February « 2009 « FIN Commons

Some Tips For Interviewing

Posted by Sean McFarland on February 28, 2009 in Making Visible, Student Interviews, Student Voice with 1 Comment

Some Tips For Interviewing

Set up appointments well in advance. Be prepared for some people to flake out. It may take 2-3 attempts for you to land the interview.

Because your inquiry is about education, of course you will feel that your interviews should naturally take place in classrooms. But that doesn’t have to be the case. You can talk over lunch, in a park, or even at the interviewee’s house or place of work. Doing this will give your overall footage a sense of variety.

When picking interview spots, the most crucial thing you should do is to “scout” the location for its potential background audio problems. As a general rule, filming indoors will allow you to control your sound more, but there is something to be said for conducting the interview in an interesting outdoor locale, like near a river or on a balcony, etc. The key is to first determine if the background ambient sound will be a distraction or not.

When you do film in a classroom, take a few minutes to determine if the room has any interesting visual aspects that you can include in the scene. Maybe there are interesting “props” in the room, like maps or globes or science equipment. Our CTE schools have a great opportunity in this regard, because their classrooms are often such visually interesting places.

When interviewing listen carefully to what they say. That may seem obvious, but you would be surprised how often the interviewer is reading their own interview questions, or adjusting the camera, and in so doing, they don’t hear some important tidbit delivered by the interviewee that would make for a very powerful follow-up question.

Let them do the talking. This too may seem very obvious, but you would be amazed how easy it is for the interviewer to start in discussing the issue at hand with the interviewee, and next thing you know you have 30 minutes of footage in which the interviewer has talked for 20 minutes of it! (Or maybe I am just talking about myself here!)

Try to make the interview as comfortable as possible for both you and the interviewee. The more the process feels like a regular conversation—in which you are playing the part of attentive listener—the better. In other words, try not to cling too much to your “10 questions.” It can give the interview a kind of stilted or canned feel.

If the interviewee talks fast, or gets themself lost, or their answer peters out…it is perfectly OK to ask them to repeat themselves. Often their second attempt uncovers new aspects of their answer. Another tip is to rephrase your question if it feels like the interviewee is struggling a bit.

Once people warm up don’t be surprised if they don’t shut up. Don’t be surprised if they get off track. Find gentle ways to steer them back.

Group interviewing may work for you.

Consider showing your questions to the interviewee ahead of time. This allows them to focus in on where you are headed. (Interviewees WANT to do well.)

VERY IMPORTANT: Avoid posing YES/NO Style questions. It is MUCH harder to compose questions that are NOT yes/no in style, but obviously yes/no questions limit severely the interviewee. You will want to take the time to come up with more open-ended questions. You may notice that one strategy of seasoned interviewers is to not even really ASK questions. But rather they will frequently state their own premises or biases or hunches and ask the interviewee to comment on that. This may feel a bit like “leading the witness” but in our experience interviewees are very comfortable about—and capable of—supplying their own counter-hunch.

If your first 2-3 interviewees all give you more-or-less the same responses, try coming up with questions that create a little controversy.

Also, It’s perfectly fine to say, “John says ‘blah blah blah” about the topic. What is your response to that, Maria?”

Have fun…remember to breathe…

Cerritos College FIN Budget Feb 09

Posted by Jan Connal on February 28, 2009 in Revised Inquiry Plans with No Comments

Faculty Inquiry Network Budget

School Name: Cerritos College
Year 2009	Proposed Budget
	Hours	Hourly $	Amount
Faculty Release (%FTE)
Faculty Stipends	200	$50	$10000
Student Co-Inquirers	200	$10	$2000
Classified/Tech Assistance	80	$25	$2000
Benefits	12%		$1680
Supplies and Materials			$820
Team Retreats			$1100
Other	Student Recognition		$900
Total			$18500

Cerritos College Detailed Inquiry Plan Feb 09

Posted by Jan Connal on February 28, 2009 in Fear, Identity, Learning to Learn, Math, Metacognition, Pre/Post, Revised Inquiry Plans, Student Interviews, Student Voice, Surveys, Writing with No Comments

Summary of Inquiry

The Cerritos College inquiry project will combine two complementary collaborations to develop a deeper understanding about how developmental learners acquire the academic habits of mind needed to succeed in college. Too often, students at risk remain on the margins of the academic community and this project will investigate ways of moving them to the center. The Cerritos College team has a hunch that by improving meta-cognitive functioning and by understanding identity development, students can be helped to adopt a “learner identity,” acquire academic habits of mind, and improve their learning.

