Predicting online learner success to prepare for success

— by on — Leave a reply

Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90–109. doi:10.1080/08923640802039040

 

Until relatively recently, distance education research and discussion on student success largely ignored the influence of the learning environment.  As the internet increasingly came into the purview of distance education, the focus on individual learner characteristics came into question as the dominant source of insight into student success.  Roblyer, Davis, Mills, Marshall, and Pape ask the question: “Can any measured student cognitive and background characteristics be combined with learning environment characteristics to predict the success or failure of high school students in online courses” (2008, p. 96)?  This piece presents the second iteration of a model developed to predict the success of students in a virtual high school, conducted by Roblyer and Marshall in 2002.

 

The impetus for the work seems to be, first, that the drop-out rate in online education settings is significantly higher than for conventional learning environments (typical brick and mortar high schools), and, second, that there were no effective (in terms of percentage accuracy identifying a student’s likelihood to remain in school and achieve academically) models to help assess a student’s potential success in a virtual school.  This study presents a revision of the Educational Success Prediction Instrument (ESPRI), referred to as ESPRI-V2.  It has been edited to a 60-item Likert Scale measuring “technology use/self-efficacy (self-assessment of one’s ability with technology), achievement beliefs (confidence in one’s ability to learn, an aspect of locus of control), instructional risk-taking (willingness to try new things and risk failure in instructional situations, related to locus of control), and organization strategies (ways to organize for more efficient learning)” (p. 102).  These four factors originally derived from an extensive literature review of previous educational psychology and distance education studies and work on learner success in asynchronous and/or geographically distributed education situations, and they are representative of what emerged as most influential from a direct logistic regression analysis.  This output was combined with “two student background variables (age and self-reported GPA), and two environmental variables (home computer availability and school period for working on the virtual course)” to yield a highly reliable model (p. 99).  (Both of these descriptive variables where shown in the review of the literature to be incontestably significant for predicting online learner success.)

 

The study was conducted using a very large and seemingly variegated sample, comprising over 2,000 students of the Virtual High School Global Consortium (VHS).  Students were from different parts of the country and attended schools of different sizes, socioeconomic status, and settings (urban, suburban, and rural schools were represented).  The main factor missing from the sample is a diversity of access to internet at home – all students in the sample had the internet (and related devices) at home.  It would be interesting to apply ESPRI-V2 to learners whose access to the internet is more difficult and/or less reliable; these individuals would likely display less comfort overall with the platform and navigating the online world generally, which, one could reasonably assume, would impact findings.  Additionally, 80% of study participants had a period during the school day designated for their online course work; it is logical to assume that less supervision and a schedule structure requiring more student self-management would impact learner success.  This is the case in many online learning settings, particularly for remediation and credit recovery, where, often, students need credits to graduate and are not duly motivated to pace their work for quick completion (rather, if permitted, students may wait until the month of graduation to worry about their missing Geometry credit, for example).

 

ESPRI and the approach of Roblyer et al is rooted in the sociocultural tradition which values understanding “people’s everyday activities rather than focusing exclusively on formal educational contexts and academic subjects.  The emphasis is on the ways psychological processes emerge through practical activities that are mediated by culture and are part of longer histories” (Ito, Gutierrez et al, 2013, pp. 42-43).  They assessed the existing literature and discourse and observed an important under-appreciation of factors associated with the student’s learning experience and environment, including technology access and life circumstances.  Their “results indicate that environmental variables can play as important a role in a students’ success as the characteristics and background students bring to the course” (p. 105).   As a predictive tool, ESPRI-V2 is valid and robust, having predicted success (for its sample of VHS students) with 93% accuracy.

 

The important pursuit that follows from these findings is how to construct an academic program that is supportive of those predicted to succeed and as well as for those who are sure to struggle (if they choose to pursue the online option after the reflection opportunity ESPRI affords program advisors to facilitate during the pre-enrollment process).   One approach for an online high school is sketched briefly in the following.  Upon enrollment, a student will not only take a placement assessment, to help determine specific academic strengths and weaknesses, but will take a questionnaire including the measures comprising the Educational Success Prediction Instrument.  The questionnaire will be augmented with questions eliciting a range of personal details, such as hobbies, siblings, passions, aspirations for the future, concerns, and expectations in the program.  Armed with a wealth of data about each individual, including past academic performance (which schools receive on any incoming student in the form or report cards or transcripts), technology skills and access (self-reported), fears and hopes, as well as the precise output from the ESPRI-V2 element, a personal learning plan can be crafted with the student.  The plan and associated correspondence with the student’s instructors will be driven not merely by academic requirements and school budgetary concerns (online charter schools in Arizona receive funding based upon each student’s average daily minimum number of instructional minutes, relative to the average number of required minutes annually).  This working document will be unique to the individual, tailored to help the student connect his/her interests throughout their high school career, as well as to his/her potential strengths and weaknesses as an online student, as indicated by this onboarding questionnaire.

 

Prior to the student beginning any coursework articulated in the plan, the student will engage in a program and online learning orientation.  Structured like a course itself, the orientation is an opportunity for students to get familiar with and connected to the program, peers, staff, and the technological tools the student will be expected to use.  This has been recommended by several scholars thinking about student engagement and online learner success, e.g. Beyrer (2010) who developed and studied the utility of an online orientation course for online students at a small college, and Jagannathan and Blair (2013) who echo that orientating should be integral to the all-important efforts of a school endeavoring to engage students from “day 1” for retention and achievement.  Important aspects of the orientation process would include: requiring students to communicate in multiple modalities; completing tasks by set due dates; collaborating with peers on small projects designed to build relationships and help students familiarize themselves on how asynchronous and synchronous activities and may work and the challenges therein; practicing using web-based learning resources in a safe and effective way; and engaging in lessons on online learning “tips” and digital citizenship.

 

The intent of ESPRI-V2, according to Robleyer et al, explicitly, is not for schools to use it to deter or exclude students from an online educational setting.  One of the benefits of online education is that it has the potential to enhance access to high quality education widely, given institutional capacity to support technological device and skill development needs.  However, there is value in using a tool such as ESPRI to help counsel families on the options their student is better suited for.  Online learning is not for everyone.  For those that choose to proceed, ESPRI furnishes schools with valuable data on each student’s potential for success.  Schools may implement highly personalized engagement and support plans for each student, toward retention and achievement for its student body.

 

 

Beyrer, G. M. D. (2010). Online student success: Making a difference. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(1). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/beyrer_0310.htm

Ito, Mizuko; Gutiérrez, Kris; Livingstone, Sonia; Penuel, Bill; Rhodes, Jean; Salen, Katie; Schor, Juliet; Sefton-Green, Julian; Watkins, C. S. (2013). Connected learning: an agenda for research and design (p. 99). Irvine, CA, USA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Retrieved from http://dmlhub.net/

Jagannathan, U., & Blair, R. (2013). Engage the disengaged: Strategies for addressing the expectations of today’s online millennials. Distance Learning, 10(4), 1–7. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=93996527&site=ehost-live

Roblyer, M. D., Davis, L., Mills, S. C., Marshall, J., & Pape, L. (2008). Toward practical procedures for predicting and promoting success in virtual school students. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 90–109. doi:10.1080/08923640802039040

Roblyer, M. d., & Marshall, J. C. (2002). Predicting success of virtual high school students: Preliminary results from an Educational Success Prediction Instrument. Journal of Research on Technology in Education (International Society for Technology in Education), 35(2), 241. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=8948095&site=ehost-live

And the Oscar goes to…

— by on — Leave a reply

My school provides its students with iPads upon their first day of school. The computers are prevalent throughout all of their classes. Books are read using iBooks. Homework and tests are done online. We even utilize Blackboard, which is strangely ironic for me because as I take these electives this summer and as I take this course as well, you’d like I’d have a better grip on all the online content. That’s probably a whole different post, however.

At my school, one of the outcomes of our students having iPads is that teachers assign SO MANY movie projects. I’m guilt of this as well, but guilty is probably the wrong word because I do see value in the projects I assign. That having been said, other teachers find value in their projects as well, and by the time a young man graduates from Brophy, it’s almost like he should be up for an Oscar or something with all the movies he’s made.

movie

Baustita et al (2013) wrote about the value in this as well in “Participatory action research and city youth: methodology insights from the council of youth research.” I found this article heartening because it validated much of what I believe in terms of the reflective projects or the PowerPoints presentations that are referenced. Bautista et al (2013) wrote, “Documentary filmmaking allows students to use multimodal and multivocal elements to an even greater degree than with the PowerPoint presentations. The video format provides a space to meld both visual and auditory stimuli while offering a rich platform for the incorporation of a stakeholder voice” (p. 17). I see value in teaching my students paragraph writing and sentence structure, but I love my reflective movie projects. Students cannot leave my class without reflecting upon their lives, their gifts, what makes them special, and how lucky they are. I do realize that this reflection makes my students consistently aware of self when sometimes they don’t want to be. My students do reflect on race in my classroom, but it’s never my attempt to force my students into something they are not comfortable with. Dunbar (2008) wrote about this in “Critical race theory and indigenous methodologies.” He wrote, “Issues of race have been the backdrop in all my lived experiences. That includes occasions when I was acutely aware that my race was an issue and instances when it was no so obvious” (p. 89). The numbers are still most at Brophy in terms of the amount of White students, but Hispanic student enrollment climbs every year. My White students, I’m guessing, do not live their lives considering their whiteness on a daily basis. From Dunbar, I see that my Hispanic students (and my students of other races and ethnicities) probably do. I think that this is both a shame and a privilege for these students – most challenges in life can be turned positive if you try. Yes, my Hispanic students deal with issues of race as a “backdrop” to their lives each and every day at predominately White Brophy, but I think that can be looked upon as a really good thing. I hope that I can foster a pride in this fact in my classroom, especially with some of my reflective projects. I also hope that the tone I set in my classroom allows my Hispanic students to feel valued and that they feel I value their race and their culture. It’s never been my desire to put students on the spot with regards to race, but this brings me back to Howard. I do not want to bury race in my classroom culture. I’d like to confront it and ultimately to celebrate it.

References

Bautista, Mark A., Bertrand, Melanie, Morrell, Ernest, Scorza, D’Artagnan, Matthews, Corey.

(2013). Participatory action research and city youth: methodology insights from the council of youth research. Teachers College Record, 115, 1-23.

Dunbar, Christopher Jr. (2008). Critical race theory and indigenous methodologies. Handbook    of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage, 85-99.

Does Program Length Matter?

— by on — Leave a reply

Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Niehaus, E. K. (2011). One year later: The influence of short-term study abroad experiences on students. The Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(2), 213-228.

Short-term Study Abroad Programs are on the Rise
Rowan-Kenyon and Niehaus’ 2011 study focuses on a hot topic in the field of education abroad: the effects of short-term study abroad programs on students.  As a product of short-term study abroad programs myself, and considering that I currently work on short-term, faculty-directed programs, I of course see the benefits of these programs, but as they increase in prevalence, there are a growing number of professionals who call their academic integrity into question.  I think this study is a timely and important one because as the Institute for International Education details in its latest Open Doors report (2013), 51.50% of American students studying abroad do so on a program that is 8-weeks or less in duration.  With the continued growth in this sector of the field, we need more studies to aid in ensuring that the programs our students are participating in are indeed providing the meaningful impact that we want for our students.

Summary of Methodology and Findings
The study was conducted at a single institution on a short-term program of 10 days.  A small group of 10 students, studying in the Czech Republic were invited to participate, of which only 7 students actually participated fully.  The research questions Rowan-Kenyon and Niehaus addressed were:
1.) What meaning do students make of their participation in a short-term study abroad experience, both immediately after the experience and a year later?
2.) How do the students attempt to integrate this meaning into their lives?
3.) To what extent do students follow through on new commitments or intentions developed as  a result of program participation?

The researchers used a case study approach grounded in Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning, which is a theory that “describes the ways in which students’ experiences alter their frames of reference, or the ways they make meaning of the world” (p. 215).  Methods included participant observation, document analysis, and 3 interviews: the midway point of the trip, right after the trip ended, and one year after the trip had ended.  The findings of the study suggest “students who had engaged in subsequent learning opportunities continued to find meaning in their study abroad experience. The experience had faded into a distant memory for students who did not integrate the experience into their lives in some way” (p. 213).

Strengths and Areas for Improvement
Among the study’s strengths, I found that the organization of the article was logical and made their processes and conclusions very easy to follow.  Concerning the literature review, I found it to be balanced, presenting both sides of this debate, something I have not always seen.  In particular, I was delighted to see studies such as Neppo and Chieffo (2005) and Griffiths (2004) included since these studies produced findings that confirmed benefits of short-term programs. Additionally, I think the piece does contribute to the field, providing a strong argument for requiring meaningful re-entry intervention with students participating on short-term programs.

However, the study is not without its shortcomings, and most notably to me is the small sample size.  For one, only a single program at one institution was studied.  In order to build more confidence in these findings, I think groups from a variety of institutions and short-term programs should have also been included.  Feedback from 7 students can hardly be considered a basis from which to make broad applications for the field.

Furthermore, I take issue with the study’s data collection methods because the researchers were leaders of the program in which they were assessing.  Perhaps this is a risk of action research, but I think the opportunities for bias are heightened because of the ties they have with the program, a fact that the researchers attest to in their limitations section stating, “although this was beneficial in that we participated in the same cultural immersion as the students and developed relationships with the students, there was a risk that we were too involved in the research outcomes” (p. 218).  This is an important issue for all action researchers of which to be aware when conducting research and I am reminded from recently reading Gould (1981) and Howard (2003).  Gould’s summary of Samuel Morton’s polygeny and craniometry studies is quite revealing in how easy it can be to make obvious errors in research when harboring such intense beliefs about what the outcomes should be.  Similarly, Howard makes an important point for student teachers that can be applied to action researchers as well: critical reflection of one’s own identity and biases is paramount before undertaking the activity in question.

