CONCLUSIONES - PROSPECTIVA

In part I of this literature review, I examined the literature about Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993, 1995) Ecological Model of Human Development, a unifying theory of cognitive development that accounts for the developmental interactions between the individual and the environment. In this model, the developing individual, which has developmentally instigative characteristics (DICs) that either induce or inhibit

engagement in the environment, engages with the microsystem (or the direct environment in which development is occurring) in ways that progressively increase in complexity. Bronfenbrenner posits that other environments, including the mesosystem (or outside environments in which the developing individual also interacts), the exosystem (or environments in which the developing individual is not present but influence behavior in the microsystem nonetheless), and macrosystem (or the most distal environment that includes culture and subculture and provides the values, beliefs and norms that dictate behavior in the microsystem) also influence behavior in the microsystem. Further, Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1993, 1995) stresses that it is not the environment as it exists in reality but rather how it is perceived by the developing individual which influences development.

In part II of this literature review, I examined the literature about the traditional basic skills curriculum to conclude that the traditional basic skills English classroom presents students with an ecologically weak learning environment in which students too

often fail to make connections between the classroom (or microsystem) and the many other environments (or the mesosystem) with which they also interact. Students are more likely to view the classroom negatively and less likely to engage with the environment to

Macrosystem Mesosystem Microsystem Developing Student Class- mates Class- mates Class- mates Class- mates Instructor N N V V N N C C

Figure 6. Synthesis of Research on Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993, 1995) Ecological Model of Human Development

the extent that is necessary for development (Kuh, 2008). In an ecologically weak environment, students slog through instruction, doing the barest minimum to receive a passing grade without much enjoyment (Cox, 2009) or sense of achievement (Asera, 2006).

In part III of this literature review, I will conduct the second part of my I-Search curriculum and write about a solution to the problems associated with traditional basic skills instruction. If the traditional basic skills curriculum can be described as

ecologically weak, then an I-Search curriculum has the potential to create an ecologically rich environment. In my model (see Figure 6), which synthesizes the research on basic skills English instruction1, the student begins the course extrinsically motivated to receive a passing grade and achieve his/her educational goal in the least amount of time

necessary (Cox, 2009). However, given that I-Search allows students to choose problems (or topics) that they are either currently experiencing or feel passionate about (Macrorie, 1988), students are more likely to form a strong mesosystem connection between the basic skills English classroom and college, work, home, and/or community environments with which students also interact. This mesosystem connection is likely to present students with a genuine and authentic need to not only write their I-Search papers but also solve their problem(s), so students are more likely to perceive the classroom positively and actively engage with it to the extent necessary for the development of academic literacy (please see the blue arrows in Figure 6; Macrorie, 1985; Ballenger,

1 _{Although the model presented in Figure 6 is linear, I do not mean to suggest that students’ interactions}

with the basic skills English classroom is linear. Instead, I see them as recursive and holistic, and I present my model linearly for ease of explanation only.

2009; Dewey, 1913; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). Students can then direct that active engagement toward the microsystem, where students can engage in dialogic (Freire, 2011) and collaborative learning (Bruffee, 2002; Vygotsky, 1978). These interactions can then validate students’ experiences in an academic setting (Rendon, 1994) as well as increase their competence (Elliot, MacGregor, & Thrash, 2002) and perceived self- efficacy (Bandura, 1997; please see purple arrows in Figure 6). As such, an I-Search curriculum is more likely to present academic literacy in a way that encourages the active engagement necessary for internalization and transfer of instruction to other

environments (Kuh, 2008; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

In this section, I will first examine some of the theory and research about how adults learn and then explain how I-Search aligns with this theory and research. Then I’ll examine the literature about I-Search to determine what researchers have found when an I-Search curriculum is implemented in real-life situations. This section will conclude with the finding that the current research done on I-Search includes more promising practices, that is, practices that make intuitive sense and may have received a great amount of success but has yet to be tested by rigorous research (Quint, et al., 2013; Muchmore, et al., 2001); the current study can extend this literature by examining an I- Search unit using a rigorous, ethnographic case study methodology.