Team Leader:
Dr. Jan Connal / Counselor, Developmental Education Chair
562-860-2451 x 2143
jconnal@cerritos.edu

Team Members:
Cheryl Shimazu / Chemistry – Delete
Frank Mixson / English
Lydia Alvarez / English
Mojdeh Nikdel / Math
Marvelina Barcelo/ Counseling

Plans for Data Collection and Analysis

A. Zoom-Lens Data: Focusing on Students

Spring 2009

Instructional faculty will assess students’ metacognition, using a self-reported inventory of actions (included in our previous proposal), at both the beginning and end of the term for their sections of Math 40 (Pre-algebra), ENGL 20 (Basic Writing – two levels below Freshman Composition), and ENGL 52 (Intro to College Composition – one level below Freshman Composition). Likewise, they will also assess students’ Academic Habits of Mind, using a self-reported inventory of actions (included in our previous proposal).

Sustained, embedded metacognition skills-building classroom activities will be focused on increasing the following self-reported behavors:

MATH

1. When I do not understand something I ask for the help of others.

2. When I am solving a problem I ask myself questions in order to concentrate my attention on the problem.

ENGLISH:

1. While I am writing I wonder if I am communicating what I intend to communicate to my audience.

2. After I finish my work I know how well I performed on it even before it is evaluated.

Faculty will deliberately engage students in thinking and writing about the above behaviors; these reflections will be the basis of the FIG’s discussions at its biweekly meetings in March and April. Faculty will be using the reflections and discussions to better understand the development of metacognitive skills and construct a rubric to capture levels of functioning.

At the 6^th week of the term faculty will identify students at risk for dropping out or failing; these students will be invited to participate in a Counselor led focus group.

Counseling faculty will also examine the students’ self-reported actions from the initial administration of the two inventories (surveys) in the above classes and identify a cohort of “at risk” students for a videotaped focus group about their academic self-perceptions, attitudes, goals and behaviors (focus group protocol to be developed).

Student Co-investigators will conduct an in-class activity in other sections of MATH 40, ENGL 20 and ENGL 52 to capture student responses on video as they respond to prompts about their identity (prompts currently in development).

Fall 2009

Instructional faculty will again assess students’ metacognition, using a self-reported inventory of actions (included in our previous proposal), at both the beginning and end of the term for their sections of Math 60 (Pre-algebra), ENGL 20 (Basic Writing – two levels below Freshman Composition), and ENGL 52 (Intro to College Composition – one level below Freshman Composition). Likewise, they will also assess students’ Academic Habits of Mind, using a self-reported inventory of actions (included in our previous proposal).

Faculty will continue the sustained, embedded metacognition skills-building activities and reflections in class. Faculty will also incorporate the Student Focus Group video and the Identity video, developed from the Spring 09 investigation, into classroom instructional activities (i.e., using metacognition to understand identity issues around math) to generate student work products which the FIG will use to examine the relationship between metacognition and identity at its biweekly meetings.

At the 6^th week of the term faculty will use the metacognition rubric, developed Spring 09, to identify students who demonstrate minimal metacognitive skills; these students will be invited to participate in a Counselor led focus group. Counseling faculty will again examine the students’ self-reported actions from the initial administration of the two inventories (surveys) in the above classes and identify a cohort of “limited metacognition” students for a videotaped focus group about their academic identity, self-perceptions, attitudes, goals and behaviors (focus group protocol to be developed). This video will contribute to development of a “learner identity” rubric in Spring 10.

Student Co-investigators will again conduct an in-class activity in other sections of MATH 60, ENGL 20 and ENGL 52. This time, however, they will capture student responses on video as they respond to prompts about their Academic Habits of Mind (to be developed). This video will be used Spring 10 for instructional activities and also contribute to the development of the “learner identity” rubric.

B. Mid-Range Shots: Focusing on the Classroom

We will conduct a Lesson Study on a lesson given by Lydia Alvarez in ENGL 52 about the importance of “considering your audience” in communication. The classroom activity will basically engage students in writing to evoke a particular response attached to an opportunity for them to see if the intended response occurred. This lesson is directly related to our inquiry because of the metacognitive processes involved in thinking about what one intends, checking the response against what one intended and identifying improvements needed for achieving what on intends. This lesson study provides a unique opportunity to observe metacogniton in action and will inform our development of a metacognition rubric.