New Ideas on the Importance of Re-Entry
Though there are some issues with how this study was conducted, the findings do seem logical and I would be interested to see these research questions continued to be studied.  In particular, I think the finding that those students who participated in an activity that made use of those experiences in the year that followed made more meaning from their short-term program than those students who did not is particularly important for the re-entry phase of education abroad programming.  As Rowan-Kenyon and Niehaus explain, “The true test of any educational experience is the extent to which students integrate their new knowledge and understanding into their lives. As the results of this study show, “the extent to which students learn from a short-term study abroad experience may depend more on what those students do after they have returned home than on anything they did while abroad” (p. 223).  Too often, study abroad offices lack re-entry programming or coursework that could help alumni of short-term programs make meaning of their intensive experience.  Or, if something is offered, it is usually a welcome back pizza party with little academic structure designed to have students working through the reflective processes that would encourage transformative learning.  As the leader of our office’s re-entry team, however, I note, too, how difficult it is to get students to come to re-entry activities, be it a pizza party or otherwise.  Therefore, I think continuing with this line of research might be helpful  in order to to determine if an intervention, such as a required 1-credit re-entry course module, might be effective if introduced for all short-term participants.

There is More Work to be Done!
Aside from expanding the population included in this study so as to hopefully build more trust in the universal application of the findings, I think it will be important to examine the types of re-entry interventions that students participate in and what outcomes of transformative learning they lead to.  For the students in this study, three of the four students who claimed the short-term program in Prague had changed their lives went on to participate in additional international travel one year later, and the fourth student went on to complete an internship with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security where he reflected on plans to travel to a developing country in the future.  By assessing the types of activities students participate in post short-term study abroad and the meaning these students make from their short-term study abroad experiences later on, perhaps we as educators can gain new insight as to the types of resources and opportunities we should be plugging our students into upon their return.  I think this opens up opportunity to provide focused advising and recruiting efforts to help these students find more intensive, long-term study abroad programs, internships, and graduate programs that will help them more fully integrate their new-found self-confidence lessons learned on their short-term programs.

References

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of a man. (pp. 30-72). London: Norton & Company.

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

Institute of International Education. (2013). “Duration of U.S. Study Abroad, 2001/02-2011/12.” Open Doors Report on International Educational Exchange. Retrieved from http://www.iie.org/opendoors

Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Niehaus, E. K. (2011). One year later: The influence of short-term study abroad experiences on students. The Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(2), 213-228.

The ongoing struggle of teaching kids how to read

— by on — Leave a reply

Shanahan, T., Cunningham, A., Escamilla, K. C., Fischel, J., Landry, S., Lonigan, C. J., … Strickland, D. (2008). Developing Early Literacy (pp. 1–231). Jessup, MD. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf

Summary

This research centers on best practices for parents and educators in early literacy as suggested by a panel of experts. According to Shanahan et al. (2008), “The National Assessment of Educational Progress reveals that 37 percent of U.S. fourth graders fail to achieve basic levels of reading achievement” (p. v) which is why this panel of experts was created. The panel sought to discover what are the best practices to build early literacy skills. Of particular interest to my research is “which programs, interventions, and other instructional approaches or procedures have contributed to or inhibited gains in children’s skills and abilities that are linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, or spelling?” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. vi). In order to synthesize best approaches to early literacy, a meta-analysis of research already present in this field was conducted. The goal was to provide a framework for educators and parents of young children to follow in helping this population develop in literacy.

Organization

This research was presented in the form of a report. Headings were helpful in navigating this long document. It was clear who conducted this research, why it was conducted, how and the conclusions they came to.

As the researchers divided up the study into different categories, such as early intervention and parent involvement, it was easy to follow. To improve, I think there could be a simplified synthesis at the very end of the study of next steps to follow and which stakeholders need to follow them.

Contribution to Field

Before I identify the contribution to the field, it is important to note that these findings are based on some research designs that are not completely valid, as the effectiveness of some of the analyzed literacy strategies were based on simple pre and post-test results, something that the authors acknowledged. From this panel’s research, we know that interventions overall have a positive effect on early childhood literacy acquisition. The strength of these interventions, however, had to do with what instructional techniques were used and how much time was devoted to it. The panel determined it crucial that teachers use activities and methodologies that may not be typically seen in early childhood.

Literature Used for Meta-Analysis

The study was based on what literature was out there to synthesize in order to make recommendations for early childhood literacy instruction. Through a search of major research journals, literature reviews and research recommended from people on the panel, 8,000 potential articles were screened. From this review, 500 research articles were analyzed. Overall, “correlational data showing the relationships between children’s early abilities and skills and later literacy development and experimental data that showed the impact of instructional interventions on children’s learning” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. vi).

Data Collection

The data collection was through analyzing the 500 studies that were identified during the literature review. Identifying specific search terms that were then broken down into categories did this. Once studies were found, there was a particular criterion the researchers followed in order to decide what was valid research, one of which is that it needed to be empirical research that had been published in a refereed journal.

As the study acknowledged, “the major limitation confronting any meta-analysis is the quality of the original studies that are being combined” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. x).

Analysis

The article stated that the study “sought to identify the most comprehensive set of obtainable data in an unbiased way and to analyze those data in a straightforward manner with a minimum of manipulation or recalculation of the original data” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 1). There were specific research questions that the panel followed in the analysis, which could provide a framework for future researchers to use when analyzing further studies. They also included every document they used to analyze the data. Therefore, it is possible to duplicate this research or at least use the guiding questions when coming across new literature.

Theoretical Framework/Lens

The lens here is that there are many emergent literacy theories out there that need to be synthesized.  The point of this study was to consolidate what is out there, using the minds of this informed panel to make recommendations for early literacy instruction.

Findings & Conclusions

A particularly interesting finding is that the studies on language interventions have shown to be effective overall. These interventions are particularly effective when the oral language strategies are “defined as a diverse set of outcomes, such as expressive and receptive language skills, phonemic awareness, and verbal intelligence” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 222). What is key is that these language interventions are not exclusive to students who have limited English proficiency or who come from low-income backgrounds; rather, they are beneficial for all types of students and abilities. Most importantly, however, is that the earlier the intervention, the better. Older children had less of a boost from particular language interventions analyzed. To make these findings more valid, it would be beneficial to conduct further studies with a larger sample size, a limitation that even the authors acknowledge.

In terms of instruction, the presence of literacy focused curricula and the amount of professional development provided to teachers significantly impacted current early childhood research. Though curricula is identified, there was little discussion on what pedagogies the curricula utilized, so more investigation needs to be conducted in that area. Another big finding is in regards to parental involvement and its impact on literacy. Though the researchers studied this, they realized that this is still a very new area of research with little literature available. Therefore, currently there is not “a clear, empirically proven best way to use this involvement toward improved literacy performance for young children” (Shanahan et al., 2008, p. 199), implying that we need more data on this issue.

This study is a strong foundation for formulating ideas around access and impact in education.  However, it does not necessarily answer questions to how to promote that.  In moving forward, we need to investigate pedagogy and parental involvement so reading instruction and students’ early literacy skills can be improved overall.

For more information on the NAEP, go to the website at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/.

Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education; Research Topic

— by on — Leave a reply

Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education; Research blog one

26 May 26, 2014

References

  1. Otten, M., (2003). Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education: Journal of Studies in International Education. Vol. 7 no. 1, 12-26

Accessed from: http://jsi.sagepub.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/content/7/1/12.short

 

Strengths, Contributions and Ways to Improve; Graphic Organizer

 

Organization: The article was coherent and the author did develop the argument. There was very little metalanguage used to anticipate and conclude. The headings and subheadings were useful in this article.

Contribution to Field: Contribution to the field was worthwhile and significant.

Literature Review: This article did not provide a literature review.

Theoretical Framework/Lens: The article clearly demonstrated coherence. The research focused on International intercultural pedagogy perspectives.

Data Collection: Data was collected from regions with an explicit diversity policy tradition in higher education: the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Analysis: The article had a profound impact on current education action research.

Findings: The findings of the article were not clear however the research does outline some assumptions about intercultural encounters and its meaning for intercultural learning.

Discussion/Conclusions: The article provides a strategy for setting up diversity activities and diversity plans aimed at intercultural learning.

Minor Editorial Comments: No editorial comments for the article.

Miscellaneous: No miscellaneous comments for the article at this time.

 

Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education

The article; Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education, discussed what can be understood by intercultural competence and how it relates to the quality of intercultural contacts rather than the quantity. The article also examined the concept of Internationalisation as it relates to the diversity discourse that has shaped the Anglo-American debate in the United States and Canada. The article goes on to discuss the concern for diversity and cultural pluralism in higher education in the United States. The article also goes on to discuss the need for curriculum change and teaching the influence of diversity practitioners as it relates to curriculum matters. I learned that growth of cultural pedagogy is limited because of the traditional claims of the faculties and academic departments. The author states still, more and more colleges and universities across the United States are transforming their curricula because college leaders increasingly recognize that knowledge about domestic and international diversity is essential for today’s students.

This article made me think about a component of intercultural competence I had not thought about before, international intercultural communication competence. This was a unique way of the examining the concept, as it takes the theory of intercultural communication competence and stretches beyond domestic borders. This study was significant to me as an educator and my experiences because of our ever expanding reach to foreign students. With online education being so popular, educators must know now look toward an international classroom. It is my goal to be at the forefront of academic research on intercultural communication both foreign and domestically.

I feel that the article Intercultural Learning and Diversity in Higher Education has a profound impact on current education action research. It has been cited in several other articles from various journals such as the Business and Professional Communication Quarterly article (2013); Intercultural Communication Apprehension and Emotional Intelligence in Higher Education: Preparing Business Students for Career Success. The afore mentioned article cites Otten as saying “the increasing internationalization of university campuses does not guarantee by itself that business students are receiving adequate intercultural communication instruction (Otten, 2003).” Research suggests that despite the rise internationalization, many institutions possess an achievement ethos that requires a commitment to excellence.

Review of Value Chain in Higher Education

— by on — Leave a reply

APA Citation:
Dori, M., Nadi, M.A., Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2012). A Review on Value Chain in Higher Education.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3842-3846.

The area of inquiry I would like to examine is the application of Supply Chain principles to graduate business education within universities. Supply Chain, or Value Chain as it is now more commonly called, has primarily been focused on manufacturing environments in which a set product is being produced through a series of processes. Examples of this could be within the auto industry and the production of a vehicle. In recent years, the application of Value Chain principles has begun evolving its application to other industries that are not producing a tangible product such as car but may be impacting a service or the development of some specific outcome. Value Chain has begun its application to areas such as digital services, customer service supply chains and other areas. With this idea in mind, there are application possibilities within the educational Value Chain in the series of processes and actions that lead from the admission of a graduate business student through graduation of that same student. Along this progressive chain, there are a series of activities and interactions that a student will go through. Actions could be everything from enrollment in courses to purchase of materials to course completion to filing for graduation.

Much of the processes along this chain are often disconnected from each other due to silos within departments and administrative units, mismanaged for various reasons or are impacted based on different factors, perhaps even the student themselves. Much like any industry, universities must examine their process chains to ensure that the continued progress of the learner is not impacted by the processes themselves.

The article by Dori, M., Nadi, M.A., Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2012) examines the application of Value Chain, within the higher education context. Dori et al (2012) examine the competitive factors within higher education that require new ideas to creative competitive advantage (p. 3842). Factors impacting education can be competition with other universities, decreased funding from Government sources and even management challenges within the institution itself (p. 3842). Much of the research examines the different scholars who are completing research in these areas and the different application models that can be applied. Primarily, the article focused on the Porter Value Chain Model which looks at the process from a primary activity and support activity model while considering the factors associated with those activities. Factors in this model include infrastructure, internal and external influences, financial composition and the production piece (Dori, et al., 2012, p. 3843). The Porter Model primarily looks at the business enterprise and less of the social service enterprise such as an institution so the research also look to those scholars who posit a value chain model designed specifically for higher education.

One model examined is that of researchers van der Merwe and Cronje (2004) that looks at the process chain from a higher level perspective as it relates to desired outcomes (p. 3844). Less focused on the micro level, this model is represented by a 4 step process that includes: defining the outcome or scope on which the value chain will focus, identify a requirements elicitation methodology that focuses on the identification of the high-level processes within the application domain, identify the high-level processes within the application domain and use the high-level process model developed to derive the sequence of processes needed, to achieve a predefined outcome (Dori et al, 2012, p. 3845).

Overall, the article was well put together and provided a good analytical consideration of the arguments around the application of value chain for higher education but did lack some deeper insights. Great from an analysis perspective of the examination of the research landscape but little suggestion in the way of what other ways this methodology could be applied or what model made more sense (Porter versus the Educational model). This would have added some value to the piece that I felt was missing. In some ways, though, that was valuable as I had to draw more of my own conclusions about the value of the different models. The various perspectives were valuable but I found myself leaning more towards the Porter Model due to a bit more inclusion of the micro factors that inhibit success within the chain.

From a critical perspective around organization and other key areas, the article was well organized but did suffer from a few minor grammatical errors. The lack of argument did somewhat inhibit the flow although the article as more of a review, per the title, may have been the authors intentions. Perhaps a follow up piece could include examination of the models to draw some of their own conclusions and add value to the field of research.
Despite the authors’ lack of argument or suggested model, the reading did give me ideas to assist in my own analysis, specifically around some of the factors mentioned in the Porter Model (Dori et al, 2012, p. 3843). What stood out for me was some of the business enterprise ideas that could apply, particularly the financial structure and the organizational infrastructure. Although business focused, much of business school is often designed like an enterprise yet lacks some of the organizational infrastructure needed to make that successful. Organizational infrastructure is significant in that success cannot happen until the structure is in place to support the efforts and ideas being developed and used. Individuals supporting those structures will continue to suffer. The model is relevant but the human factor has to be considered in how they can make the model successful.

Further research studies here would be relevant around application in a real-world model. Using a graduate business program as an example, a further study could develop more key insights on not only how the model could be applied but in what way improvements or enhancements could be added taking into account a forum of individuals (students, professors, administrators) who contribute to some of those processes and outcomes.
This has further implications also for taking on a more humanizing approach to application of the model. In my personal opinion, I feel some of the supply chain models may take on too much of a process oriented approach, forgetting the individuals who may make up that process both at the process driver level and the process outcome level. By adding some of those perspectives more readily into the research, I feel it offers up a more humanizing approach that may be more effective in the end for consideration of the stakeholders involved. Further research on my part will need to be done to see what other researchers are examining in this area.

