Desempeño de los estudiantes en las Dimensiones

This study examined the process experienced when I engaged a group of teachers with me in a five-month professional study exploring issues of culture, race, and

language. Located within a Child Development program for children from three-to-five years of age encompassing 13 schools in a large suburban school district in the

southeastern United States, the questions guiding the research were:

 What happens when a school administrator and teachers of three- four- and five-year-old children engage in long-term professional study designed to explore issues of culture, race, and language?

 What is the role of the administrator in this process?

 What challenges are met?

 How are those challenges negotiated?

 How is the experience reflected in day-to-day life in the classrooms,

particularly as it relates to supporting children’s positive literate identities? The study utilized tenets of ethnography as well as some aspects of critical ethnography and autoethnography as foundational to the research design. Data were collected from June through December 2010 in a range of contexts related to a 13-

classroom, nine-site public school child development program. Those contexts were: two whole faculty Inservice meetings (attended by 13 teachers, one from each of the child

development classrooms and me, the program administrator), monthly Diversity Group meetings (attended by three teachers who were the study’s focal participants, as well as three other teachers and me), monthly Focal Group meetings (attended by the three focal participant teachers and me), approximately once a month One-to-Onemeetings (often spontaneous and informal meetings between me and each focal participant), my monthly visits and observations in the classrooms of the focal participants, and visits in the home and community settings of some of the center’s students by me and the focal participants. Video and audiotape, still photographs, observational/field notes, and written reflections were used to collect data. Formal and informal interviews were conducted with teachers, children, and family members. Data were analyzed using a pattern analysis process. Details of this methodology are described in the sections below prefaced by a section describing basic tenets of qualitative and ethnographic work and why those

methodologies supported this research.

Why Qualitative Research?

Depending on the era of study, qualitative research has been described in various ways. Denzin and Lincoln’s (2005) generic description offers a helpful definition as I conducted research in naturalistic settings. Denzin and Lincoln offer that:

Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to the self. At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. (p. 3)

Guided by this interpretive stance, qualitative methodologies allowed me to better understand what happens when a school administrator engages teachers in long-term professional study for several reasons. Foundationally, qualitative methods allowed me “to investigate the processes of interactions, to understand how they occurred, and to analyze how individuals’ own cultures and dispositions play a role in shaping those processes” (Rex, Stedman & Graciano, 2006, p. 744). These were all essential elements in my research that sought to understand a professional development experience

grounded in issues of culture, race, and language. I used the work of Hatch (2002) to outline further characteristics of my study that were qualitative in nature. Hatch wrote that qualitative studies take place in natural settings, foreground participant perspectives, view the researcher as the data gathering instrument, involve extended firsthand

engagement, are grounded in centrality of meaning, are inclusive; complex and critical, establish rapport and subjectivity, are responsive to emergent design, and are reflexive in nature. These characteristics as they relate to this research are described below.

Natural Settings

When studying participants in their natural setting the researcher commits to looking at people in the real world and how things naturally occur as they go about living day-to-day (Denzin, 1997; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Hatch, 2002) as well as

understanding how people make sense of that world (Hatch, 2002). Bogdan and Biklen (1992) advocate that “a good physical setting to study is one that the same people use in a recurring way” (p. 63). This study took take place in settings connected to the Child Development Center that I administered, including inter-related communities within and beyond it - classrooms, professional development areas, and families’ homes and

communities. Representative of a large part of my day-to-day life as well as the day-to- day lives of teachers, families, and children who were involved in the study, the Center provided a natural setting for this research.

Participant Perspectives

Drawing from the advice of qualitative methodologists, this study sought participants’ perspectives as its foundation by asking questions such as: “What is

happening here?” “What [does this] mean to the participants? (Hatch, 2002, p. 7) “What are the major events in this social situation?” and “Which participants or actors

participate in which events?” (Spradley, 1980, p. 81). In this way, the use of qualitative methods required that the voices of my participants were to be heard throughout the study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Hatch, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). What matters to the actors or participants in this study also is of primary interest to the researcher (Hatch 2002). In this study, participant perspectives were critical as they made it possible for me to understand what was happening as we explored issues of language, culture, and race together and as we constructed our understanding of how to support students’ positive literate identities.

Researcher as Data Gathering Instrument

Unlike quantitative data that are drawn from testing or other measuring devices, qualitative researchers rely mostly on themselves to obtain data and interpret it.

Qualitative researchers record field notes or use audio or videotape to capture phenomena which are later transcribed and analyzed, embracing a humanistic approach that suggests that people have the ability to make sense of the data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Hatch, 2002; Spradley, 1980). As Spradley (1980) writes, “all human beings use their perceptual

skills to gather information about social situations” (p.56). Goodwin and Goodwin (1996) further remind us that, due to the fact that the researcher is constantly making decisions about what information to collect, as well as how data are analyzed, he/she is the

instrument and the role is “pervasive, continuing, and expansive” (p. 111). In this study, the role of the researcher was critical to every aspect of the work: The researcher was a primary participant in the study and analyzed data and interpreted findings through a theoretically – and personally – driven lens. Because of this, my role and my biases as researcher are described in detail later in this chapter.