We will plan the lesson and identify each observer’s task at our April 14th FIG meeting. The in class lesson will be observed by Jan Connal, Frank Mixson, Mojdeh Nikdel and Marvelina Barcelo on April 22nd. The FIG will debrief and analyze data captured during the lesson on April 28th.

During the lesson observation, we will initially be looking for signs of student engagement and identifying the types and numbers of questions/comments exchanged between the instructor and students and between students. During the student activity portion of the class period, observers will be assigned a particular quadrant of the class to observe and will be noting students’ “metacognitive” statements (i.e., “I don’t think I did this right.”). Although we do not plan to video tape any portion of the Lesson Study, we will be using our observation notes and the students’ post-activity reflections for our debriefing and rubric building activities.

C. Wide-Angle Lens: Focusing on Trends in Institutional Data

The Institutional Research Office will supply Jan Connal the college Spring 09 MIS data in August, 2009. Jan will then compare the FIG sections with comparable sections (according to section duration and time of day offered) for initial enrollment, 1st census enrollment, retention and grade. Determining student persistence into Fall 09 can be determined in February 2010 once the Fall 09 MIS data has been supplied. Perhaps the institutional data will reveal a difference between the FIG sections and their comparison groups, but we do not believe valid conclusions could be drawn. Not only are our “interventions” in the formative stages (it would be too early in the implementation process), our inquiry is of a “thin slice” of learning and not course grade.

We could use coaching to find better ways of using institutional research, given the fact that we would be limited to using existing data (the IR office is seriously under-staffed and backlogged with other institutional priorities).

D. Additional Video Footage

Our student Co-investigators will be collecting video footage in three classes in Spring 09 and Fall 09. The Counseling faculty will be collecting video footage from two, possibly four, focus groups. Both of these activities will generate footage that is integral to our inquiry by providing direct student evidence for building our understanding of student metacognition, identity and academic habits of mind.

We are depending on FIN leadership for equipment and training to developed “finished” video to be used by instructional faculty in their classrooms and by the FIG in developing rubrics.

E. Inclusion of Student Voices

Students have been hired to conduct the in-class video activities. They will also play a role with the FIG faculty in identifying promising instructional and counseling activities for improving students’ Academic Habits of Mind.

Team Timeline/Calendar – Spring 09 & Summer 09

Feb 09 – Instructional faculty assess students metacognitive functioning and Academic Habits of Mind using the self-assessment inventories.

Feb – April 09 – FIG meets biweekly to examine student work and videotapes, collaborate on lesson plan, and develop a metacognition rubric.

March 09 – Student Co-investigators conduct classroom video activity in three classrooms.

March 09 – Student Co-investigators videotape Counselor led focus groups.

April 09 – FIG conducts Lesson Study in ENGL 52.

May 09 – Instructional faculty assess students metacognitive functioning and Academic Habits of Mind using the self-assessment inventories.

May 09 – End of the Semester Retreat to bring faculty and student investigators together for dialog and celebration.

June 09 – FIN Summer Institute

June – Aug 09 – Final editing of videos

Aug 09 – Analysis of the institutional research student performance data

College of Alameda Revised Budget 2/27/09

Posted by Scott Albright on February 27, 2009 in FIN Grant Logistics, Proposals, Revised Inquiry Plans with No Comments

Line Item	Description	Cost
Scott Albright, Diesel Mechanics instructor and Project Lead	120 hours at $35/hr	$4,200
Fred Marks, Automotive Technology instructor	90 hours at $35/hr	$3,150
Claudia Abadia, Math instructor	90 hours at $35/hr	$3,150
Jane Purinton, Business Instructor	90 hours at $35/hr	$3,150



Benefits for faculty	8.0%	$1,092


Indirect costs		$2,758

Total costs		$17,500

Student Co-Inquirers	FIN provides additional funds	$975
Benefits for Students	1.60%	$16

Student videographer	Paid through college	$0

College of Alameda Plans for Data Collection and Analysis

Posted by Scott Albright on February 27, 2009 in Basic Skills in Context, Revised Inquiry Plans, Student Interviews, Student Voice, Using Institutional Research with 1 Comment

A. Zoom-Lens Inquiry: Focusing on Students

1) What data will you gather and analyze on individual students? (e.g. student work, self-reflections, interviews, videotaped think-aloud’s or problem-solving) All the above.

