented a history of doctorates in education of which I was unaware.  I read about the Carnegie Initiative when I was exploring doctoral programs and the ASU Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College commitment to action research for practitioners was part of the draw to this program for me.

Finally, I have questions about Value-Added Measures from the The random assignment of students into elementary classrooms by Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley (2013) article.  I look forward to Dr. Beardsley’s visit to our class this week so that I can gain a better understanding of her work.

 

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013).  Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education.  Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32-47.

Gould, S.J. (1981).  The mismeasure of man.  New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Howard, T.C. (2003).  Culturally Relevant pedagogy:  Ingredients for critical teacher reflection, 42(3), 195-202.

Paufler, N.A. & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2013). The random assignment of students into elementary classrooms: Implications for value-added analyses and interpretations.  American Education Research Journal, 51(2), 328-362.

Shulman, L.S., Golde, C.M., Conklin Bueschel, A., & Kristen, J. (2006).  Reclaiming education’s doctorates:  A Critique and a proposal.  Educational Researcher, 35(25), 25-32.

Hispanic students and higher ed – a followable path reveals itself

— by on — Leave a reply

Reference

Hall, R. E., & Rowan, G. T. (2001). Hispanic-American males in higher education: A

descriptive/qualitative analysis. Education, 121(3), 565-574. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196438890?accountid=41434

Summary

Hall and Rowan’s (2001) article “Hispanic-American Males in Higher Education: A Descriptive/Qualitative Analysis” describes the initial oppression that Hispanic-American encounter with regards to education in America. Some of these forms of oppression include: unemployment, imprisonment, and poverty (Hall and Rowan, 2001, p. 565). Due to this, Hall and Rowan (2001) call for this in their article, “In an effort to reverse dropout rates programs and policies must accommodate Hispanic-American males who are less academically prepared but who have the potential for success in higher education” (p. 565). The authors describe trends in the education of Hispanic students in detail. Hall and Rowan use data to illuminate graduation rates of Hispanics versus non-Hispanics, but also the authors sub-divide and compare different portions of students deemed Hispanic like Puerto Ricans versus Mexican-Americans. Ultimately, the authors put the onus onto Higher Education in general as not doing enough to support Hispanic-American students. Talented Hispanic-American students should not be dropping out of college, and the policy process should be further counter-balanced towards enabling Hispanic-American students to graduate.

Hall and Rowan’s (2001) article, as mentioned, focuses on a myriad of different data sets when describing the problems related to Hispanics in high education. The authors also offer philosophic arguments as reasons to support change: “Consummate societies require human perfection which is beyond the possibilities of human endeavor and thus is an ideal. As a viable alternative, higher education can maximize the benefits of human development by designing/redesigning policies to accommodate Hispanic-American males” (p. 573). This strongly-worded article has numerous implications for the issues of retaining intelligent and talented Hispanic students in higher education institutions. The greatest being its focus on higher ed institutions’ role in all of this. No longer should drop-out rates be looked at solely as failures of the young Hispanic individual. There is more to it – college and universities must realize their role in all of this and redouble their efforts to support their Hispanic learners.

Organization

This report was clearly organized and easy to follow. The authors stated the problem at the onset of the text and worked from there.

Contribution to Field

This article contributed to the field as it first offered a comprehensive review of literature on the predecessors in the field of study. The authors created, in their words, a non-exhaustive analysis of focused-grouped questions given to groups of Hispanic college students. The authors utilized these groups for collection of their data, using “eight to twelve Hispanic American male college students and lasted 60 to 90 minutes” (Hall and Rowan, 2001, p. 570).

Literature Review

This article’s strength just might be its Literature Review. As mentioned, it builds nicely on what came previously, interweaving the research and analysis of some of the older texts and articles that exist on this subject. Because of this, it serves as a foundational piece and starting point from which to proceed when looking at Hispanic students in higher education.

Data Collection

The methods for data collection and the data itself are not what make this article interesting. The data is taken from surveys given to Hispanic students on college campuses. It asks the students to define and expound upon issues that they’ve faced in their time at college. For instance, one survey question is: “3 What problems did/do you have enrolling and staying in school?” (Hall and Rowan, 2001, p. 571). Another example of a survey question is: “5 What ideas do you have for successfully educating Hispanic-American males?” (Hall and Rowan, 2001, p. 571). These questions – purposely open-ended – might be a challenge for young Hispanic students in the sense that asking questions like this to students pursuing an undergrad degree, young men in their early twenties, would not allow for the depth of reflection as, for instance, a student seeking a Masters or Doctoral degree.