The Developing Individual, or the Direction of Developmentally Instigative Characteristics

As argued previously, DICs are the individual’s characteristics which either inhibit or encourage engagement in the microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). However,

Bronfenbrenner cautions that DICs do not cause development but rather “put a spin” on development already occurring; that is, DICs can either cause a faster spin (and greater engagement) or slow the spin (and lessen engagement). Bronfenbrenner (1979) also argues that behavior is not influenced by the environment as it exists in reality but rather how it is perceived by the developing individual. I will then argue that the more students perceive mesosystem connections between the basic skills English classroom and other environments with which they interact, the more positively they perceive the classroom, and the more they will engage with instruction. I’ll first examine the research about students’ DICs in the traditional classroom which research describes as vocational in nature (Cox, 2009; Andrejack, 2011; CCCSSTF, 2011; Masse, 2009). I will then argue that the structure of I-Search instruction is conducive to extending students’ DICs beyond vocational goals toward personal problems they are experiencing and/or issues they feel passionate about (Macrorie, 1985). Students are more likely to perceive strong

mesosystem connections that can positively influence students’ perception of the environment and lead to greater engagement in the classroom.

DICs in Traditional Basic Skills English Courses. In the traditional basic skills classroom, research has found that the strongest DICs that students bring to the classroom are vocational; students pursue a college education in order to achieve an occupational goal and/or career (Cox, 2009; Andrejack, 2011; CCCSSTF, 2011; Masse, 2009). For instance, Cox (2009) describes how only two of the over 100 community college students she interviewed expressed an educational goal other than vocation. Cox continues to explain that because community college students sacrifice money they could make in the

short-term for greater money and job satisfaction in the long term, they want to learn something useful for their future careers. When students perceive that their class is irrelevant to their career goals, they become instrumental and determine the barest minimum they need to do to obtain their required grade (usually a “C”). Cox further argues that these students believe that college is not something enjoyable but rather something to be “slogged” through, thus negatively influencing students’ perception of the classroom.

Community college students at the beginning of the semester may have the same orientation that Cox (2009) observed, that they are attending college to achieve some kind of vocational goal. However, the structure of the I-Search paper may encourage students to expand this initial purpose and make connections between instruction and personal and/or home problems they are experiencing, between instruction and community problems, between instruction and college challenges. I-Search has the potential to tap into even more of students’ DICs and direct them toward active engagement (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). Students are then more likely to perceive the writing classroom as relevant to their situation and engage more actively with instruction (Gay, 2002), thus leading to the achievement of learning outcomes (Kuh, 1990, 2008, 2009), internalization, and transfer of instruction (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

Profile of Basic Skills Students. Given that students’ DICs can determine the extent to which they engage with the classroom environment, I will present a profile of basic skills students in order to infer what some of their DICs may be. With this profile, I will attempt to describe the most salient student characteristics described by the literature.

However, in reality, basic skills students defy description; they range from students who should really be in transfer level courses but didn’t prepare for the assessment (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2010; Asera, 2006), to non-traditional students (Rendon, 2002; Rendon, Jalamo, & Nora, 2000; Ferdman, 1990; Attinasi Jr., 1989), and to second-language and generation 1.5 learners (Rodby, 1999; Pan, 2012; Johns, 2006). Since the I-Search model presented in this study draws so heavily on what students bring to the classroom, this profile will help me understand the challenges that basic skills students may experience and how an I-Search assignment may relate to those challenges. The literature review will further help me better understand the assets (or strengths) that students bring to the classroom that can serve as a foundation for instruction (Boykin & Noguera, 2011).

The research paints a picture of many basic skills students as non-traditional and the first in their family to attend college, and as non-traditional students, they lack access to the resources, especially others, who can help them navigate and negotiate the college transition. Without access to these resources, students often have to go through the sometimes complex process of matriculation and attending class without the benefit of outside help (Astin, 1993; Tinto, 1987, 2006). Further, Cox suggests that community college students sometimes are fearful that they may not be cut out to be successful college students; they may form a false perception of college culture, attach a negative stigma to receiving help, and try to navigate the college experience on their own.