Placement Tests Matter – High Stakes for Community College Students

— by on — Leave a reply

Maggie P. Fay, Susan Bickerstaff,  and Hodara, Michelle (2013).  Why Students Do Not Prepare for Math Placement Exams: Student Perspectives. (CCRC Working Paper No. 57).  New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

As I continue to explore Developmental Education, I keep wanting to learn more about the placement process.  Higher education is struggling with accurately placing students. And, this placement is ca critical factor the a student’s likelihood for degree and/or certificate attainment.  Many factors contribute to this inaccurate placement, and this article tackles one of the issues – lack of student preparation.

Article Summary

The purpose of this article was to explore community college students’ experiences and attitudes toward placement tests.  The study includes survey responses from 122 students at four community colleges as well as 34 students who participated in four focus groups at those same colleges.  The community colleges are part of a community college system on the East Coast, and at the time of the study, this system decided to undertake new placement testing procedures and instruments.  The students who participated in the study all tested into and were enrolled in developmental math in the fall 2012 semester.

The study concluded that there are four related reasons why students do not prepare for the math placement test.  The reasons were explained as follows: Students’ misperceptions about the stakes of the placement exam, a lack of knowledge about test preparation materials, an unawareness of why and how to prepare for the placement exam, and a very low-level of confidence with their math abilities (Fay, Bickersaff, & Hodara, 2013).

The study provided recommendations for colleges regarding placement testing.  It is recommended to create more student awareness about the importance of the exam, increase awareness of test preparation materials, and design materials that teach both what and how to study (Fay et. al., 2013).

Strengths and Critiques

Overall, the article is well-organized and is written at a very understandable level as it is trying to reach a wide audience of readers.   The authors provided a coherent study as the research consistently focuses on the premise that lack of student preparation contributes to low placement test scores.  But, the findings of the research do not necessarily contribute anything original to the field of developmental education.  Furthermore, the study is limited as it only addresses math placement testing, not reading and English which are utilized nationwide as well.  I was also disappointed that the article did not include a literature review.

Regarding their data collection methods,  the researchers utilized student surveys and student focus groups.  One way to improve and enhance this research would be to consider the timing of the surveys and focus groups.  Students were surveyed after taking the placement test and receiving their scores.  Results may be different if students were surveyed prior to taking the placement exam.  I would also be interested in responses from students who did not test into developmental coursework.  Did those students prepare?  Did those students receive the same information and had the same level of awareness as students who tested into developmental education?  Finally, greater attention could be paid to those students who testing right out of high school versus those students who had been away from school for two or more years.

The findings are logical, but not necessarily significant.  The finding regarding the correlation between self-confidence and placement tests was one I had not read before.  I am not aware though if these findings were revealed during the survey itself, or during the focus group responses.  Also, I am unable to determine how many students indicated this lack of self-confidence.  The conclusion was logical, although it is difficult to determine the frequency of responses that indicated a lack 0f self-confidence with math prior to testing.  I would recommend including more specificity as to how this conclusion came to be.

My Take

I found this research did provide me with greater insight into the placement test process.  I am aware from my experiences at Glendale Community College that students do not prepare for the placement exam.  GCC , and many of the Maricopa colleges, are similar to the colleges discussed in the study as materials are prepared and offered to students.  But, test preparation materials are not necessarily promoted.  They are available on our web site, but a student would have to seek them out to prepare in advance for the exam.  This research confirms that it is imperative that community colleges put forth much more effort to create and to disseminate test preparation materials for incoming students.

This article also reinforced for me the need to communicate the ‘high-stakes’ of the placement exam to incoming students.  The authors state that, “staff members’ attempts to allay students’ anxiety about placement testing (i.e., by telling students not to worry about the exam) contributed to students’ tendency not to prepare and may have served to understate the stakes of the exam” (Fay et. al., 2013). My experiences also confirm this finding.  GCC staff members, nor our print materials, communicate the importance of the placement exam.  Students need to have a greater understanding of the consequences – a strong understanding that their placement matters.  Most students surveyed indicated they did not realize there was even a concept of developmental courses, and they were not aware the results of this exam could place them into below college-level course work.

The survey did reveal a finding that was one I had not considered.  Most articles and research I have read focus on the anxiety students have regarding math, and that anxiety impacts performance in college coursework.  However, I have not considered the effect of low self-confidence with math skills on the placement exam.  The study revealed findings that students “were worried about placing into a course that would be too difficult” (Fay et al., 2013).  And, students reported being satisfied with their placement in below 100-level courses.  The implications for this finding are two-fold in my opinion.  First, much of the communication leading up to the placement exam does not address student fears, anxiety, or low self-confidence.  Furthermore, the test preparation materials are primarily delivered on-line, and again, do not address a lack of confidence for the student.  As community colleges develop test preparation materials and as some embark on the test preparation workshop, it is critical that these materials and courses in some manner address the students’ lack of confidence.

To build on this research, I believe you could expand the study to include attitudes and perceptions of students regarding the English and reading placement exams.  Are student perceptions about those tests the same?  Do students have the same lack of confidence as displayed in the math results?  Another way to build on the research is to explore this lack of confidence further.  Specifically, students completed this survey after having taking the placement exam, and after having already enrolled and started their developmental coursework.  I would want to explore whether students had the lack of confidence prior to the placement exam, or was this lack of confidence fueled or reinforced by a poor placement test score and subsequent placement into a developmental course.

Research Topic Post – Online Learning Readiness Assessments

— by on — Leave a reply

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.

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.

Race Matters in Education Even in 2014

— by on — 1 Reply

  

“The hierarchies rarely endure for more than a few generations, but the arguments, refurbished for the next round of social institutions, cycle endlessly.” (Gould, 1981, p. 30)

Source: robertxavierrodriguez.com

Recently, my nephew’s 8th grade Honors English class was given the assignment to read O. Henry’s, The Ransom of Red Chief, then conduct an analysis of humor in the short story. I had glanced at the title of the article earlier but was busy doing something else that the title did not register, until my nephew started looking up words with a surprised expression on his face. I asked him to tell me the word but he said he couldn’t say it. I asked him to spell it and he said he would rather not. Curious, I looked at the page and to my shock and surprise the word was “niggerhead.” Even I had to look up the word but I think we can all guess that the word has something to do with a black person’s head. I immediately flipped to the first page and re-read the title, The Ransom of Red Chief, “Red Chief!” How could I have missed these words! I then took over the story, told him he would not be completing this assignment and proceeded to read the story in its entirety. The Ransom of Red Chief was written in the early 20th century and it’s supposed to be about the humor surrounding two men who kidnap a young boy from a mining town only to be terrorized by the boy as he plays being a “pesky redskin.” The boy, who is white, attempts to scald, scalp and hang one man in particular until both men are fed up and pay the father to take the boy off their hands.

These are some of the stereotypical and offensive phrases in the story: “Red Chief, the terror of the plains,” “to be scalped at daybreak (said by the child playing “Indian),” “[B]raves returned from the warpath,” “pesky redskin,” “simply indecent, terrifying, humiliating screams, such as women emit when they see ghosts or caterpillars” and “niggerhead.” The term niggerhead refers to something that looks like a Black person’s head and it also means lazy, a common racist stereotype used for Black people when we all know that the economy of the South could not have been built by lazy African slaves.

On the one had I felt shocked that this was an 8th grade reading assignment on the other hand I knew this was the norm in our society. So I wrote my nephew’s teacher and explained how the story was an assault on Indigenous children’s identity and offered detailed explanations of how the story reinforced racist and sexist stereotypes. This story is an example of the pervasiveness of the ideas about race that scientists from the nineteenth century established. Sociobiologist, Stephen Jay Gould (1981) said it best in the quote above, the arguments and ideas about race “cycle endlessly” (p. 30).

In Mismeasure of Man, Gould (1981) details how scientists used their position of “objectivity” to justify the social ranking of diverse peoples. Basically, scientists of the nineteenth century put forth ideas about racial difference that justified white domination and the subordination of all others. The ideas of nineteenth century scientists have become entrenched in our minds and our society as American citizens. Ideas, mainly racist ones, about diverse people are the bedrock of this nation.

Though various hierarchical systems no longer exist (e.g. slavery, Jim Crow, etc.), ideologies, or justifications for oppression, are still widely used and applied to maintain the white supremacist society in which we live. In an article advocating for culturally relevant teaching practices, Howard (2003) writes, “race has always and continues to matter in an increasingly racially diverse society” (p. 197). He talks about our diverse society, yet our values especially with regard to cultural capital are based upon white standards and norms. Howard (2003) posits that educators must incorporate the cultural capital (diverse languages, beliefs, practices, etc.) that diverse students acquire from their given social structure into the teaching and learning environment to practice culturally relevant teaching. In practicing culturally relevant teaching, we can create equitable educational environments. Garcia and Ortiz (2013) recommend, “document[ing] the knowledge and skills children acquire in home and community contexts and then develop ways to incorporate the information into curriculum and instruction” (p.40).

These practices are crucial if we are to ever to make changes in society, in our social institutions and in how we interact with one another. We need only look at national statistics to see that educational attainment; health, wealth and even how long one will live fall along racial lines. Black and Native Americans are almost always at the bottom of any social measurements. As a Black and Navajo woman, Gould’s (1981) chapter, American Polygeny and Craniometry Before Darwin: Blacks and Indians as Separate Inferior Species, was especially relevant to me. I have noticed how even today, people in society still have distaste for Blackness. Few would admit to it but like Morton, “expectation is a powerful guide to action” (Gould, 1981, p. 65). Sometimes, people are unaware of perpetuating racist stereotypes like in the case of my nephew’s teacher. I urged her to reconsider the assignment. Surprisingly, she was receptive to my instruction and is now revising 8th grade Honors English curriculum to be culturally inclusive.

References

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A. A. (2013). Intersectionality as a frameowrk 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.

Henry, O. (1907). The Ransom of Red Chief. The Saturday Evening Post. Retrieved from http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2010/10/04/archives/classic-fiction/ransom-red-chief-intro.html

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

Niggerhead. (n.d.). In Wordnik. Retrieved from https://www.wordnik.com/words/niggerhead

 

 

Equally Inclusive to All – Connie Hahne

— by on — 1 Reply

The newspaper heading every week for the last 20 years could have read as follows, “Education leaders looking for a fix to student underachievement!” Placement of the blame would most likely change weekly.  Ideas for educational reform include more funding, better teachers, smaller class sizes, Common Core Standards and more rigorous assessments. Does a fix really exist within the walls of the school building? How inclusive of all students are the present educational reforms?

I believe most educators and administrators are unaware of or understand how racism affects students’ ability to receive an equal and fair education in today’s schools.  Racism in not an issue of the past, nor was it a passing problem resolved during the Civil Rights Movement.  According to scientist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, “Racial prejudges may be as old as recorded human history.”(p.32)  “All American culture heroes embraced racial attitudes that would embarrass public-school myth makers.” In his book, The Mismeasure of Man. Gould identifies Thomas Jefferson, Plato, and Benjamin Franklin as scholars that published articles about the inferiority of people labeled in present times as minorities.  American school age children learn about these men as the country’s founding fathers, greatest inventors, and philosophers that shaped ways of thinking and living today.  Many contemporaries may state that their racial views hold no detriment on modern society. On the contrary, looking at the current state of our school systems and the struggling students which have been identified as low-income, minority, at risk, and English language learners; it is evident that past racial beliefs from these American cultural heroes has seeped down into school practices, teaching methodologies, and mainstream beliefs about student achievement and behavior.

In his article, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection, Professor Tyrone C. Howard refers to DuBois'(1903) prediction that racial issues would plague the 20th century is even more unsurpassable in the 21st century. All data on student achievement or lack thereof, directly segregates levels of academic success between racial groups.  The dominate culture scoring the highest and the minority groups still struggling and filling up the seats in the alternative placement and special education classrooms.  “Between 1990 and 2012, the educational attainment rate of 25- to 29-year-olds who received at least a high school diploma or its equivalent increased for Whites (from 90 to 95 percent), Blacks (from 82 to 89 percent), Hispanics (from 58 to 75 percent), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (from 92 to 96 percent). The percentage of Whites who received at least a high school diploma or its equivalent remained higher than that of Blacks and Hispanics.” (NCES 2013).

To increase the quality of education for non-dominate culture and non-mainstream students, schools and classrooms need to embrace alternative pedagogy that is inclusive of all students with assessments that are nonbiased to any specific group of students. (Garcia and Ortiz, 2008) Educational reform includes teaching both experienced and new teachers how to best work with diverse populations of students. “Teachers critically analyze important issues such as race, ethnicity, and culture, and recognize how these important concepts shape the learning experience for many students. More specifically, teachers must be able to construct pedagogical practices that have relevance and meaning to students’ social and cultural realities.”(Howard 2011). Students are viewed as valued contributors in the classroom.  The role of learner and teacher bounces back and forth between students and teacher.

True mindfulness, acceptance of a problem, extensive education, and retraining of educators and policy makers are possibly the only ways to break the cycle of centuries long racism.  Martin Luther King believed that all people are ultimately connected. He said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”We are intimately connected.  We cannot continue to ignore a segment of the population and hope the problem will disappear.  Eventually, racism and inequality in education will be detrimental to all.

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) 32­47.

Fast Facts. (n.d.). Fast Facts. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=27

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

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

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2013). The Condition of Education 2013 (NCES 2013–037),

Issues in Critical Teacher Reflection

— by on — 1 Reply

In the scope of my professional life, one of my strong areas of interest is the development and delivery of research-backed professional development that enables teachers to increase their students’ achievement. So, as I read author Tyrone C. Howard’s piece, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection, I was intrigued by what he outlines as, “ways that teacher educators can equip preservice teachers with the necessary skills to critically reflect on their own racial and cultural identities…” (Howard, 2003). This line, in particular, stood out to me because he is speaking directly to me and others that serve in this and similar capacities.