Analysis

To me, this is where this process became interesting in this article. The data collectors organized keywords that were repeated in these surveys and interviews. It almost felt as if they were collecting and organizing keywords as a Wordle does, but it was deeper than that. It, again, was interesting to me when the authors described the time-consuming process which now can be done in seconds using some of the algorithm software that is out there today for data organization. Still, the gesture was noble (not to mention it seemed novel for its time), and its results continue to be useful and valid in their field of study. The authors did utilize a computer program which they did mention, but this was technology circa 2001, not what is used today. Ultimately, the data was organized alphabetically and a color-coded system was used as well.

Theoretical Framework/Lens

I saw the hermeneutic for this article as one of outsiders looking in as a means of gaining knowledge. This knowledge, once illuminated, could potentially aid the next group of Hispanic scholars seeking higher education. I see this as a data collection for the purpose of gaining wisdom, a wisdom that could be passed down – almost as if the authors sought to create a document of “things I wish I knew before I started college” for Hispanic students. They went about this in innovative ways. Instead of creating a detailed list of student responses, the authors accumulated survey data and took it to original and new places.

Findings & Conclusions

The authors findings were not dismaying at all, but I noticed the types of Hispanic students who succeed in college, as listed in this article, are ones who are highly motivated and self-starters who transcended their peer groups. These students did not seem to be part of the norm or involved in groups of students who all went on to college. They were the exceptions, not the rules. And so, in one sense, not much can be gleaned from the findings – “special students will do special things” comes to mind. But that’s not the success of this article. We know now that, in spite of great challenges, special Hispanic students do make it to college, and they do find success. How does one become special? Well, that’s the challenge, but at least now a template or precedent has been set which those who seek this path and come after can follow.

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy – Self-Reflection is Hard Work

— by on — 2 Replies

Eric Leshinskie

Tyrone C. Howard’s article, “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection,” resonated for me as  the article addresses a potential focus for research with developmental education student success rates – professional development for developmental education instructors.  The topic of culturally relevant pedagogy has been part of my work for the Maricopa Community Colleges in some form or another in the past ten years.  I had the privilege of working with a small team of faculty members to design a professional development workshop entitled, “Beyond Content Integration: Developing a Multicultural Learning Environment.” My experiences in collaborating to develop that workshop provided significant context for me as I read this article.

One area of uncertainty for me focused on the notion that in order to create a culturally relevant learning environment, instructors must reject “deficit-based thinking about culturally diverse students” (Howard, 2003, p. 197).  I do not question the notion that instructors must reject this type of thinking; I question how pervasive deficit-based thinking is with newly hired instructors, or even instructors who have engaged in professional development on this matter. As I think of the landscape of community college instructors I have encountered in my 11 years with the Maricopa Community Colleges, I anecdotally come across fewer instructors who may harbor a deficit-based thinking approach, compared to instructors who view all students as having the capability to achieve.  Possibly my experiences are not of enough depth to make such a statement, but the optimist in me hopes that instructors across all levels of the education spectrum are rejecting the deficit-based thinking model about diverse students.

One point of emphasis from the article is that self-reflection is critical to culturally relevant instruction, and self-reflection is difficult for many instructors.   Self-reflection involves asking hard questions, and as Howard writes, “An honest and thoughtful reflection on these types of questions often becomes painful” (p. 198). My take-away is not the sample questions themselves.  Those are valuable, but ones that do not necessarily shed any new light on the process.  But, his statement that, “It is critical for teacher educators to provide spaces for preservice teachers to express their uncertainties, frustrations, and regrets over prejudiced notions” (p. 199) caused me to evaluate my own work and experiences.  Merely asking instructors to self-reflect is not enough.  Providing them with a framework for the self-reflection is also not enough.  But, it is incumbent upon teacher educators and leaders to create the space for this reflection; this is what struck a chord for me in my current role at Glendale Community College.  Too often, those who support teachers do not provide the space, or in other words the time, for instructors to meaningfully reflect with colleagues on matters of effective teaching.  If we value the culturally relevant instruction, then we must create both the culture and the space for self-reflection.