Resisting help, students may be more prone to obstacles and barriers that divert students’ attention away from college and can lead to drop out. With an I-Search paper, though,

instructors can introduce students to the nature of academic culture that can directly confront students’ false perception. The I-Search paper can then introduce students to the dialogic nature of knowledge (Freire, 2011) and how knowledge is created by teams of people collaborating (Graf & Birkenstein, 2007). Basic skills students can change their perception of seeking help from one of weakness to one of strength.

As research suggests, basic skills community college students tend to be low- income and experience significant barriers to college completion (Tinto, 2006; Moore & Shulock, 2010; Nevarez & Wood, 2010). Low income students often have priorities outside the classroom, including personal, family and work responsibilities, that can often pull them away from college (Gillett & Steffy, 2000; Tinto, 2006; Shulock & Moore, 2010; Quint, Jaggars, Byndloss, & Magazinnik, 2013; Rendon, 1994; Sternglass, 1997; Masse, 2009). For example, in a case study of college leavers from LaGuardia

Community College, Gillett and Steffy (2000) suggest that “The picture of student life that emerges from the interviews with students is a schedule crowded with too many classes coupled with too many job and family responsibilities” (24); in fact, the researchers reported that 30% of students report financial reasons and 27% report personal reasons as the cause for leaving college. Andrejack (2011) adds to this by finding that pressure from different environments, including other college courses, work, family, and organizations, contributes mesosystem pressures that can pull students away from the classroom.

The research paints a picture of students struggling with the work-family-college balance (Grubb & Gabriner, 2013); this struggle becomes even greater when the customs

and culture of college seem foreign to students. However, an I-Search curriculum can present students with an opportunity to examine these problems in the course of their classwork. Students can begin to perceive a genuine need to apply the conventions and values of academic culture to their problem and/or issue. This genuine need can lead students to perceive the classroom environment as more relevant and lead to greater engagement and achievement of learning outcomes (Kuh, 1990, 2008, 2009). In other words, students are doing more than just writing an I-Search paper; they are also learning strategies to overcome problems they experience.

Basic Skills Students’ Assets. Basic skills students bring many assets (or strengths and competencies) that instructors can tap into and use as a foundation for instruction (Gonzalez et al., 1995; Gay, 2002; Boykin & Noguera, 2011). For instance, Gonzalez, et al. (1995) reported how four teachers, in collaboration with researchers, became ethnographers, examining the households of their students. Each teacher chose three students to serve as case studies, and then visited each student a minimum of three times—observing the home, distributing surveys, and conducting interviews—kept field notes and a personal journal, and shared and collaboratively analyzed the data in labs. The researchers found that, contrary to the belief that low SES homes are void of

knowledge, students’ households have abundant and diverse funds of knowledge, “those historically developed and accumulated strategies (skills, abilities, ideas, practices) or bodies of knowledge that are essential to a household’s functioning and well-being” (pp. 446-447). These funds of knowledge are socially created based on a sense of confianza (or mutual trust) and exchanged to complete practical matters. This notion of funds of

knowledge contradicts the concept of multiculturalism that focuses on holidays, typical foods, and national artifacts which too often present a simplified and inadequate picture of students’ cultures. Funds of knowledge are a classroom resource that too few

instructors and teachers tap into.

Basic skills students, especially younger students, tend to have proficiencies in technology that instructors can draw upon. Prensky (2001) calls these students digital natives, students who have grown up with new technology—“computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age” (p. 1)—and argues that technology has changed the ways that digital natives think and behave. For instance, Ito, et al. (2010) describe how youth join affinity groups (also see Gee, 2000) through the use of technology—which the authors call the “genre of participation.” Through the use of technology, digital natives “lurk” around web forums and “geek around” to gain a deeper understanding of a topic that interests them. Since the web allows great amounts of knowledge that can be conjured up at a moment’s notice, digital natives have developed skills to quickly sift through this information to determine what meets their needs and purposes (see also Wagner, 2008). However, as Prensky points out, digital natives struggle when they are thrust into a traditional classroom learning environment which doesn’t utilize technology. Consequently the current study will determine how an I-Search curriculum can utilize technology that taps into students’ assets and strengths; students can then perceive an alignment between their home and academic cultures that can positively influence students’ perceptions of the

environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1993) and lead to greater engagement and the achievement of outcomes (Kuh, 2008, 2009).