The process he details, attempts to get participants to tackle several deep philosophical questions that would cause, even the most reflective among us, to struggle. The questions seek, I believe intentionally so, to strike at the very core of the one’s being, posing things such as, “Who am I?” and “what do I believe?” with the intent that reflections on such questions will yield insights as to how a teacher’s identity coexists with those of his or her students, and the interplay between the two or more differing identities (Howard, 2003. p.199).  I see this presenting several unique and distinct problems that, unless specifically addressed, might confound the ideal outcome of truly critical and constructive reflection on one’s own teaching practices, biases, prejudices, race, and culture.

The first challenge I foresee for many schools is one of access. As I try to envision the qualities and qualifications of a person who would be competent and command enough authority on the subject to successfully facilitate a 3-day long preservice discussion, I expect that very few people, in a majority-White teaching population, could complete such a complex task (Howard, 2010). Perhaps this would not necessarily be the job of one person, but rather of a diverse team of people, working together within their own particular contexts regarding race. Further, in Howard’s later (2010) work, he discusses the paralyzing effect that conversations about race can have on people in the White majority, suggesting that discussions are often crippled by, “our fear, our sweaty palms, our anxiety about saying the wrong thing, or using the wrong words” (Howard, 2010, p. 102). These difficulties underscore how important it is to create a space in which participants feel safe enough to share, whether through writing, as Howard suggests, as it is more personal and private, conversations, or other activities, and comfortable enough to make themselves vulnerable to their peers in such a sensitive subject.

From my personal experience as an external professional development and implementation coaching provider, I know how essential the tone and culture that the facilitator sets is to the success of the session. Additionally, I have found that teachers and other educational professionals are often skeptical of someone coming in who doesn’t explicitly know them or their students, which can result in hostility, anger, passivity, cynicism, or unengaged participation. Therefore, I foresee a second layer of access issues for many campuses; if they’re able to find someone who can successfully navigate the difficult terrain of race-related conversations, there is the second requisition that the person also be able to relate to the participants to the point that he or she can set a tone and culture conducive enough to compel colleagues to share very personal thoughts and feelings.

The final issue I found in Howard’s suggestion, was not with the logistical and implementation issues of critical teacher reflection, but rather the emphasis that teachers answer questions like, “who am I?” and “what do I believe?” (Howard, 2003, p.199). I imagine that the average response of a teacher to such philosophically profound and esoteric questions would result in very reductionist answers that, instead of truly capturing who one is (if such a notion can even be put into words), would result in a person’s being being reduced to a set of criteria, or a list on paper (e.g. I am a mother, a teacher, an American, etc.), neither of which can approach the essence of who that person is at their most fundamental level.

It is with the above sentiments that I am skeptical that Howard’s suggestions of critical teacher reflection can be so easily implemented at the schools most in need of culture transformation, to one that moves away from deficit-based thinking to being culturally responsive to the diverse needs of a diverse student population.

 

Works Cited:

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

Howard, T. C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

 

Reflections on Scholarly Writing – On Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

— by on — Leave a reply

Tyrone Howard begins an article from 2003’s Theory Into Practice by talking about the inherent need for the development of culturally sensitive teaching methods. The growing diversity of the population in the United States will require teacher training to fundamentally alter to include new or updated “skills and knowledge” that will allow teachers to “effectively educate today’s diverse student population.”

On the surface, few would question the veracity of Howard’s claim; the idea that the public education system has an implied obligation to promote the achievement of the greatest outcomes for the greatest number is one that may be assumed as embedded in the ethos of American culture. And while, pragmatically, his argument is one that is difficult to deny, I would like to question his very first assertion that “…the nation must be prepared to make the necessary adjustments to face the changing ethnic texture of its citizens.”

If the nation does not meet Howard’s stated challenge – the culturally sensitive education of a diverse student population – what will happen? What assumptions are being made about the public education system that might deserve investigation in the opening paragraphs? Is it the case that the normative role of the public education system is the culturally sensitive, culturally aware presentation of legislatively prescribed curricula?

Throughout the twentieth century, one can look to the development of standardized testing and its concomitant critiques to see that the intent of these types of exams was to remove any effect of a heterogeneous testing population. This may not, on the surface, seem like an insidious attempt at homogenizing the population, there are more explicit examples of education being used as a tool of assimilation. The Ford Motor Company ran an “English School” for immigrant workers wherein a Melting Pot commencement ceremony was held with graduates emerging from a staged pot to represent their “graduation” into American culture.  And although it seems likely that one would be hard pressed to find a public school with a melting pot as part of their commencement exercises, there are still wildly polarizing debates on the role of the Pledge of Allegiance and whether or not it ought be compulsory in public schools.

All of that is to say that there is some evidence to suggest that – at least at some point, to some group of people – the normative role of the public education system was in fact quite the opposite of providing a culturally sensitive platform for the creation of critical thinking young adults with a mind framed in the impressions of social justice; it was to assimilate, inculcate, and create a very specific set of values often framed in terms of nationalism and patriotism.

To be clear here, I agree with Howard’s article.  I find it to be well-presented, thoughtful, and thoroughly cited with material to support the assertion that race (and culture) matters, and that in order to ensure that public schools meet the needs of newly and increasingly diverse populations, there must be an “upstream” attempt to prepare teachers to meet the demands of the students that are and will continue to be in their classrooms.

I did find, however, that the opening paragraphs, and the assumptions therein, provided a fantastic opportunity to pause and analyze the complications of scholarly writing. We will be engaged in a highly specialized field of inquiry with an audience that is likely speaking the same professional language and operating from the same frame of reference as we are. Must we be careful to draw out and justify the assumptions implicit in our writings? Are we to assume that each reading of our work is to be subject to a fine-toothed exegesis that may reveal we have failed to justify a premise in our argument?  Or may we assume that our shared frameworks and language influence an understanding of the “spirit” of our writing?

Quite clearly, there is a fantastic component of Access from the Access, Excellence, Impact theme here: is the public education system in the U.S. one that is inherently designed to provide access (and therefore impact) to all students on terms that most effectively meet their needs and help them achieve, or is it a tool of assimilation and inculcation? For my own purposes, the most interesting part of this read for me was that I was immediately disarmed by the “wait, is that right?” question I had when beginning the article, and the subsequent attempt at trying to figure out to what standard we will be held.

Sources:

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

 

Classroom cultural influences case study: Gender in a physical education classroom

— by on — Leave a reply

Howard (2003) gives an excellent rubric for educators to explore their own cultural influences and prejudices, asking them to reflect upon five points:

  1. Their own interactions with different cultural (and particularly racial) groups growing up
  2. The primary influences upon their perspective
  3. If they harbor any prejudices against people because of race
  4. How those prejudices might affect a member of said racial background
  5. If they create negative profiles of others, based on assumptions of their race or culture

He outlines this as a necessary step to both valuing and creating an effective and culturally sensitive pedagogy, with which I absolutely agree. However, I wish his discussion had been rounded beyond this rubric; once an educator has openly analyzed their own prejudices, how do they apply that knowledge?

Howard lays out a foundation for educators to neither diminish cultural influences, nor to normalize them, which led me to linger on situations where cultural traditions may diminish a learner’s success; in particular, I was struck by some of the factors beyond race that Howard mentions in passing, such as gender. Is it ever acceptable to “normalize” a cultural behavior to “middle-class, European American cultural values” (pp. 198), and how does an educator recognize, prioritize and navigate that situation?

As an example: Ennis (1999) gives the case study of a physical education class in an urban high school where female students were largely disengaged. In interviews, they noted being bullied or scapegoated by male students in team activities:

“I used to like to play sports with the boys…Now, in high school, they’re like maniacs or something…They throw the ball so hard you can’t catch it.”

“They call us lame. They say we’re not trying, but we are.”

“I don’t need boys yelling at me when I make a mistake.” (Ennis 1999, pp. 33)

A program called “Sport for Peace” was instituted in the classroom; this program intentionally avoided many of the tensions that rose in the traditional “team sports” model by creating teams of equally skilled students, focusing less upon rewarding skills and more upon conflict negotiation beyond force or violence.

This example illustrates the normalizing of two culturally influenced behaviors, attacking the expectations of women to be delicate and unathletic, and of men to be forceful or violent. However, this is done in the service of creating more equal opportunities for learners of both genders. A simplistic reading may equate this to a prioritization of the normative cultural expectation–that learners are equal in ability, regardless of their gender–over the prevalent cultural norm. However, this case study and its curricular solution represent a more complicated methodology and conclusion. With its emphasis on consensus building and peaceful reconciliation, “Sport for Peace” is a textbook example of his rubric in action. It gives students the opportunity to reflect upon their own cultural biases, as well as the influences of their community growing up; it allows students to examine prejudices of others they may be carrying based upon gender, and how those prejudices impact their targets. Additionally, if gives the students an agency of which Bourdieu would approve. In order to recognize your own power within a social structure, you must be able to recognize the structure itself, and this program gives learners an extraordinary power to discover and mediate cultural biases independently. And while it might not directly answer the question of priotizing conflicting cultural influences in a classroom, it does answer that the process of self-reflection, as Howard outlined, can lead to unexpected rewards for learners and educators alike.

Sources

Bourdieu, P. (1978). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction.  In R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, Education and Cultural Changes (56-69).  London: Harper & Row.

Ennis, C.D. (1999). Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sports, Education and Society, 4, 31-49.

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

 

Working to Surface the Influence of Race in the Classroom

— by on — Leave a reply

Race and Culture in the Classroom

The articles referenced in this weeks readings bring us through a small piece of history of race in America and then sheds light on some of the affects that it has, both seen and unseen, in our practices as teachers and as entire school systems.

In one of the articles, The Mismeasure of Man (Gould 1981), we use the overt and oppressive ways American society viewed people of non-white races during previous times in our history.  What is most interesting in this article is that scientists, some of whom were the most profound in the world, made empirical arguments stating that biological persons whom were non-white were inferior to the white race.  The arguments, based in polygenism, simply stated that people of color were naturally inferior because they were descendants of a different ancestor than their white neighbors.  This, of course, in the light of present day science is absurd and laughable however in the world of the 1860’s this was a serious argument and point of contention.  In the present day we would point to this type of science and call it absurd, racist and without merit however socially and politcally, things were not so clear back in the day.

The type of overt racism that is seen in the science from the 1860’s sits in stark contrast to the topic of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection (Howard, 2001).  In the article the art of reflection and culturally responsive pedagogy is espoused and encouraged for all teachers.  I have seen all sorts of educators and “allies” including myself act in ways that actually serve further institutional oppression with nothing but the best of intentions in my heart.  As I started my first year I had my students silently enter and exit class, they would painstakingly take note after note and study and practice relentless lest they suffer the consequences of Mr. Arndt’s classroom.   Little did I know how I was participating in and extending a system of socialization and assimilation that was encouraging my unique, creative and unendingly powerful students to socialize themselves to the dominant cultures norms.  I perceived myself (in the beginning) as savior and hero for my school community while in reality I was operating in a fog and in many ways furthering the systems that had  put my students and families in the position in the first place.

In today’s world we operate with biases and prejudices that are hidden under much deeper layers of consciousness and that are much harder to identify, reflect upon, and change.  As I approach my work this summer and possible my research topic I am thinking about teacher mindsets in relation to cultural deprivation theory as opposed to cultural difference theory.  Far to often we see administrators and teachers set up procedures in the school and classroom that try and make student learning into an assembly line.  The dominant theory is often .”We just need to get them to follow the rules, be quiet, take notes, finish their homework and pass onto the next grade” and then pass them down the factory line again in the next grade.  We see evidence of educators treating our students as empty containers that need to be filled instead of valuable humans with real and lived experiences and knowledge that they bring to the classroom everyday.  Instead of throwing the culture and background out we need to leverage what they enter the classroom with in order to partner with them to reach their goals.  We have seen what happens when we try and change student culture to fit into classroom culture, it does not work and it is oppressive.  We need to focus our efforts in the realm of cultural difference theory and create classrooms that mold and evolve to fit students culture, which in turn will set students up with the skills and mindsets to not only be successful but to begin to tear down the institutions of oppression that existed for them and those that have come before them.

Howard, C. (2011). Culturally Relevant for Critical Teacher Pedagogy : Ingredients Reflection, 42(3), 195–202.York, N. E. W. (n.d.). W . w . norton & company . new york’ london.

Critical Teacher Reflection

— by on — Leave a reply

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

This past weekend I went to see my niece’s graduation in Colorado. There were 270 students (predominantly white) in her class and I was amazed when approximately 25 students were recognized with GPAs above 4.0 and above all 4 years. The  first student to be recognized for his rank at the top of the class was a student who had entered the country from Mexico, during junior high, not knowing any English.  As I listened, I reflected on the school where I teach. The teacher population is similar to my niece’s school, nearly all white. However, Glendale High School has approximately twice the number of students and over half are Latino or African American. I looked up how many students were graduating, and found that the numbers were very similar (25 – 30 students) with GPAs 4.0 and above. The obvious differences I was able to observe were socio-economic and race.  African American and Latino students, the “two groups constitute the largest ethnic minority groups in U.S schools. Yet the academic underachievement of many African American and Latino students has been abysmal for decades” (Howard, 2003, p.195). I observe the struggle of these students daily, which has become the inspiration for my inquiry. The increasing number of failures by racially diverse students Howard says, begs the question, “What, if anything, does race and culture have to do with widespread underachievement of nonmainstream students?” (Howard, 2013, p.196)  My inquiry is focused on the student population at Glendale High School and how involving the local community support will motivate and inform students. As individual teachers, we are constantly searching for ways to improve our students’ achievement and in doing so I find Howard’s concern relevant on a scale I had not yet considered. As a nation, our education system needs to account more for the increasing number of immigrants and adapt its methods accordingly.  Our ability to connect with our students is dependent on critical teacher reflection, where teachers consider their own positionality.  As teachers we must be aware of how where we came from and who we are influences how we teach.  We need to realize that inevitably, “we teach who we are” (Howard, 2013, p.198).  Recognizing and making the separation from ones personal views “is why critical teacher reflection is important  to develop culturally relevant pedagogy”(Howard, 2013, p.198).   Through reflection, teachers  are “examining their actions and constantly modifying them accordingly”(Howard, 2013, p.197). just as they do when they monitor and adjust to ensure the success of a lesson. In my research I perceive myself better positioned to make a connection with the school community.  However, the more I read the more I learn what I don’t know.  There are norms that I have yet to learn and understand as I attempt to make connections with the community.  Garcia and Ortiz pose a question that will help me focus, “How has my professional socialization positioned me to conduct research in culturally and linguistically diverse schools and communities?”(2013, p. 37)  I think now about how similar the school and environment where I grew up were more similar to my niece’s school than the school where I teach. The flaw I perceive in my action research will come from one obvious place and that is by my own “cultural bias”(Garcia and Ortiz, 2013, p.43).  My approach to the problem is as I perceive it and expect that my initial understanding may not be completely informed.  However that may be and lead to frustration, I hope my innovation and research will ultimately lead to greater student achievement.