Furthermore, just as space is not created for self-reflection, the courage to have such critical conversations around race in the classroom is not prevalent either.  This lack of courage can occur for many reasons. One, instructors may not be willing to engage in such discussion.  Two, the pace of the instructional cycle is so rapid that taking time to self-reflect is not a priority. Or three, teacher educators themselves may not be prepared to facilitate such a discussion, as this first calls for a high level of self-awareness, as well as a strong facilitation skills to engage in what could be challenging dialogue.  As educators, we must develop the courage for this dialogue.  As Howard concludes, “the stakes we face as a profession and as a nation are too high to fail in this endeavor” (p. 201). Finally, I related to Howard’s statement that instructors must recognize that “teaching is not a neutral act” (p. 2oo).  I appreciate this statement as it is one that I think all effective instructors must realize.  You do not necessarily need to separate who you are as a person from who you are as an instructor.  But, you must fully realize who you are (through self-reflection described above) and how that impacts and influences your teaching.

This article relates to my research as I believe a key element to increase the success rates for those students who come to college underprepared is to have instructors who practice a culturally relevant pedagogy.  To do so, these instructors must continuously practice self-reflection, and as an institution, we must create the space and freedom for them to do so.  This will only benefit them as instructors, and in turn, will benefit our students.

Howard, Tyrone C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection.  Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.

Intersectionality and Gifted Education

— by on — 1 Reply

 

The article, Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education (2013), connected to many professional experiences I have had but not necessarily for the more direct or obvious reasons.  The article describes in detail the boxes we put students into, quite literally on forms to begin with, and the more expansively in our experiences with how we treat students in the education environment.  Intersectionality is the term the article uses to explain as the basis of two or more markers of identity and difference (e.g. race, class, and gender)  (Garcia and Ortiz, 2013).  The article tackles the theory that students are judged and discriminated against in the educational system based on the categories and labels of how they are assessed.  They authors make five points as to the impact of intersectionality: 1. Students are complex and the categories they fit into should not be viewed through narrow lenses  2. How these categories are interconnected should be carefully evaluated  3. Ethnic groups are misrepresented within every category based on stereotypes in that there seems to be a minority that is stereotyped into a program at some level 4. Intersectionality attempts to create layers to the system so that students are no longer viewed as one-dimensional and 5.  The power base that the system is created on needs to be evaluated and addressed, and ultimately changed. This creates an unbalancedsystem that our students are experiencing.  As an educator, that is something that I see needs to desperately to be addressed.  Teachers need training in order to address this issue and become more skilled.

Many of the examples given were concerning student ability, minority status, and the students’ economic status. Much of the article was focused on creating opportunities to redirect students out of ELL and special education classrooms.  However, my connection to this article was with the comment regarding minority students and having access to gifted education.  I teach in a school with very few minorities but my district does have Hispanic students in significant numbers at other schools.  I obtained my endorsement in gifted education several years ago and became aware of the underrepresentation of minority students not only in my district but also  nationwide.   The lack of access to gifted services for minority students is often due to language or cultural barriers inhibiting their success on the assessment we have.  The head of our district’s gifted department at the time I was obtaining my endorsement chose to remedy that by giving all ELL students a non-verbal gifted assessment to see if some of those students might qualify.  The value of enabling all students to have their needs fully met with the education system was immeasurable and it saddens me to think of how many gifted students did not have the opportunity to receive the benefits prior to that.  I am pleased, though, that I witnessed her use her voice as a scholar to create a balanced system during the time that she was there.

Having access is only important if the program itself leads to excellence.  The irony was that as the gifted system was set up at the time, students could qualify for services in up to three different subjects: verbal (reading), quantitative (math), and non-verbal (spatial).  The students who received services for non-verbal only attended for one, 45 minute session a week.  Although it is better than nothing, it certainly is not likely to fully meet the needs of a student who is gifted but is unable to demonstrate it due to a language barrier.

Referring back to the fifth point in the article above, our district now has had a change in the head of our gifted program (i.e. a “power”).  Non-verbal no longer exists once a week as this leader believes the program should be set up differently.  However, an entirely new test is used for students to be able to qualify for the gifted program.  I do not have access to the results but after reading this article, I wonder how many of our ELL students are being impacted by the current test that was chosen and if anything is being done to reach out to ensure that their needs are being met.