Mesosystem, or Perceptions of Relevance and the Creation of Genuine Needs Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1993, 1995) defines the mesosystem as environments outside the direct environment with which the individual also interacts. In the college classroom, there can potentially be several mesosystem environments: other college courses, home environments, community environments, work environments, etc. Renn and Arnold (2003) see the mesosystem as a strong connection that can facilitate learning, and that the ease with which students can navigate between microsystems within a mesosystem determines the quality of their interactions. Because I-Search invites students to examine problems they are either experiencing or feel passionate about, students are more likely to bring outside environments into the basic skills English classroom, thus strengthening the mesosystem connection, positively influencing students’ perception of the classroom, and leading to active engagement.

In the next section I will use Cultural Relevance Theory (Gay, 2000) to infer how students may perceive I-Search instruction and the basic skills English classroom. Given that students are likely to make a connection between their I-Search paper and other environments with which they interact, they are more likely to perceive I-Search

instruction as relevant and experience a genuine need for instruction. This genuine need can then encourage students to combine those skills and competencies they already possess with instruction in order to not only write their I-Search paper but also solve their problems.

Culturally Relevant and Responsive Curriculum. Research suggests that a culturally relevant curriculum, a curriculum which can be responsive to the lived experience of students, can encourage active engagement (Gay, 2002; Knaus, 2012; Rendon, 1994; Gonzalez, et al., 1995). Gay (2002) argues that culturally responsive teaching “is based on the assumption that when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experience and frame of reference of students, they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly” (p. 106). Gay argues that teachers (and instructors) can use cultural scaffolding, instruction that is built upon the culture and students’ lived experience, to present a more responsive pedagogy. For example, Knaus (2012) describes how he uses responsive, voice centered teaching and dialogic instruction to help urban youth reflect on the violence in their communities and develop survival strategies. For student writing, Knaus would “constantly ask students to push deeper, to clarify exactly what they wished to share. [Knaus] demanded that students share raw words that they believed captured the depth, intricacies, and complexities they wanted to write about” (p. 138). With cultural scaffolding, students are likely to perceive an overlap between the basic skills classroom and other environments with which students interact, especially home and community environments, and perceive instruction as relevant to their lives. This greater engagement can push students to develop skills and strategies to interact with the

environment in ways that increase in complexity (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993, 1995). Culturally responsive instruction can also encourage students to develop

of the challenges and barriers that are impeding their success and then determine

solutions to those challenges (Knaus, 2012). For instance, Blackmon, a community based educator and founder of Leadership Excellence for Urban Youth, describes her pedagogy with the metaphor of the mirror: “When I’m at my very, very best I hold up a mirror to [students’] lives and say what do you think about that… And that’s it… then I give ‘em a mirror and I’m gone” (Watson, 2011, p. 44). This awareness of the problem can be crucial to students because they may be responding to the problem in ways they are not consciously aware of (Downing, 2010). A culturally relevant curriculum can encourage students to use their assets (Gay, 2002; Boykin & Noguera, 2011), such as funds of knowledge, the skills, abilities, ideas, and practices that allow students’ from middle- class and blue-collar households to survive and preserve a sense of well-being (Gonzalez, et al., 1995). Students can then apply these funds of knowledge to their problems in order to arrive at praxis, or humanizing action that can liberate students from oppression (Freire, 2011). This can allow students to approach their education from a position of strength rather than deficiency and creatively overcome any challenge they encounter.

If there is great diversity among basic skills students (Horner & Lu, 1999), how can instructors assign topics that are culturally relevant to all students? One answer may be found in inquiry-based learning, which is derived from the ideas of Dewey (1913) who encouraged both students and teachers to search for answers to authentic questions. Both inquiry-based learning and I-Search are based on the assumption that people are innately curious and have questions they need answered (Macrorie, 1988; Ballenger, 2009). As such, writing instructors can strive to create a classroom environment in which students

are empowered to pursue their knowledge inquiries. Instructors can encourage students