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

 

The Need for Critical Reflection

— by on — 1 Reply

The article Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection by Tyrone C. Howard, is a reading that focused on the need for critical reflection by teachers in the classroom. The article provided a great perspective on the potential positive results from the use of critical reflection in teaching strategies, as well as the difficulties that are often faced by teachers who are implementing culturally related pedagogy into their teaching methods. The research presented in Howard’s writing looks at variety of different topics varying from data on the educational struggles of Latinos and African Americans in the United States to a case study conducted on preparing educators to teach by using critical reflection in the classroom. The reading presents a plethora of information on critical teacher reflection and the value it can present in teaching practice.

The article content provided me with insight on the delicate nature, yet strong value of bringing topics of cultural awareness, race, and ethnicity into classrooms. The research material presented in the reading helped to support the need for significant teacher reflection and to establish a more conducive learning environment for the growing ethnically diverse classrooms in the United States. Tyrone Howard provided strong examples of how the Latino and African American student populations have faced challenges to assimilate to the American school system, while explaining his theory of more critical reflection in teaching, and how it would improve African American and Latino student’s chances for success in education. The information offered by Howard supports the theory that teaching practices that engage in critical reflection can help breakdown some of cultural difference that may cause some of the struggles that these students face in the U.S. school system.

As I reflect on this particular reading now, I also recognize the points made by Howard on challenges that teachers can face in bringing critical
into the classroom. Howard states, “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.” I can defiantly relate to these topic areas and how they can be intimidating and difficult for an individual to talk about in their classroom, and can see how many educators may shy away from these topics whether inadvertently or not. The article continued to grasp my attention  as it stressed the importance of critical reflection and how it engages learners in a positive notion, yet clearly defined that one must be fully committed and trained adequately to bring this practice to fruition successfully in their teaching and learning environment.

This article struck me from the onset as I began to think of the challenges that may arise, “as educators address the demographic divide” (Howard, 2013, p.195) that continues to grow in the United States. As a Latino who attended a predominantly white private religious based educational institution for the majority of schooling growing up, it made me think about how my experience may have been different in a classroom setting of this type. How might my experience have been different, if I were allowed to develop and foster as an individual in a classroom environment that encouraged teachers to embrace cultural diversity in the classroom, as opposed to limiting it? Would I have adapted easier? Would I have been more successful academically at a younger age? There are many questions this reading brought to light for me. My final position is to agree, “the need for critical reflection can be an important tool for all teachers” (Howard, 2013, p.201). If all educators adapt to culturally relevant pedagogy as Howard explains, the results to many struggling students in academia may prosper in the future.

References:

Howard, T. C. (2003, Summer). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Reflection. THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 42(3), 195-201.

Resetting and renewing approaches to student support: reflecting on personal bias

— by on — 1 Reply

While reading Stephan Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (1981) which focused on racial and cultural biases that were taken as fact due to “scientific research” that was not challenged and was taken as pure fact during the 1700 and 1800’s.  Further, through the readings of Medicine Stories (1998).  I found myself posing two questions. 1. Am I’m biased in the approach I take working with my students?  2. Are the actions and interventions I am implementing with my colleagues helping the student, or actually fixing the problem?  When looking at the former, I know that I am not looking to disenfranchise a population of people that could be inferred through Gould (1981) The Mismeasure of Man, rather that I have some preconceived notions of backgrounds on my students and may not truly know the root of issues as suggested by Howard (2003). In my nine plus years of working in higher education, primarily in housing, at large public institutions and mid-sized private schools, I have had the opportunity to work with a large and diverse student population.  Throughout this time I have dealt with student issues pertaining to academics, behavior, adjustment and personal development.  I have always taken the approach that each student is an individual, I need to hear their story, only then can I begin to help them.  However after several years and multiple stories, I cannot but help to start categorizing and making assumptions about my students before even really hearing their complete story.  I contradict myself as it relates to one of the central tenets “rejection of deficit-based thinking” (Howard 2003, pg.197).  Now I know that students from diverse backgrounds and of lower socio-economic standing can achieve academically, but I also see these two factors as the root of the issue, not looking deeper into the individual. For instance, some colleagues and I have worked with a student that is from an underrepresented group, comes from low income and is first generation.  The student was struggling academically and was disengaged from peer groups.  Naturally conversations went towards helping the student get connected socially; perhaps through student groups, mentorship, etc., help the student learn study skills, and connect them with opportunities for employment, done and solved.  This was not the case though, I did not listen to the story, and I did not do a critical reflection of myself and the student.  After another colleague had the opportunity to talk (listen) to the student, we discovered the student to be from the foster system, providing for another family member, was hungry, and has a distrust in authority figures.  After reading Howard and Gould I had the gut check moment of how easy it is to fall into patterns, seeing a demographic, a university indicator score, a geographical location and say to myself, here is the issue and here is the solution, when in fact, this could be further from the truth. In Medicine Stories by Aurora Levins Morales, she talks about whom as the authority to tell stories, dictate what is and will become history and more importantly how people and groups can initiate change.  While some of the stories in the collection really made think about my own history, where I grew up and the influences/biases I was predisposed to think, I feel that through my education and interactions with others I can see the other sides and what is not being said.  This was a high moment for me, what grounded me was the reference to the feminist that is able to create equality and shared duties in her own home with her husband, although great for her, does not solve the overall problem in which she is committed too. I like to think that the work I do with the individual student is what I am supposed to be doing, however when looking at the overall theme of access, equity and impact, while the impact for that individual is great, the overall concept of equity and access to the whole, assuming that there is more than just the one student out there that needs help, I am failing.   I am able to help those that ask questions, are willing to talk, share and be open to assistance.  If I truly want to help students, I need to look at the bigger picture, the root of issues and look to solve from the onset, rather than from the after effects. Overall the readings were a reset for me, a reminder that there are plenty of personal bias and assumptions made by myself and others that have a lasting effect on the student populations we serve and are here to help.

References

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

Levins-Morales, A. (1998).  Medicine Stories: History, Culture, and the Politics of Identity.  Cambridge: South End Press. Gould, S.J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company. Shulman, L., Golde, C., Bueschel, A., & Garabedian, K. Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal. Educational Researcher, 43, 25-32.

Mismeasuring Man

— by on — 2 Replies

“American Polygeny and Craniometry before Darwin” is chapter 2 in “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould.  The chapter provides detailed information about how nineteenth century science and research were used to support a position that was broadly held at the time, rather than advance knowledge through discovery.

In the nineteenth century, the prevailing view among Caucasians was that they were superior to other races.  This was not a new position.  Writings the author presents by revered American figures, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Abraham Lincoln would be considered racist today.  The author provides information about two views that were both used as justifications for racial ranking: monogenism and polygenism. Monogenism (origin from a single source) is the belief that human races are degenerations from the perfection of the bible’s Eden.  Even though all peoples descend from Adam and Eve, some races have declined more than others according to this view.  By contrast, polygenism is the belief that human races are separate biological species and descendants of different Adams.  Of the two, monogenism was probably the more popular, perhaps because it was consistent with common interpretation of scripture.

Much of the chapter is devoted to a critical review of the beliefs of Louis Agassiz and the research of Samuel George Morton, both of whom were staunch supporters of polygenism.

Agassiz, an esteemed Swiss naturalist, moved to America and became a leading spokesperson for polygenism.  His position on polygenism was bolstered his personal theory and methods.  First, he developed a theory of “centers of creation” while studying the geographic distribution of animals and plants.  Agassiz believed species were created in their proper places and didn’t stray far from these centers.  Secondly, he focused on minute distinctions to establish species based on small peculiarities of design, which is known in taxonomic practices as an extreme splitter.  Agassiz speculated freely about his beliefs but didn’t have any data for support.

Morton, an aristocrat from Philadelphia with two medical degrees, provided data that won worldwide respect for the American view of polygeny.  He had a reputation as a great data-gatherer and objectivist of American science.  His hypothesis was that races could be ranked by measuring the size of the brain.  Morton published data and findings that supported his hypothesis.  Gould, the author of this chapter, reanalyzed Morton’s data and found four categories of problems: 1) Large subsamples were included or deleted to match group averages with prior expectations, 2) Some measures were sufficiently imprecise to allow for a wide range of influence by subjective bias (e.g., blacks fared poorest and whites best when results could be biased towards expectations), 3) Procedural omissions (e.g., Morton believed skull size recorded mental ability but didn’t consider sex or stature, both of which effected the results), and 4) Miscalculations and omissions that added justification to Morton’s position.

Fear played a prominent role in these biases: fear of the unknown, fear of losing control, fear of those who were different, and fear of not being safe.  The chapter was a reminder that racism was pervasive and broadly accepted in America as recent as the mid-nineteenth century.  Today, the prejudicial views of our founding fathers would be unacceptable to most.

The chapter provided a vivid example of how bias can influence research.  Because Morton’s views were extreme compared to current societal norms, it’s easy to see how bias influenced his approach and findings.  Morton attempted to add credibility to his position by using an objective and methodologically sound approach, which was later debunked by Gould.

How can we know that research we conduct is balanced?  What about our own biases today?  We must be vigilant about objectivity in our research.  Elliot Eisner has some practical advice about objectivity in educational research including: striving to eliminate bias, focusing on the world rather than ourselves, being fair and open to all sides of an argument, using objective methods, and seeing things as they are.

References

Gould, S. J. (1981). American Polygeny and Craniometry before Darwin. In The Mismeasure of Man (pp. 30–72). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Eisner, E. (1992). Objectivity in Educational Research. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(1), 9–15.

Critical Teacher Reflection – Teaching Who We are

— by on — 2 Replies

What does one see when they look in the mirror and is what they see a true reflection? One of the most powerful quotes in the article, “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection” by Tyrone C. Howard (2003) for me is, “effective reflection of race within a diverse cultural context requires teachers to engage in one of the more difficult processes for all individuals – honest reflection and critique of their own thoughts and behaviors. Critical reflection requires one to seek deeper levels of self-knowledge, and to acknowledge how one’s own worldview can shape students’ conceptions of self” (Howard, p. 198). The reason why I find myself in agreement with this passage is because I equated this to Palmer’s statement, “we teach who we are” (p. 198, Howard 2003).

I was raised in a culturally diverse home. My father is Hispanic and my mother is Irish, with family from the Kentucky/Tennessee border. Both of my parents have strong accents and were raised in vastly different homes. My father was born in 1940 and was raised by an aunt and uncle. His mother had passed away soon after childbirth. My father did not have any siblings and no possessions of his own as he moved around a lot. He entered the military soon after turning 18. My mother was the youngest of seven children. Being from a large family she could not wait to leave her family home. My parents met while working at a factory in Northern Illinois. Back when they fell in love, it was still “taboo” to be in a mixed-race relationship. However, they made it work and are still happily married and in love to this day.

The phrase, “We teach who we are” hits home for me. I was fortunate enough to have my multi-cultural training begin in my home at a very early age. The reflective process questions posed in the article by (Howard, 2003) can result in a terrifying journey if one does not prepare for what they may uncover. I believe the sooner a person takes the time to self-reflect, the better impact they will have personally and in the classroom, either as a teacher or a student.

One of my son’s closest friends, Casey, is about to complete his first year as an elementary school teacher for the Chicago public school (CPS) system. Recently, Casey and I were discussing his first year as a teacher. Some of the challenges that he spoke about was that he was raised in a small farming community that was 98 percent Caucasian and two percent “other” as the school district’s student body. He said that while he is not racist in the slightest way, he felt unprepared for the menagerie of race, ethnicity and culture. Even though he student-taught in the CPS system, he felt that once he was the teacher responsible for his own students, the stakes became much higher and the ability to make the largest impact became increasingly elusive.

One suggestion that the author makes is to, “avoid reductive notions of culture” (p. 201). In a story that Casey related to me during our discussion was when he assumed that he could make an impact on a student just as simply as he could the next. In one lesson he planned to introduce a subject using a pop culture reference. He said that he just assumed that all of the students watched this particular TV show because it was “popular.” He soon realized that some of the students did not know what he was referring to. He felt terrible that his exercise to learn something, but to also to have fun, highlighted the differences in home lives, culture, etc.

The author’s statement, “critical teacher reflection is essential to culturally relevant pedagogy because it can ultimately measure teachers’ levels of concern and care for their students. A teacher’s willingness to ask tough questions about his or her own attitudes toward diverse students can reflect a true commitment that the individual has toward students’ academic success and emotional well-being (Howard, 2003, p. 199). Because of this statement, it is my belief that if pre-service teachers are exposed to the practice of self-reflection they may have a greater likelihood of developing personally and professionally in a way that will greatly benefit the student and themselves.

References

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

Is Empathy Enough?

— by on — Leave a reply

Garcia (2013) posits that researchers’ own biographies “greatly influence their values, their research questions, and the knowledge they construct” (p. 41).  A researcher must have credibility (be an “insider”) to be trusted and effective with study participants (Garcia, 2013).  The sense of Garcia’s writing is that a researcher can’t really understand the plight of someone who is different and whose life experience is different. Because a researcher’s identity is intertwined with his research, he may (or should) exclude some groups, but this, in turn, renders them invisible and marginalizes them (Garcia, 2013).  This marginalization may occur even as the researcher is trying to help the subjects of a study.