 

Garcia, Shernaz B. and Alba A. Ortiz (2013). Intersectionality as a Framework for Transformative Research in Special Education.  Multiple Voices,  13(2),  32-47  https://myasucourses.asu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-9354502-dt-content-rid-36371443_1/courses/2014SummerA-D-TEL706-44961-44962/Garcia%20%26%20Ortiz%2C%202013_Intersectionality%20as%20a%20Framework%20for%20Special%20Ed%20Research.pdf

 

Some semi-random thoughts on randomization

— by on — 1 Reply

Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley’s 2013 article “The random assignment of students into elementary classrooms: Implications for value-added analyses and interpretations” analyzed the impact of the randomization and non-randomization of assignments of students in Arizona classrooms. This response will attempt to highlight and describe insight found in the article.

First off, I’d like to start with a thought on randomization of students in classrooms. This premise of randomized classroom groupings begins with the conscious pairing of students by their ages. In my mind, a truly randomized classroom in, for instance, a K-8 school would feature six-year olds and their teenage counterparts in the same classroom. So, the students studied for this would be randomly grouped once they are divided in grade levels based on their age. Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley (2013) wrote this regarding randomization, “The purpose of random assignment is to make the probability of the occurrence of any observable differences among treatment groups (e.g., treatment or no treatment) equal at the outset of any experiment or study” (p. 3). This type of equality is important when the design is to study the impact of randomization. In terms of probability, all classrooms would have equal chances of having a wide-variety of students within them, running the gamut from students with disabilities to gifted learners. Studied over time in aggregate, randomization would precipitate and further comparable numbers of all types of students. Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley (2013) addressed issues regarding thoughts of randomization in classroom prior to and post standardized tests, “Whether students have been randomly assigned to schools and classrooms has not mattered much in the past because until recently, teachers were not typically held accountable for the test scores their students attained (i.e., once per year on traditional ‘‘snapshot’’ standardized tests)” (p. 8). Now that we are in the era of standardized tests, it matters the types of students that teachers receive; it matters as well the means that teachers receive their students. It’s one thing if each teacher receives an equal number of special education students in his or her classroom – this may just be a product of the population. It’s a completely different issue if one teacher receives ALL the special education students in his or her classroom because he or she is “good” with them and then is assessed with the same metrics of standardized tests that his or her colleagues are per grade level. I can see these non-randomized groupings happening all the time pre standardized tests. Something like: Shelly takes all the autistic students because she’s so patient with them, or Sandra takes all the gifted students because she knows how to challenge them. I can foresee scenarios where hypothetical teachers like Shelly and Sandra enjoy being these people on campus but not when they now are assessed as teachers for something like a pay bonus against their colleagues who do not have these special needs students in their classes. With a raise on the line, Shelly and Sandra may no longer request students they enjoy teaching. They may mandate a randomized classroom selection model.

Analyzing scenarios such as the aforementioned through the lens of impact, one can see how standardized tests greatly affect a teacher’s view of his or her class roster and how it is selected. Paufler and Amrein-Beardsley (2013) went on to discuss student growth scores and their linkage to teachers, “While it is certainly reasonable to ask to what extent bias occurs given varying student placement practices, in the state of Arizona, students’ growth scores are still not linked to teachers’ records to permit teacher-level value-added analyses for such a purpose” (p. 12). It seems as if the threat (and threat is too strong of a word) of test scores continually on the horizon might make it impossible to focus upon or assess a purely randomized classroom structure. The stakes might just be too high for principals not to front load their perceived stronger teachers with students deemed troublesome. All of this having been said, the attempt is both noble and interesting. Whether or not classrooms are truly randomized is outside the scope of the study. The initial premise was to study randomized classrooms against non-randomized classrooms. Non-randomization has been going on for years. Teachers, administrators, and parents have “cherry-picked” classrooms based upon pre-conceived notions of students and teachers. This is less and less equitable as standardized tests become more prevalent.

Paufler, N.A. & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2013). The random assignment of students into elementary classrooms: Implications for value-added analyses and interpretations. American Education Research Journal, 51(2), 328-362.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Welcome

— by on — Leave a reply

Welcome to our site!

This blog is a collaboration between graduate students enrolled in Arizona State University’s Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College and their two Postdoctoral Fellow facilitators. For six weeks, students will explore how action research can be used to address issues of access, excellence, and impact in educational research settings and share their meaning-making here. We encourage you to come back and join the conversation from May 22 – June 30.