CITAS Y REFERENCIAS

For the case study, I collected several forms of data (observation, surveys, and interviews) in order to triangulate data and strengthen the validity of findings.

Observation. To begin the observation period, the case study instructor introduced me as both a researcher and an instructor at Pine College. After that, I

explained my research study and stressed that I will be examining the implementation of a new writing curriculum. I stressed that my primary role as a researcher is to protect the confidentiality, anonymity, and privacy of all participants, and that I will remove all names and identifying information and descriptions to protect their anonymity. I also stressed that I genuinely appreciate their participation, and that I will attend class and take notes, audio-record class sessions, ask students to complete surveys, and interview some students. I stressed that I wanted students to behave as if I wasn’t in the class, hence earning my moniker, “the Invisible Man.”

I assumed the role of participant observer, immersing myself in their environment so that I can describe it in thick, rich descriptions (Merriam, 2009; Geertz, 1994). I considered myself a participant observer because I created the I-Search curriculum that the case study instructor implemented; that is, my experience creating and piloting the curriculum to my students inevitably influenced instruction. However, I limited my participation in the case study class although students were aware of my role of observer. I attended all class sessions except one for which I had a previous commitment, audio- recorded each session, and took copious notes during the entire I-Search unit.

The instructor or students occasionally asked me questions (addressed to my moniker “the invisible man”), and I answered them. I was very cognizant of my

relationship with participants since a “researcher who lacks sensitivity to demands in the lives of informants, or who holds fast to the comfortable distance of authority rather than becoming a learner in the culture, severely limits the nature of data and undermines research” (Athanases & Heath, 1995, p. 268). After a while, students adjusted to my

presence in the classroom and often came up to me during breaks and/or before or after class and engaged in conversations. I also saw students outside the classroom and engaged in conversations with them as well. These interactions allowed me to know the students as individuals and helped establish rapport that led to more frank and candid responses about the curriculum.

I used course documents to create observational protocol and began observing the course. To record my observations, I drew a line about ¾ of the way down the page, and recorded actual observations in the left column. Since I was looking mostly for elements of active engagement or disengagement, my observation focused more on students than on the instructor. In the right column, I recorded any early hunches or hypotheses about how I-Search instruction may affect students’ perceptions of the environment

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993, 1995; Lewin, 1935) and may lead to active engagement in the classroom: students’ interests, perceived self-efficacy, transferability and/or other themes I noticed. I also marked different elements from Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model (the microsystem, the mesosystem, or macrosystem) that may account for student behavior in the classroom; these early analyses facilitated the analysis of data. Once students left, I occasionally and quickly debriefed the case study instructor, asking him to share his perspective of some of the more salient features of the class and his rationales for those features. Immediately following the observation, I wrote an analytic memo to record my initial thoughts and hunches while engaging in rudimentary analysis (Merriam, 2009). For analytic memos, I began to expand on the hunches that I had made during the observation.

Surveys. At the end of the observation period, I distributed surveys to students about the I-Search assignment. The surveys were open-ended questions that the case study instructor graciously offered twenty-minutes of class time for students to answer (see Appendix 3). The questions were carefully crafted to (a) relate directly to and provide data that addressed research questions (Boudah, 2011) and (b) confirm observations and patterns I noticed in the observation portion. For example, since research question #2 states “How might students transfer and apply I-Search instruction to environments outside the basic skills English classroom?” I included a question about how I-Search instruction might prepare them for transfer-level English. Students were instructed that these surveys were informal, and the directions for the surveys included, “This survey will be more like a free-write than an organized response. Please write the first thing that comes to your mind after you look at each question. Your response to this survey can come in the form of sentences, lists, or any other method that expresses your ideas.”

Interview. Lastly, I used student interviews to strengthen the inferences about the culture of the case study class culture. To select interviewees, I used convenience sampling to interview three of the four student volunteers. All interviews were semi- structured, and before each interview, I created an interview guide with potential questions I could ask during the interview. As with the survey, the interview guide contained questions that related to (a) the research questions and (b) patterns and conclusions found through other forms of data (Boudah, 2011; see Appendix 4 for the complete interview guide). However, I retained flexibility in the order and the amount of

time for each question. For example, if a student was providing valuable information that related directly to one of the research questions, I encouraged the student to develop that idea further, even if that meant not asking every question. The interviews were

conducted at a local coffee shop and lasted no more than 30 minutes each. As such, interviews triangulated data from several different sources and perspectives, thus increasing the strength and validity of my findings.