Medicine Stories (Levin-Morales, 1998) also discusses the marginalization of groups by colonizing powers who try to help those they deem inferior by educating their young.  Levin-Morales states that “colonizing powers take over the transmission of culture to the young” (p. 23) in the guise of helping them.  Culture has always been the glue that holds a society together, and children are inculcated into the society and government by schools.  My own daughter started her school years in Argentina, where we lived as part of an exchange program.  Her assignments were often to draw the flag, create art representing the country, and sing songs about the motherland.  One day, her father said to her, “That’s what Argentines do.”  She furiously informed him that she was an Argentine, although we knew her to be an Anglo-American Caucasian.  Seeing this through Levin-Morales’ eyes enlightened me to a different view of these practices.

Levin-Morales (1998) also includes a thought-provoking essay about “good English.”  She feels that editors have tried to strip away part of her identity by changing her writing in the name of correcting her English to a standard that is not representative of the many Englishes spoken and written throughout the world.  This article touches on a hotly-discussed issue in linguistic circles:  world Englishes.  Who does English belong to?  British?  Americans?  Or the millions of other English-speakers?  The paradox is that, as an English as a Second Language teacher, I must teach my students something that equates to correctness.  At one level, this is English to help them communicate ideas, which must follow some set of basic norms (for example, using past tense to talk about the past, pronunciation that is distinguishable to the listener, or word order in sentences that is clear enough to express an idea).  As the fluency of English rises, my students are preparing to study in American universities, where the English used is probably the English of stuffy, white male professors.  However, if the student is to compete in this playing field, he/she must know these rules, which I teach.  Am I harming my students’ identities by trying to strip away their brand of English to replace it with one that will serve them well in an academic setting?

Pondering the ideas of Garcia & Ortiz (2013) and Levin-Morales’ Medicine Stories (1998) worried me:  can I  teach students of color if I am not a teacher of color? am I doing a disservice to the identities of my students by teaching an academically-acceptable brand of English?  These concerns were  somewhat allayed by Howard’s “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.”  According to Howard (2003), teachers must first believe that all students can succeed and make sure that their actions don’t reinforce prejudice.  They should view different cultures and the way they learn as an asset in the process and use a wide variety of teaching practices which change with the students’ strengths and weaknesses.  This left me hopeful that I can do justice to my students and be helpful to them within their own context.  I need to spend more time getting to know them individually and not labeling them with one-dimensional descriptions.  Through on-going critical self-reflection, I can confront my own learned prejudices in order to overcome them and move forward.

Garcia, S.B. & Ortiz, A.A. (2013).  Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research to 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, 42(3), 195-202.

Levins-Morales, A. (1998).  Medicine Stories: History, Culture, and the Politics of Identity.  Cambridge: South End Press.

Body, Language: A Case for Disabled Language?

— by on — 1 Reply

In Medicine Stories (1998), Aurora Levins Morales argues for a healing kind of history: a study of history that emphasizes personal testimony; a concerted effort to give voice and name to the heretofore unvoiced and unnamed; and a practice of study that scrutinizes interdependence, illuminates interconnectivity, and demands of its practitioners that they own their injuries as well as their complicity in the intricate web of power and privilege.

From the very beginning of this collection of essays, Levins Morales (1998) acknowledges which stories are hers to tell–among the identities she claims are Jew, Puerto Rican, woman of color, survivor of abuse, feminist, and “historian with an agenda”– and acknowledges that all historians “use some process of selection through which [they] choose which stories [they] consider important and interesting” (p. 25). So it would be unreasonable to ask her to speak for everyone, especially given her clear declaration of intent in offering her personal “interrogation” of history (p.25). Nevertheless, she casts a wide net, acknowledging and validating, even in glancing mentions, the experiences of groups of which she is not a member: slaves, witches, transgendered people, even animal rights activists.

And so it seems glaring to me that, throughout the 130-page collection of essays, she sidesteps, apart from a single passing mention in the context of Nazi atrocities, the experiences of disabled people. I do not think this is a sinister omission, but I do think it is an omission, and I’m inclined to think it’s a conscious omission given that Levins Morales is a feminist writing these essays at a time when the scholarly area of disability studies–often housed adjacent to, if not housed within, women’s studies in academia–was emerging as a significant discipline. So many of the habits of mind and scholarship that she advocates, such as the valuing of first-person narrative and testimony; the insistence on telling “untold and undertold histories” (Levins Morales, 1998, p. 26); the prodding to “show agency” (p. 30); and the encouragement to question existing value systems, align themselves explicitly with the aims of disability studies. If “childhood is the one political condition, the one disenfranchised group through which all people pass” (51), then disability is the one political condition to which we could all return, at any time, with no warning. Furthermore, certain historical events she discusses have real relevance for disabled people, especially disabled women. For example, in the essay titled “Nightflying,” in which Levins Morales (1998) invites us to reconsider the way violence toward women in the form of witch hunts has been minimized, almost to the point of cartoon (p. 45-49), it seems especially glaring that she does not acknowledge that features we now know to be physiological and decidedly un-evil–epilepsy, for example–were also used to persecute women as witches. It’s not just “women elders” (p. 48) who remain villainized by the witch-hunt narrative; it’s elder women with dowager’s humps or, as I can personally attest, young women with gnarled fingers and limping gaits who are thought scary and wicked. The scary old lady in the house on the corner? She usually has a cane.

I confess that I’m stymied by this omission but, especially given her final essay’s call for a unification of efforts as opposed to an endless splintering of interests, I accept it as a given of this author and her stance.  I’m not quite as ready as she to dispense with intersectionality as a crucial lens through which to view certain histories and experiences. Specifically, disability is a profoundly powerful axis that, in combination with gender, can be amplified or assuaged in the classroom. As Garcia and Ortiz (2013) argue, “while a disability label may assign students to a subordinate status in a general education classroom on the basis of their perceived disabilities, their gender, social class and/or racial identities may mitigate this status in different ways, creating privilege for some (e.g., male, middle class, or Caucasian students) but disadvantage for others (e.g., African American males from low income families)” (p.34). Nevertheless, it is not Levins Morales’s responsibility to speak for the disabled; in fact, it may very well be inappropriate for her to do so. But it may not be inappropriate for me to do so.

What I’d like to do, then, is acknowledge my own relationship to that label, that identity, that history, and then discuss my own professional practice–that is, as a teacher–through the lens of Levins Morales’s “medicinal history” (1998). Specifically, I’d like to focus on the second section of the collection of essays, “Speaking in Tongues” (Levins Morales, 1998, p. 55-71), in which she insightfully and powerfully examines the relationship between language and power. Having thoughtfully considered–and truly enjoyed–Levins Morales’s work, I’d like to borrow her framework and extend it to include a group, as represented by a dear student of mine, “Jessica,” that I feel could most benefit from this kind of “medicinal history.”

I have an ambivalent relationship to the title “disabled,” mostly because I have an ambivalent body. Having had rheumatoid arthritis for 25 years, I’ve experienced stretches of profound disability and, thanks to modern medical and surgical interventions, I’ve experienced periods of relative respite during which my pain, although never fully abating, has been ameliorated and able-bodied strangers’ reaction to my body have been less vicious and othering. That’s all I need to say about that for this discussion, I think, except that I’ll add that my shape-shifting identity as maybe-disabled does lend me a particular awareness of and empathy for my students who live with disabilities. I like to think that I am an ally for them, and I’ll point to my experience with Jessica as evidence of that.

Jessica is a brilliant 16-year-old, effervescent and energetic, quick-witted, curious, profoundly artistic, and dyslexic. Last year, I was both Jessica’s English teacher and her advisor, which means that I was to serve as the point-person for Jessica and her parents whenever an issue–social, academic, medical–came up that affected Jessica in more than one course. As you can imagine, Jessica’s dyslexia affected her performance in nearly every course (English, pre-calculus, Latin II, advanced chemistry, Europe since 1945). In English and Latin and history, she struggled with spellings and conjugations as well as taking in and processing large amounts of written and verbal data. She pored over her written assignments only to discover, upon turning them in, that she’d replaced the word “genocide” with “geometry” in every instance. In history and chemistry and precalculus, numbers transposed themselves. Perhaps as a function of her dyslexia or maybe as a concurrent issue, Jessica also struggled with giving sustained attention to any task and found herself hopelessly distracted by even the smallest sounds and activities from classmates.

Jessica struggled particularly in Latin and early on in the school year she came to me for help. Thinking she could use some empowering validation of her experiences, I directed her to some scholarly research on JSTOR about teaching classical languages to students with dyslexia. One article, aimed at teachers, offered practical solutions and ideas (enlarging typewritten documents, using serif fonts, etc.). When I showed the plainly written, down-and-dirty “use it today” article to Jessica, she beamed–here, then, is an example of Levins Morales’s idea of scholarly writing being accessible to the people who need it most (1998, p. 37)–and immediately she set out highlighting all the tips that she thought would be useful but that weren’t yet in practice in her Latin classroom. Next, we met with her Latin teacher and Jessica was able to advocate for herself in a solution-oriented way. This was one of my earliest experiences with Jessica and it made me pay particular attention to her in the classroom. After all, I had a dual role as her English teacher and her advisor. I was struck by Jessica’s maturity in seeking out allies and advocates and in her wise use of the network of support systems made available to her. I was also blown away by the amount of sheer intellectual bandwidth and problem-solving skill Jessica was putting into compensating for her dyslexia.

Interestingly, the only courses where Jessica was finding that her dyslexia was not a deficit but an asset were her art classes–experimental materials and game design–where she was exploring with wit and cleverness ways to represent for “normal” people what the world of symbols and letters looked like and felt like to her.

As her decidedly descriptivist English teacher, it wasn’t a challenge for me to overlook her misspellings or transpositions. I was happy to work with her on a draft to point out to her where she’d swapped a word or where her ideas were all jumbled up and in need of categorizing and streamlining. Jessica and I worked well together.

But as I read Levins Morales’s chapters “On Not Writing English” and “Forked Tongues,” I was struck by the realization that I did not do enough on Jessica’s behalf, neither as her English teacher nor as her advisor. I didn’t do what her art teacher did, which was allow her–encourage her–to depict the world as she saw it in the language of her experience. Her perception of the world is jumbled, overstimulated, anxious, cryptic, blooming. Why shouldn’t her writing be?

Now, this perspective tests the limits of even my descriptivism. Can an English teacher advocate for a student’s right to write in jumbled, overwhelmed and overwhelming ways? I think she can. This is where I return to Levins Morales. The “legislators of language,” she  points out, “are almost exclusively male, white, and wealthy”–and, I’ll add, able-bodied if not body-normative. “They are people with social power, and as is the wont of such folk, they set things up according to their own very specific needs and then declare those needs universal: if it isn’t the language we speak, it isn’t English” (Levins Morales, 1998, p. 57).

Levins Morales (1998) points out the idea that is at the heart of all efforts to increase diversity in representation, the belief that is behind the movement away from “Dick and Jane” names in primers and standardized tests and behind the mannequin  in a wheelchair at your local Kohl’s: “To live surrounded by a popular culture in which we do not appear is a form of spiritual erasure that leaves us vulnerable to all the assaults a society can commit against those it does not recognize. Not to be recognized, not to find oneself in history, or in film, or on television, or in books, or in popular songs, or in what is studied at school leads to the psychic disaster of ceasing to recognize oneself” (p. 61). I believe that schools–no, I believe that I–need to do a better job not only of showing students like Jessica characters and real-life figures who think like they do (e.g., Mark Haddon’s 2003 “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime,” which features a protagonist/narrator with autism) but also of validating and celebrating their language. Why shouldn’t Jessica’s writing reflect the world as she perceives it, just as Levins Morales’s writing is colored with her varied influences? If I bludgeon Jessica’s writing into conformity, am I like those well-meaning feminist editors who silenced Levins Morales’s differentness and shoehorned her into genericness? I do not want to hold Jessica to any less a rigorous standard than the other students; after all, she can hold her own intellectually and creatively. But–and this is a question of “excellence”–can I uphold rigor while honoring her perception of the world, and helping her to put it on the page? “That is why we write,” Levins Morales says. “To see ourselves on the page. To confirm our presence” (1998, p. 62).

And Garcia and Ortiz’s (2013) warning about the unfair perceptions of disabled students raises even more questions for me: Jessica is a well-behaved, hard-working, upper-middle-class white girl. Have I been more inclined to honor her disability in writing than, say, the scattered writings of a hyperactive boy like Will, who I may perceive to be simply sloppy and disorganized? I need to confront these questions. I need to do right by the Jessicas and the Wills.

I don’t know the answers to these questions. I know, though, that my own experience of shape-shifting disability has granted me access to two languages, two lexicons. I can write in the upright, whole, healthy English of able-bodiedness, studied during my healthy first 12 years of life, and I suspect that my writing–lurching, improvisatory, full of fragments–reflects the body I live in now. I have the right to write in the language of my body, so does Levins Morales, and so does Jessica.

References

Garcia, S. and Ortiz, A. (2013). Intersectionality as a framework for transformative research in special education. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 13(2), 32–47. Retrieved from http://mv.ddel.metapress.com/index/YV7822W58116KW42.pdf

Levins Morales, A. (1998). Medicine stories: History, culture and the politics of integrity. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Researcher Beware

— by on — 1 Reply

First year teachers are like brand new pennies, they have been untouched by the issues in education, all shiny and new. They start out with their excited smiles and the “I’m going to change the world,” attitude. This is not to say that veteran teachers are not passionate about their role, but it is easy to see that veteran teachers have a weight on their shoulders. As teachers, we fight for what is right for our students and work without the resources we need, but we give our students the best education we can offer.

I remember the moment I realized that my students were not given the same opportunities. I was a first or second year teacher and I was at a music conference, still shiny and new. I was in awe, watching a middle school band; they were amazing! When the band finished playing, the director had the kids stand and take a bow. I was struck with the realization that, with the exception of four students, the entire ensemble was Caucasian. I instantly found this odd, as this was not the case at my school.

Then the director started talking about what he did to get the students to produce such incredible music. He was adamant that the teachers in the room needed to make sure the students were playing on matched instruments. Matched instruments! I was lucky if my students had instruments at all. Not only were these students all playing on school instruments, but they were all matched and brand new. It was at this point that I became a little tarnished. I was astonished that he had the budget for that. I had to fight for every piece of music I had and instruments were not an option. At that moment I realized that my students were disadvantaged and that the director and I were not playing on the same field.