Extended Firsthand Engagement

Hatch (2002) along with others (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1996; Wolcott, 1992) believe that to truly capture the ideas and beliefs of participants or to gain insights in answer to the question that guides a study, the researcher must spend an extended amount of time in the natural setting. In fact, Hatch (2000) proposed that “extended engagement continues to be one of the hallmarks of high-quality qualitative work” (p. 8). Dyson and Genishi (2005) expanded this notion by suggesting that researchers engage in

observations “intentionally and closely over time” (p. 42). While Dyson and Genishi (2005) admitted that the exact length of time it takes to get to know something well is arbitrary, Hatch (2002) suggested that many qualitative studies usually encompass a year or longer. This study spanned the first five months of the school year and followed a two- year informal pilot study. Thus, the extended period and daily firsthand engagement were characteristics that made qualitative methodology appropriate for this research because I was involved in the research site on a daily basis functioning as both participant and researcher.

Centrality of Meaning

Dyson and Genishi (2005) suggested that meaning making is central to

qualitative studies because researchers seek to understand how participants make sense or meaning through interactions in their everyday life. Centrality of meaning then is

grounded in the notion that meaning is socially constructed. This concept was critical to my study as I sought to understand how administrators and teachers constructed

understandings about issues of culture, race, and language and utilized related insights that generated classroom practices that supported the growth of students’ literate identities.

Inclusive, Complex, and Critical

Qualitative studies are inclusive, complex, and critical in that they strive to include voices that have been otherwise silenced or may have been overlooked.

Qualitative methodologies are charged to take into consideration multiple points of view and capture detailed descriptions that will help to understand lived experience.

Qualitative studies are not reduced to the sum of parts but are rather studied as they are positioned in the larger picture. Each setting studied is unique based on the people and interactions that comprise it (Dyson & Genishi, 2005; Eisner & Peshkin, 1990; Hatch, 2000). My study was inclusive, complex and critical because it considered multiple perspectives and did not only focus on professional development or solely on classroom practices, but it served to follow teachers full circle from professional development to classroom practice. In addition, the study created spaces to invite the voices of teachers, students and families.

Emergent Design

Although many qualitative studies begin with a set of questions and an idea of how to begin the study, the research is open to the possibility of emergent design. As the data are collected and analyzed, questions may change and/or new ones emerge. Methods too may change as the study unfolds to include other ways of data collection or design (Dyson & Genishi, 2005; Hatch, 2000). Although my study began with a set of research questions and methods, and a solid plan and timeline, I remained open to how the data shaped the work. I did this by studying and reflecting on data each week and determined whether or not new questions needed to be asked (of participants and myself) or if new kinds of data needed to be considered to deepen and clarify my understanding of “what was happening” in this professional development experience.

Reflexive in Nature

Hand-in-hand with the need for an emergent design is the need for regular reflections on the part of the researcher and the participants. Goodall (2000) suggests that reflexivity is “the process of personally and academically reflecting on lived experiences in ways that reveal deep connections between the writer and his or her subject” (p. 137). Hatch (2000) offers the idea that reflexivity is what separates some quantitative from qualitative researchers and what constitutes quality qualitative studies. In qualitative work, researchers are required to acknowledge their emotions and biases as part of the lens through which they develop the study, collect and analyze data (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). Doucet & Mauthner (2002) believe that reflexivity is significant “to issues of honesty, transparency and overall accountability in research” (p. 125). The position I held as administrator and researcher necessitated the need for me to be consistently reflexive.

It was critical that I considered my own biases and was cognizant of the effect my position had on the teachers, students and families and their participation in the study.

Ethnographic Elements of This Work

For the reasons described in the previous section, this study was qualitative in its methodology. As a qualitative researcher, I drew from basic tenets of two forms of qualitative work: (a) critical ethnography and (b) autoethnography.

Ethnography and critical ethnography. While my study was not a true

ethnography in the anthropological sense (it was not long-term immersion in a particular cultural setting), it was in many ways ethnography-like in that I studied a range of cultural settings in which I was deeply involved and learned about, with, and from, the participants in these settings (Spradley, 1980). Wolcott (2008) has long described the field of educational ethnography as including cultural settings close to researcher’s personal and professional worlds. In that sense, while this was not a long-term study in which the researcher is immersed in a particular community’s culture for many years, it was a study of the culture of professional development as experienced by teachers and an administrator over a five month period of time in settings very much a part of my

personal and professional worlds.