Since I interviewed the instructor several times throughout the semester, and since there was only one instructor, the interviews were less structured than those with

students. During instructor interview, I asked him questions related to the rudimentary findings of the study so that he could either verify them or I could reconsider findings. Further, the instructor interview allowed me to tap into what Athanases and Heath (1995) call “wisdom of practice,” or “acts of reflection that reveal teacher thinking” (273) which helped me frame and analyze the data. Since I knew the case study instructor before the study, we already had a professional and personal relationship, and I feel I had greater flexibility to pursue even “uncomfortable” topics that outside researchers might not have access to.

Data Analysis

As is typical of qualitative research, I engaged in a systemic process of analyzing data to make sure that no essential data was ignored and the most salient features were emphasized (Merriam, 2009). I searched for patterns within the data that I used to infer the culture of the case study classroom. I looked for themes (or codes) that were repeated frequently and from various sources that defined the desired behavior within the

classroom. I also looked for instances when behavior is approved and encouraged in class as well as instances of when behavior is discouraged (Kuh, 1990). This further allowed me to infer how the culture of the case study site may affect individual students, thus determining how the case study culture either encourages or detracts from learning. Epoch (or bracket). In order to make sure that the results of this study represent the culture of the environment and not my beliefs, I engaged in epoch, or the process of bracketing my personal beliefs, prejudices, and assumptions about the culture so that I can diminish its influence and to focus more intently on the actual culture itself

(Merriam, 2009; Cresswell, 2013). Since I created the I-Search unit in this study, I have a strong bias to see it be successful; however, this strong bias made me overcompensate and purposely look for evidence that contradicts its validity. By bracketing, I was able to acknowledge these personal biases and to focus more intently on the culture itself.

Rudimentary coding during data collection. While writing both interview and observation notes, I began rudimentary data analysis by creating a three or four inch margin on the right side of the notes, writing actual observations in the left column, and recording my early hunches and hypotheses in the right column (Merriam, 2008). As I was taking observation notes, I looked for evidence of an ecologically rich learning environment (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem) that may influence students’ perceptions of the classroom and affect their engagement (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993, 1995). I then wrote notes about these inferences to the right of the actual observation notes so that I could easily make the connection between evidence and the inferences I made. This early analysis gave me a focus for future

observations and aided in the identifying of patterns that can constitute program and class culture.

Analytic memo. Directly after each observation period and interview, I wrote an analytic memo to expand on the rudimentary analysis during data collection. In the analytic memo, I first reviewed my observation notes and the rudimentary analysis created during the observation period and expanded on them. I then strove to engage in synthesis, uniting disparate forms of data together and placing the data into

Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993, 1995) Ecological Model of Human Development. This synthesis of current with past data gave me an even greater focus as I collected more data that began to account for the formation of an emerging culture.

Transcription as analysis. As I transcribed the interviews and observations, I began to analyze the data as well by keeping both my interview and observation notes by me so that I could record elements of body language or other non-verbal cues not evident in the recording. I was able to write notes in brackets to be able to notate the body language and/or tone that accompanied each comment (Ochs, 1979). I also added comments to record any early, rudimentary codes I made on interview and observation guides. This allowed me to unite both the transcript and notes in a way that captured the culture with thick descriptions (Geertz, 1994). Further, this process also helped me create student surveys and interview guides, thus triangulating the data from multiple sources.

Coding. As is true of qualitative research, I first gleaned the data for strong statements that presented a description of the culture (Cresswell, 2013). During this process, I strove to view all the data equally by numbering the participants so that I could

not tell what comment came from which participant. I started to look for common patterns and inserted them into themes, or clusters of meaning, that provided glimpses of the department and class culture. Lastly, I engaged in horizontalization, or the

presentation of the data into a matrix (Merriam, 2009), so that I could view all the data objectively without giving any piece of data greater weight than another. I further highlighted the different methods of collection—observation, survey, interview,

document—in order to aid in the triangulation of data. From here, I began to insert data into an ecological model that accounted for the culture of both the case study department and class.

It was during coding when the culture of the program and case study site emerged from the data. As the researcher, I strove to ensure that the inferences I made about classroom culture were supported by several sources of data: artifacts, survey, interview, and observation. Once an element of the culture emerged from the data, I member- checked with participants to compare their perspective with my interpretation. As a result, I was able to determine that the results of this study are more representative of the participants and less of my own biases as a researcher.

Validity

Given that, “To have any effect on either the practice or the theory of a field, research studies must be rigorously conducted; they need to present insights and conclusions that ring true to readers, practitioners, and other researchers” (Merriam, 2009, p. 210), the current study utilized the following strategies and techniques to make the findings as strong, valid, and reliable as possible. To strengthen validity, that is, the

extent to which the results of this finding represent the culture of the environment (Merriam, 2009), I first triangulated the data. Whenever I inferred a characteristic of the case study culture from one source of data, I sought a second, third, or more sources of data to confirm that finding; if, for example, I had observed that an element of I-Search instruction can be transferred to other environments, I looked for a similar finding in survey and/or interview data to corroborate this finding. I also triangulated data at different points of time in the observation, thus determining how lessons developed over time (also see Bronfenbrenner’s (1995) idea of chronosystem.) This ensured that the observation wasn’t an anomaly but rather a reflection of the case study culture.