While I read the article by Garcia and Ortiz (2013), I kept coming back to the same thoughts of my students. What could they have achieved had they been given the same access to resources? Garcia stated, educational equity remains an elusive goal for students from non-dominant racial, ethnic, linguistic and socio-cultural communities…” (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013) Our schools are not equitable. The students do not have the same classes, services, resources or diversity.

As I contemplate my research along with the articles, I was struck by the fact that my research could have a lasting effect on education. It is doubtful that teachers and researchers enter their field with thoughts of holding people back, yet the unconscious bias one has, can do just that. Gould discusses this very problem.

Morton made no attempt to cover his tracks and I must presume that he was unaware he had left them. He explained all his procedures and published all his raw data. All I can discern is an a priori conviction about racial ranking so powerful that it directed his tabulations along preestablished lines. Yet Morton was widely hailed as the objectivist of his age, the man who would rescue American science from the mire of unsupported speculation. (Gould, 1996)

The research presented by Morton was, in his eyes, objective. However, his research held bias towards minorities and had an impact on education and society. (Gould, 1996) If one looks at the demographics of our schools, specifically race, and the access they have to resources, it is easy to see that the bias Morton held, still affect us today. “Education equity remains an elusive goal for students from non-dominant racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socio-cultural communities; the research conducted to-date has not been successful in altering this trajectory.” (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013)

I find myself wary of my own possible bias as I approach the start of my research. As previously stated, it is doubtful that any researcher has the intent of causing harm to another person or culture; however, it is clearly possible. How does one avoid such a disaster? If I were required to list my bias at this very moment, I don’t know that I would be able to write anything down. In order to know what one’s bias is critical reflection must be utilized. As discussed by Howard, “Critical reflection is the type of processing that is crucial to the concept of culturally relevant pedagogy.”(Howard, 2003) He goes on to state that “Critical reflection should include an examination of how race, culture, and social class shape students’ thinking learning, and various understandings of the world.” (Howard, 2003) This could also be applied to researchers and educators. If educators have a clear understanding of how race, culture and social class shape their own thinking, we would have a better idea of our bias and how we are unconsciously communicating these ideas to our students. What becomes plainly obvious is that researchers in general need to spend time in critical reflection in order to keep the bias from affecting their work, as it did with Melton. By using Melton (Gould, 1996) as an example, one can find the following guidance:

  1. Look at the whole picture, be aware of the sub-samples and be consistent in the collection of the data.
  2. Set bias aside and confirm that the results can be reproduced
  3. Keep an open mind. If the data leads to alternate hypotheses, follow it.
  4. Check the math and leave nothing out.

As I set out to tackle my own research, critical reflection will play a role in my awareness of how I fit into the culture I will be studying. By being aware of my preconceived notions of culture, race and social class prior to my research I may be able to keep my ideas of such from hindering my research. The idea that I could impact others’ lives is both exciting and intimidating, as there is a fear there that research can hinder as much as help.

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

Gould, S. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man: American Polygeny and Craniometry Before Darwin. The “racial” economy of science (pp. 30–72). New York: WW Norton & Company. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books=en&lr=&id=CmJWBaANlsEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA84&dq=American+Polygeny+and+Craniometry+before+Darwin&ots=gu4mtzHxt_&sig=SJ7qO0-EjTwDdury27I9m2tcam8

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477320

The Implications of Scientific Misinformation on the 18th Century Biological Hierarchy

— by on — 1 Reply

Stephan Gould’s The Measure of Man (1981) analysis and connection to my own research agenda.

Stephan Gould’s The Measure of Man (1981) sheds light on the 18th century scientific agenda of reinforcing racial or biological hierarchies in the United States. Through the manipulation of science, the data that was published and widely accepted perpetuated the racial agenda, maintaining the hegemonic power and relationship dynamics between whites and blacks. While other races were discussed and scientifically explored at the time, the greatest interest and discourse revolved around the intellects of blacks, and if their intellect should determine their social and political power.

Hierarchies have long been argued to be natural although they are consistently questioned and revamped to reflect contemporary political, social, and cultural perspectives and identities.  Thus, while hierarchies are constant, they dynamically transform and shift power within political, social, and cultural systems of identity. Aurora Levins Morales in Medicine Stories (1998) furthers this point with her position that those with privilege maintain that it is a “luxury they have earned by excellence, the natural way of life, the righteous and inevitable order of things” (p. 11). Morales (1998) also contends that hierarchies are used to “convince [those with privilege] that exploitation is not only justifiable but a kind and compassionate expression of their superiority” (p. 12).

While Gould (1981) demonstrates that 18th century scientific data was fabricated as a means of reinforcing biological hierarchies, he also states that “we must first recognize the cultural milieu of a society whose leaders and intellectuals did not doubt the propriety of racial ranking – with Indians below whites, and blacks below everyone else” (p. 31).  Those who supported the biological hierarchy of the time were divided into two groups. The first, “hard-liners,” believed blacks to be biologically inferior and their status in the racial hierarchy justified their enslavement and colonization.  Although the second, “soft-liners,” agreed that blacks were biologically inferior, they maintained that rights should not be contingent on intelligence (p. 31).

These groups were further divided into monogenism  and polygenism, those who maintained that all humans are the degenerative results of the lineage of Adam and Eve, as stated in the Bible, and those who contended that the human races began as separate biological species. Within the polygenist circle, there were two groups of scientists. The first group, the “lumpers” were scientists who focused on similarities between specimens to determine their biological relationship. The second group, the “splitters,” concentrated on minute differences as a means of establishing separate species.

Louis Agassiz and Samuel George Morton were strong proponents of the polygeny theory and were highly respected by contemporary scientists. While both men bolstered the polygeny theory differently, Agassiz by studying physical differences and Morton through craniology, the study of skull size, they reinforced the hegemonic understanding that blacks were closer to nature, and therefore inferior and not requiring equal rights.

However, it was Morton who manipulated his craniology data so extensively to support the biological stratification. Morton’s scientific process was to use ground mustard seeds to measure volume, as the assumption was that the more intelligent the person, the bigger the brain. Throughout his experiments, he omitted and miscalculated information as well as neglected to account for body proportions and sexual dimorphism (the typical physical differences found among the sexes) and their effects on brain size. He also systematically altered data to reinforce his subjective, prior understanding of the racial hierarchy.  Morton’s understanding and subsequent purposeful manipulation and misrepresentation of scientific data extended the long, unwavering shadow of science into the farthest discourses of race, biological hierarchy, human rights, colonialism, and slavery. To this day, the perpetuation of the hegemonic biological hierarchy is still masked by scientific data conducted and disseminated by those in positions of privilege and power.

The purpose of my research is to address racism that is paraded as science in the educational field. One illustration is that culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students “are grossly overrepresented in special needs categories” (Howard, 2011, p. 196). If the educational system has and continues to fail CLD students, especially under the guise of scientifically diagnosing them as special needs, research should be conducted into the causality of the failures. Through diagnostic research that is ethical and unbiased, in addition to accounting for diverse identities, the education system can broaden its myopic and misinformed practices of educating and addressing the needs of CLD students and communities. This, in turn, will initiate a more egalitarian political, social, and cultural structure that embraces diverse identities.

References

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

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

Howard, C. (2011). Culturally Relevant for Critical Teacher Pedagogy : Ingredients Reflection. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doctoral Degree Discussion

— by on — Leave a reply

The authors of the article “Reclaiming Education’s Doctorates: A Critique and a Proposal” are employed as participants in the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID), which is sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation. The critical analysis by the CID process is meant to crystalize the purpose of the doctoral degree. The authors participated in discussions with various institutions to help clarify the purpose/objectives of their degrees. This article specifically presents the rationale for introducing a new type of degree for education practitioners and administration (specifically, those individuals not planning on a career in teaching or research).

In my opinion, the authors are clouding the discussion with an additional program suggestion. It seems the authors are suggesting questions as to whether the Ed.D. appropriately prepares one for a career of scholarly research and/or if that degrees is even needed for a career in administration. The organization of the article would suggest that a re-evaluation and re-deployment of the Ed.D. would be successful.

This was demonstrated with the example of USC’s success. “The decision-making and implementation processes, though sometimes rocky, resulted in two programs with clearly different goals, requirements, and student populations”. However, later in the article suggests a professional practice degree would enable career progression, as a reader, I’m left wondering, “why shouldn’t it be the Ed.D.?”

Ed.D. students will, according to the authors, not experience the depth of scholarly inquiry done in the program. They cite the lack of full-time study or participation in learning communities as examples. On the other hand, is it more likely that we are more effectively preparing them to be better consumers of academic research in that they can then interpret and act on research? The authors wrote, “we believe it must be a requirement for the P.P.D., to enable practitioners to make practice and policy decisions—not to add new knowledge per se to the field”. As the article progresses, instead the authors suggest that a lack of clarity in purpose for the degree (Ph.D. vs. Ed.D) leads to confusion about what grads can accomplish and are prepared for in their careers. According to the authors, a doctoral degree should teach you to collect information, research a hypothesis, and present findings, which are all part of critical analysis. Good decision makers need to be able to balance the need for an effective decision and the time available to make it.

Perhaps the article should instead be advocating for a thorough review following the CID method. The authors write, “the process of reflection, implementation of program changes, and assessment that these departments and programs engaged in is leading to stronger doctoral programs and changed habits of mind in participating faculty and students”.

Questions raised by the review of the program might include: What is the value of a dissertation? Is it just to deeply researching an issue to recommend a course of action? Is it to advance scholarly research?

The authors demonstrated a need for more clarity within the field, however, ultimately lacked rationale for the creation of a new degree. Alternatively, suggesting further review of existing degrees might engage more dialogue and commitment from those involved with existing programs.

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

Preparing Our Teachers

— by on — Leave a reply

In my career role, I play a large part in influencing how we prepare teachers at Arizona State University. I have been thinking about bias in teaching-our own biases as well as our assessment and measurement of student learning practices. How do we best prepare teachers to work in racially diverse schools?

Before jumping right in to address this question, I want to address the political nature of teaching and assessment measurements. Teachers are being held accountable for impacting student learning. Although this idea sounds practical and reasonable in nature, there are so many variables that play a role in this. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001), states that school and districts must disaggregate achievement data by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language proficiency, and disability. All of these variables affect how students perform, yet teachers are being unfairly judged using Value Added Measures that are biased. (Paufler, N.A. & Amrein-Beardsley, A. 2013).

With the political nature and high stakes of the teaching profession, teaching is quickly becoming one of the most challenging jobs. So, I revert back to my question- how are we preparing teachers to be ready for this battle, specifically, equipping them to teach all of their learners? Prior to answering this question, it is important to understand the makeup of the 21st century classroom.  Who are our students?  Tyrone C. Howard (2010) in his book, Why Race and Culture Matter in Schools, presents staggering data regarding the achievement gaps amongst different racial groups, as well as our demographic makeup of our schools.

Howard (2010) cites a study conducted by Concha (2006). The study exposed the role of race, specifically focusing on African American and Latino youth. Three prominent areas stood out as negatively affecting student achievement: racial segregation was still occurring, there were evident divisions within racial groups and school support varied by race (p.101).

Howard (2003) claims that it is essential for teachers to be self aware of their cultural knowledge and understandings. He states, “one of the most fundamental elements of cultural competence is the development of ongoing critical self reflection” (p. 200). He goes on to say, “being able to effectively initiate and facilitate reflection about race and race-related issues requires the ability to critically examine one’s own personal beliefs, opinions, and values about racial identity, and the race of others; and the ramifications of these intersecting and colliding values” (p. 200). Palmer (1998) echoes this notion of self-assessment and recommends that teachers ask themselves, “does who I am contribute to the underachievement of students who are not like me?” (p. 114).

I think these biases go even further than just racial differences. Gould, (1981) in “The Mismeasure of a Man” presents data charts (written in the 1800s) of brain differences, including cranial capacities and abilities. After studying this summary data, he concludes, “Morton’s summaries are a patchwork of fudging and finagling in the clear interest of controlling a priori convictions” (p. 54). Many of these early beliefs, however, are still with us whether we recognize them or not.

From my experiences as an educator and an educational leader, eliciting reflection that gets at the heart of our biases would be extremely powerful and revealing. I don’t think any teacher intentionally elicits bias; however, I think through systematic reflection, many teachers would discover that they do have biases and that they are prevalent in their teaching practices. Freire (1973) states that this critical self-reflection might be difficult for white teachers if they come from “racially privileged or dominant positions” (p. 115). Moreover, he asserts that white teachers, “bring virtually no conceptual framework for understanding visible inequalities rather than the dominant deficit of framework…generally ignorant of color, fear them and fear discussing race and racism” (p. 115). Although it might take some time, nurturing an environment where teachers could fearlessly talk about racism and biases could yield tremendous benefits for our students. Because of this, one might argue that self-reflection and critical self-analysis would be the first step in preparing teachers to work in racially diverse schools.

Another important idea that Howard (2010) asserts is focused on a teacher’s mindset and beliefs about learning. He states, “A teacher’s ability to know and understand students is not restricted by his or her race; it is tied to a willingness of educators to know and understand the complexities of race and culture, develop a healthy sense of their own racial identity and privilege, develop a skill set of instructional practices that tap into cultural knowledge, reject deficit views of students of color, and have an authentic sense of students’ ability to be academically successful” (p.74). Instilling a belief that all students can achieve at high levels will prepare teachers to work in diverse schools.

Finally, once teachers understand who their students are, this understanding should influence teaching practices. Howard refers to these teaching practices as culturally relevant pedagogy. Howard (2003) emphasizes that it’s “based on the inclusion of cultural referents that students bring from home” (p.201). Howard explains that culturally responsive teaching encourages students to share viewpoints and perspectives, connects curriculum to students’ lives and experiences, teaches students to think critically as well as engages students in conversations. Furthermore, teachers need to teach through the strengths of the students, making learning more relevant for them as well as making them feel successful.

In conclusion, we have begun to touch the surface of our question, “How do we best prepare teachers to work in racially diverse schools?” To start, we need to engage our pre-service teachers in critical self reflection about their own experiences, beliefs, and biases. Secondly, we need to instill a belief that all students can learn, regardless of their race. Finally, we need to teach them how to respond through relevant pedagogical practices.