Dyson and Genishi (2005) provide a framework that I used to conceptualize the ethnographic elements of this study. Their ethnographic approach to research suggests that it is important to “get to know one thing well” (p. 42). Drawing from this tenet, in this study, I focused on the experiences of teachers and one administrator as we worked together to explore issues of race, culture, and language and considered teaching

possible: Our work with each other and in our One-to One meetings, Focal Group meetings, Diversity Meetings and whole faculty Professional Development /Inservice meetings, our work with children, and our associations with families and community members.

Dyson and Genishi (2005) point out another characteristic of ethnographies that was also characteristic of this study: While it is important to develop research questions to guide the design of the study, they should not restrict nor constrain it. During the course of this study, it was vital that the research remained open to the patterns and themes that emerged; and therefore was open to the need to revise questions, aspects of questions, methods or settings for data collection.

Critical ethnography is a form of ethnographic study that gives particular attention to missing voices and recognizes issues of power, hegemony, and social inequities, but ultimately “begins with the critical consciousness of the researcher” (Willis, et al., 2008, p. 50). This was particularly vital to my study as I engaged with teachers in professional conversations regarding culture, race and language and how we served to perpetuate or interrupt the existing notion of what is right and normal. The use of critical ethnography supported the critical lens I used throughout this study.

Autoethnography. If, as the research suggests, we must self-reflect to further our

understanding of others (Howard, 2006; Nieto & Bode, 2008), my understanding of autoethnography prompted me to draw from it as essential to this study. Autoethnography provides a way of recording both the process of self-reflection while simultaneously studying the culture within which we administer and teach (Chang, 2008), both important elements of my research.

Like ethnography, autoethnography comes from anthropology studies but it differs from traditional ethnography in several ways. In ethnographic studies, the researcher positions herself as part of the culture she is studying, but often does not include herself in the study (Ellis, 2004). Autoethnography focuses explicitly on the researcher’s role and its influence in the actual study. As Ellis (2004) explained, “in autoethnography, we’re usually writing about epiphanies in our lives and in doing so, we open ourselves up for criticism about how we’ve lived. You become your stories to your readers, and to yourself” (p.33).

Just as there are some differences between traditional ethnography and

autoethnography, it is also important to delineate differences between autoethnography and autobiography. Some researchers use autobiography as part of their autoethnographic studies (Pennington, 2007), but it differs in that, in autoethnographies, personal histories are not only recorded but analyzed (Ellis, 2004) and considered just as important to findings as other data. Ellis (2004) wrote:

Essentially, reflexive/narrative ethnographies focus on a culture or subculture and authors use their life story in that culture to look more deeply at self-other interactions. This approach offers insight into how the researcher changed as a result of observing others. The researcher’s personal experience is also important for how it illuminates the culture under study. (p. 46)

According to Chang (2008) the benefits to autoethnography are three fold: 1. It offers a research method friendly to researchers and readers; 2. It enhances cultural understanding of self and others; and

3. It has potential to transform self and others to motivate them to work toward cross-cultural coalition building (p. 52).

These benefits were important to me as a researcher who documented the process of how an administrator and teachers journeyed together through professional development experience and how that understanding informed classroom practices supportive of students’ positive literate identities.

I came to autoethnography with experiences from a mini-study that I conducted in a course on sociocultural theory. During this experience, I brought forward all my

assumptions and preconceived notions regarding the setting for my study – the cultural home and community in which I was to immerse myself (in this case an Asian Indian family). As I sought to understand this particular family and their culture I

simultaneously explored my own bias, cultural self, and insecurities. As I analyzed the data, I included an analysis of my reflections and their connection analytically to the other data. As I wrote, each informed the other. This micro-study was as much or more about discovering who I was and recording my transformations than it was about learning more about another culture, albeit a mere glimpse of that culture.

Research Design

In the summer of 2008, two years prior to the initiation of this study, as the administrator of the Saddle Creek Region Child Development program (pseudonym) in a public school district, I initiated a series of professional development sessions with the thirteen teachers in that program. Together, we began to study issues of identity development, and linguistic and cultural marginalization. We started with a focus on language development and learning about home and school literacies to foster our

understanding of language and literacy acquisition (Appendix A). We continued the study into the school year using the district’s five inservice days. Because schools in our district

are site-based, I had the autonomy to decide how those days would be used. Seeking to learn more in the area of diversity, five teachers and I created a small diversity group and tied it into our goals-based plan for the next five years.

In our district, Goals Based Evaluations (GBE’s) are part of the evaluation process (Appendix B) for teachers who are expected to develop professionally in ways that meet their individual and school needs. Teachers create their own professional goals that span a minimum of one year and the maximum of five years. As a result of our inservice experiences studying issues of diversity, six teachers in the program and I decided that our professional goals would include continued learning in that area. So we created a diversity group and tied it into our goals-based plan for the next five years. We