Further, I sought to verify a hunch with past research. Bogdan and Biklan (2011) suggest that qualitative researchers often consult the literature during analysis to see how other researchers have analyzed similar data. I used the past research to both situate my findings for the current study (Athanases & Heath, 1995) and as models of data analysis. However, I was cognizant of the fact that each environment constructs knowledge differently (Bess & Dee, 2008), and I was sure to place the greater emphasis on the data from the current case study over what other researchers found.

Another strategy I used to strengthen the validity was member checking, or the verification of findings with participants. Whenever I transcribed an interview, I sent it to the interviewee to make sure that the contents reflect the interviewee’s beliefs and perspective. If an interviewee wanted to revise any part of the interview transcript (which one interviewee chose to do), I used the revision as the final version. I also member-checked the observations I made during the I-Search class with the instructor

and students. I asked participants for their interpretation of the classroom events and then compared them to my interpretation, revising my interpretation in the case of

discrepancies. I also ran my findings by other basic skills instructors at Pine College and my dissertation committee, in order to determine their perspective of the findings.

I also used a variety of other strategies to increase validity. For instance, I observed the course for ten weeks, ensuring that my findings are a result of patterns within instruction rather than abnormal occurrences. Whenever possible, I offered thick, rich descriptions of the classroom setting and participants’ responses so that readers can compare my interpretation of the results with the data. I involved the members of my dissertation committee with my analysis, drawing upon their expertise and authority to make my results more valid. I also used maximum variation sampling for instructor interviews so that I could determine if the descriptions of the culture I inferred from the data accurately portrayed the actual culture and not the idiosyncrasies of the interviewee. Conclusion

Chapter 3 presented an overview of the ethnographic case study methodology for this dissertation. The case study methodology allowed me to describe the culture of the case study environment with thick, rich descriptions (Geertz, 1994). By using

ethnographic techniques, I was able to obtain an insider’s perspective of the case study class’ culture that allowed me to capture the convergence of students’ lives with I-Search instruction. This methodology allowed me to paint a picture of basic skills English and I- Search instruction at the case study site so that other readers can empathize with

participants. This, in turn, allowed readers to determine which elements of the case study may be implemented at their institutions.

Chapter 4

FINDINGS, OR AN ECOLOGICALLY RICH LEARNING ENVIRONMENT The findings of this chapter present my description of the basic skills English culture at Pine College and a case study course that adopts my I-Search curriculum. (In order to protect the identities of participants, pseudonyms replaced all names, including those of the community college, courses, the instructors, and students.) The findings answer the research questions below:

1. How does the case study classroom reflect the culture of the basic skills English program, especially the department mandated proficiency exam?

2. In what ways does I-Search instruction mediate teaching and learning in a basic skills English class?

a. How might students apply, internalize, and transfer I-Search instruction inside and outside the basic skills English classroom?

3. How can instructors scaffold I-Search instruction in order to meet students’ needs and lead to the development of academic literacy?

To answer these research questions, I first focused on the culture of English 60 and 70 instruction at the case study site. I surveyed instructors and used maximum variation sampling (Merriam, 2009) to interview three instructors: the survey and interview questions focused on three topics: challenges of basic skills students, instructors’ best practices, and the effects of the English 60 mandated proficiency exam on students, instructors, and instruction. For Part II, I immersed myself as a participant observer (in that I designed the I-Search curriculum being implemented) in a case study basic skills course that adopted my I-Search curriculum. I first trained the case study instructor in my I-Search curriculum, observed the case study class for ten weeks (27 hours), surveyed students (n=6 of 7, 86%), and interviewed the instructor and three students. The

methodology allowed me to describe the case study classroom with rich, thick descriptions.

I found that I-Search instruction contributed to a classroom culture that was ecologically rich (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993, 1995) and which I describe as a culture of engagement. In order to describe this culture, I found that an additional model, the Ecological Model of Student Engagement, was necessary to account for student engagement in the classroom culture.

In order to answer my research questions, I’ve organized this chapter into three parts: in part I, I focus on how I-Search instruction presents students with a relevant curriculum that can potentially address students’ challenges outside the classroom. In part II, I shift the focus to academic discourse and literacy by focusing on the academic student challenges that instructors perceive and how I-Search helps overcome these challenges with contextualized instruction. I end this chapter with suggested scaffolding (choosing and limiting a topic as well as finding and integrating sources) to help basic skills English practitioners incorporate I-Search (or research) instruction into basic skills courses.