References

 Conchas, G.Q. (2006). The color of success: Race and high achieving urban youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

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.

Gay, G. (2000) Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

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

Freire, Paulo. Education for critical consciousness. [1st American ] ed. A Continuum    book. New York,: Seabury Press, 1973.

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

Howard, T.C. (2010). Why race and culture matter in schools: closing the achievement gap in America’s classrooms. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.

Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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.

 

 

 

The Power of Believing in Cultural Capital

— by on — 1 Reply

“If I am willing to look in that mirror and not run from what I see, I have a chance to gain self-knowledge – and knowing myself is as crucial to good teaching as knowing my students and my subject….In fact, knowing my students and my subject depends heavily on self-knowledge.  When I do not know myself, I cannot know who my students are.  I will see them through a glass darkly, in the shadows of my own unexamined life – and when I cannot see them clearly, I cannot teach them well.”  (Palmer, 1998 as cited in Howard, 2003)

Where has this article, “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy:  Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection” by Tyrone Howard (2003), been all of my professional career? This is critical information that I have tried to explain to my fellow colleagues over the years.  To the ones who simply do not understand the need for culturally relevant pedagogy and to those who do not understand that their own cultures often overrule the cultures of those they teach, both consciously and subconsciously.  If they aren’t going to listen to me, maybe they’ll listen to a peer-reviewed journal article…you know, since us teachers are more inclined to place more value in research data than one person’s opinion.

Research recognizes the need for culturally relevant pedagogy.  Research understands the importance of setting aside one’s own beliefs in an effort to understand the needs of another culture’s beliefs.  Research supports that the best way to teach a student is to know the student.

Howard (2003) stated “teacher educators must be able to help preservice teachers critically analyze important issues such as race, ethnicity, and culture, and recognize how these important concepts shape the learning experience for many students.”  It is important to note that this understanding cannot be superficial, as in being politically correct for the sake of being politically correct. It’s about having the desire to open your mind to new cultures, beliefs and lifestyles and a willingness to accept them as equally important as your own.  It’s about truly valuing the “cultural capital” that walks into your classroom each and every day (Howard, 2003). I love that phrase, “cultural capital.”  Absolutely looooove it!  Capital is an asset.  Cultural capital means that culture is seen as an asset.  What better way to think about the diversity of our classrooms?  A room filled with cultural capital…including our own!

It is also about getting to the core of who you are by engaging in the “critical reflection” that Howard (2003) talks extensively about.  As stated in the opening quote, if you cannot understand yourself, you cannot understand your students, which, in turn, means that you cannot achieve the success that you wish to achieve with your students.  Critical reflection requires us to dig deep within ourselves to shed light on our belief systems and to be honest about what we believe and why we believe in them.

This task can be very difficult, especially if you hold beliefs that you don’t want to admit.  And, really, that’s ok.  But, to get to the core of your being, you must acknowledge they exist.  Critical reflection isn’t used as a mean to criticize your beliefs, but is used to foster a deeper understanding of those beliefs.  We have all learned what we know and believe in from sources that are important to us and through our own life experiences. Whether or not you are comfortable speaking about them openly, self-reflection is not about letting the world know or attempting to change your beliefs, it’s about engaging in honest and in-depth reflection about how your “positionality” can influence your students, both positively and negatively, and how it “can shape students’ conceptions of self” (Howard, 2003).

I often joke with my students that I am just as much a part of their families as their parents, siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins!  After all, I do see them all day, every day five days out of the week.  If we take a minute to think about that, this should speak volumes.  What kind of influence has our own families had on us?  What did they teach us and how has that molded us into the adults that we are today?  Have the people closest to us seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, yet, have continued to love us, believe in us and encourage us to achieve great things?

We have this type of influence on our students.  We can build up or break down any one of our students.  That’s how much power we have.  But, we also have to be careful that we preserve and appreciate each students’ individual cultural capital.

Once we have a full appreciation of who our students are and have reflected on how our own personal beliefs can impact our teaching, then we can truly begin to effectively teach them.  Howard (20030 stated that we must “construct pedagogical practices in ways that are culturally relevant, racially affirming, and socially meaningful.”  How motivated would our students be if they felt like their beliefs/culture/life experiences, etc. matter, are important and are worth learning about?  Just think about why you are in this program and what you hope to accomplish…

References:

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

 

Disrupting Small Business Owners Realities

— by on — Leave a reply

For the week 3 readings, Bautista et al. (2013) stood out the most to be, particularly in the idea around limitations of what is available to students and disrupting their reality around all the possibilities out there (p.9). The idea that many of these students could not even think about how good their school could be and what resources could be available to them spoke to the ceilings that we can create for ourselves. Disruption to their reality broke open the idea that there was so much for them.

This reminded me of the small business learners I work with in my Small Business Leadership Academy Program. The program itself is an 8-week, scholarship based program designed to help local small business owners be better business leaders. Within the program, these business owners are exposed to strategy, services, negotiations, systems and organizational behavior lessons all in an effort to improve their business acumen while also building a network of small business peers.

Many of these individuals have never pursued higher education, often coming to their business through family. Much like the students in the Bautista et al (2013) reading, the small business owners often do not know what they do not know meaning they often move forward with their business only doing what they are aware of, not realizing the resources or opportunities out there for them. Our program often serves as a disruption to their reality in a way that helps them find greater success through exposure to new lessons, life experiences from peers and understanding of what resources are available to small business owners within the community.

This actually made some connections to me within Denzin et al (2008) through the idea of shared “lived experiences” (p. 89) as well as getting “voices from the bottom” (p.94). Although Denzin et al (2008) is referring to Critical Race Theory (CRT), I see the parallels here with the small business learners. This is a group that is truly living and breathing their practice every day and often have to make decisions that will shape the rest of their future.

Being exposed to shared lived experiences with other small business owners, even if it is across industries, often does more for their success than our business lessons. Hearing the struggles and successes of others in similar situations as them often inspires them to new heights. Small business research is often done not from the perspective of a small business owner but from statistical or financial perspectives that dehumanize much of their experiences. The idea of having more small business owners take control of some of that research and get involved makes so much sense in the potential outcomes.

As I look towards my professional practice, these readings, along with the other week 3 readings give me much to consider. One area I want to focus on within my research is the application of supply chain principles to graduate business student processes from admissions through graduation. While looking at things from a process perspective, the readings from this week remind me that I need to think about setting up processes that don’t leave the student behind but take into perspective their ideas, knowledge and potential.

References
Bautista, M., 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.

Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y. & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous
Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Diversity in Virtual Classrooms

— by on — Leave a reply

With more of our courses going online, I find myself struggling with creating programs and student experiences that have value across cultures, language, technology and curriculum.  From our week 1 reading, what stood out most in this area was the Howard (2003) reading. Of particular interest is the shifting perspective of the teaching population and the idea around better representing the cultural aspects of the classroom populations that the teachers teach in (p.195). This brought to mind many of the virtual programs that I manage with individuals who are across the world.

I currently run a certificate program for professional Supply Chain students who are dispersed around the world with individuals in countries like China, Egypt, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. When working with these students, our professors have to find a balance within the virtual classroom that can work with such a diverse audience yet still maintain the educational standards of the program. This becomes an interesting balance for them but also for our staff as we work to assist the students with navigating through the courses and ensuring they have the tools needed for success.

One of the pieces that really stuck out to me is how much we may overlay our own ideas of the persons culture over their actions and let the stereotypes we know about the culture interfere with the students creating their own identity (Howard, 2003, p. 200). In some cases with my students, I assume the learning styles that I am used to and that our system of education will all work for them. I need to remind myself and the professors that the context that these individuals may be coming from could be quite different from what we are accustomed to. Getting a better sense of who these students are, how they learn and approach education will help us better serve these populations.

Garcia and Ortiz (2013) also forced me to pause and think through some of my actions and approaches to the virtual programs. Similar to above, the idea that intersectionality “makes possible the examination of the simultaneous interactions among race, class, gender, and (dis)ability for any individual child, family and community, as well as the interplay between these individual or group characteristics and organizational responses to them” stood out as an interesting dynamic that I had not looked at in this way (Garcia & Ortiz, 2013, p. 34).

What most stood out was this idea that there are so many interactions that go into not only who we are but how we perceive others and how our actions both take place and may be received. Within this, I was able to further draw parallels back to the work I do within higher education but also able to look across the W. P. Carey School of Business and think about how important this is in how we set up our courses, our processes for moving students through the system and the other interactions that play into graduate business student success.

I realize that I often get lost in my daily operations and interactions and forget to look more holistically at the actions and interactions within the day to day. Thinking through the research really put into perspective how we, as educational leaders, need to take a step back from time to time to see the full picture and how I can be more cognizant of my perceptions and how I present myself and my work to others.

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,
42(3), 195- 202.

Reflection Starts with You

— by on — 2 Replies

Access, Excellence, and Impact

Howard (2003) highlights the need for critical teacher reflection in the article “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection.” He sets the stage by explaining the demographic divide and how “US schools will continue to become learning spaces where an increasingly homogeneous teaching population (mostly White, female and middle class) will come into contact with an increasingly heterogeneous student population (primarily students of color, from low income backgrounds.)” (Howard, 2003, p. 195) The author explains the importance of supporting teachers in gaining the knowledge and skills for teaching today’s diverse student community.

One of the ways Howard (2003) suggests acquiring the knowledge and skills for teaching our diverse learners is through critical reflection. He describes critical reflection as, “attempts to look at reflection within moral, political, and ethical contexts of teaching.” (Howard, 2003, p. 197) I can see how this type of reflection would be challenging. As teachers, we are familiar with reflecting on our actions and how it impacted student learning. However, this type of reflection requires much more than just identifying strengths and challenges within a lesson.   Howard (2003) pushes educators to “ask challenging questions that pertain to one’s construction of individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds.” (p. 198)

This year I had an opportunity to participate in systematic reflection with colleagues. The experience was difficult but rewarding. We used journal writing to reflect and make sense of our experiences. Each session the facilitator would pose questions and give us uninterrupted time to write and reflect. One of the greatest gifts I received in this experience was the opportunity to go back and reread what I had written in my journal at different times throughout our journey. I could see how my thinking had grown and what I needed to do to move forward in my practice. During the systematic reflection, we were invited to share out with the group, but it was not required. I believe a similar format focused on critical reflection would be beneficial for teachers. The author refers to this format as race reflective journaling by Milner (2003) and further describes it as a “process wherein teachers are able to process issues of racial differences in a more private manner through writing as opposed to sharing ideas of racial and cultural differences in a more open and public forum that might be uncomfortable and difficult for some.” (Howard, 2003, p. 199)

I believe that race reflective journaling would be uncomfortable yet eye-opening for teachers and that is what is needed. It would force teachers to engage in an inner dialogue centered on race, ethnicity, social-class and gender and expose what Howard (2003) refers to as deficit-based thinking. In the article, deficit-based thinking is described as an authentic belief that students from culturally diverse and low-income backgrounds are incapable learners. (Howard, 2003, p. 197) My parents experienced the harmful effects of deficit-based thinking. Both my parents are second language learners. I grew up listening to stories about the difficulties they experienced in school as second language learners. As a result, they chose not to teach my brother and I Spanish. The language stopped in my generation because they saw it as a deficit.

I believe that the first step toward becoming a culturally relevant educator is to start with reflection and the article “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection” offers steps to consider, possible pitfalls, and the positive impact critical teacher reflection can have on our diverse student population.

References:

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy: Ingredients for Critical Teacher Reflection. Theory Into Practice. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4203_5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Enemy of Polygeny

— by on — 1 Reply

Analysis of Journal Article “The Mismeasure of Man” by Stephen Jay Gould

The aim of this blog is to analyze and evaluate the article The Mismeasure of Man (Gould, 1981), as it relates to this week’s theme, Balance and Scholar Identity. The importance of this concept is seen in every human being as we strive to maintain balance, and achieve our identity. Whether that identity is social, spiritual, or scholarly, it is important to establish one. The article from Gould’s 1981 publication was an excellent piece to explore and investigate, as it made me questions the origins of my own identity. As I read the article I was surprised, disgusted, angered and offended. As an African American male, it is very hard to imagine and accept that society identified African slaves, my ancestors, as descendants from an ape species.

Prior to reading this article I had very little knowledge of the concept of Polygeny or Craniometry. I found it very interesting that our Country’s fore fathers, held closely the idea that people of color were inferior and those devoid of color were created in Gods own image.

The Africans (slaves) and the indigenous Native Americans didn’t stand a chance at equality. Scientifically, the deck was stacked against them. Not only were we not considered equal, we were considered a different species. In Medicine Stories (Levins Morales, 1998), the author talks about how the slavers that kidnapped millions of West African people found endless ways to justify their behavior, even to the extent of claiming that slavery was a civilizing influence on the lives of the enslaved.

The idea of biological inferiority was common knowledge and was widely accepted by society, including our Country’s founders. These ideas were substantiated by science, research, and inquiry. Only one problem, the research was wrong.

Samuel George Morton’s was considered the most reputable and respected scholar on the theory of Polygeny. His theories were rooted in science. He studied Craniometry as the science to determine intelligence in different species. His research was extensive, but very faulty. Which led to an absolute incorrect premise that smaller skulls meant smaller brain capacity, thus less intelligent. Although his collection of human skulls was vast and he dedicated his life’s work to the idea that the Negro people were inferior mentally and physically, he was ultimately put to shame by his Mismeasurement of man.

In conclusion, I could not help but think about how this article relates to my scholar identity and my scholarly journey. Action research is a vital component of both. The article The Mismeasure of Man was a brilliant example of how quality research, data, and facts rather than faulty premises are so very important. If his studies were conducted correctly, good ol’ boy Samuel Morton, could have changed the perception of an entire race of people and possibly changed the course of history. Indeed, one of the core values of this program and my scholar identity is impact. The readings made me reflect on the impact of science and the public perception of people of color for centuries.

“There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” – Abraham Lincoln

References

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

Levins Morales, A. (1998). Medicine Stories: History, Culture and the Politics of Identity. Cambridge: South End Press.