2) How do you imagine this data will help you understand the problem/issue you’re investigating? In other words, how does the data connect to and inform the overall focus of your inquiry? Some team members feel that we should narrow our focus of basic skills and not include all basic skills, as the scope of basic skills overall is too broad. If we are to approach this issue in this fashion, then we have to first determine what areas the students are most needy in.

3) When and how will you collect this data? (e.g. Which classes will you target? Where will you conduct interviews or think-alouds?) DMECH 15 (Lecture class) DMECH 21B (Lab class). This semester.

4) When will you analyze this data? (e.g. mid-semester team retreat, after lesson-study session, at the end of the semester; ) Team retreat in June 09.

5.) How will you analyze the data? (e.g. analyzing student work with a rubric or analytic frame like Polya’s method for problem-solving or Perry’s scheme for student development; analyzing themes in student self-reflections according to their performance in the class – how did the responses of students who did not pass compare/contrast with students who performed well?) Through analyzing student video interview self-reflection and hands-on performance video’s with student’s using think-aloud’s, we can see what type of learners individuals are. We will also use multiple intelligences assessment to add additional data. We will be looking for commonalities in order to address the most pressing needs of the student’s.

6) What questions/concerns do you have about this element of your Inquiry? How can your Inquiry Coach support you in this phase of your Inquiry? To help us formulate questions for student interviews.

B. Mid-Range Shots: Focusing on the Classroom

1) Please name ONE specific lesson in a particular course that will give you a good vantage point for observing student learning relevant to your Inquiry. The Chemistry of Combustion

2) How do you imagine the Lesson Study will help you understand the problem/issue you’re investigating about students and their learning? In other words, how does it connect to and inform the overall focus of your inquiry? This lesson includes vocabulary, reading comprehension, critical thinking and report writing. This lesson will demonstrate students basic skills in this area.

3) When and how will your team conduct this Lesson Study? Please detail the timeframes and participants for the three parts of the Lesson Study process (collaboratively planning the lesson, teaching/observing the lesson, and debriefing/analyzing videotapes & student work from the lesson). Near the end of this semester; the lesson will be lectured on May 5, 09. It will be analyzed during the June retreat.

4) What kinds of things will the observers be looking/listening for during the lesson? What artifacts of student learning and student experience will the team collect during the lesson? Will you videotape any portion of this process (pre-planning, lesson, debrief)? We will generate an “observation form” so that we all agree on the kind of data we are looking for. We will each assume a different observation role to ascertain different kinds of data, e.g. math, team skills, critical thinking, language.

5) What questions/concerns do you have about this element of your Inquiry? How can your Inquiry Coach support you in this phase of your Inquiry? We will look for coaches to help us keep focused on our inquiry and keep moving in the right direction.

C. Wide-Angle Lens: Focusing on Larger Trends in Institutional Data

1) What data from your Institutional Research Office will you integrate into your Inquiry? For example, will you look at patterns of student success, defined as grades of CR, A,B C? Retention rates (completion of semester without withdrawl)? Persistence from one semester to the next, or from one course to the next in a sequence? Comparisons of student outcomes disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age? Data from surveys on student engagement? For a sample Inquiry using this kind of data, go to http://facultyinquiry.net and look for the category “Using Institutional Research,” then see the Learning Community Impact study posted there.) We will make an upcoming appointment within the next month to accomplish this goal with our college Institutional Research Specialist.

3) What questions/concerns do you have about this element of your Inquiry? How can your Inquiry Coach support you in this phase of your Inquiry? Inquiring of the coach what kind of data was researched at other institutions and may help in determining relevancy for what data we should include or look for.

D. Video Footage

We are asking each team to collect at least 10 hours of video footage in the Spring semester.

1) Beyond plans detailed above, please describe any additional footage you intend to gather.

We have already started by gathering video by filming students participating in hands-on projects. We will continue to do this. We will also be filming students in interviews and self-reflection exercises while tasking assignments. We will also record video in team interaction and planning.

2) How will this footage inform the central questions of your Inquiry?

It will be the basis for analyzing our inquiry.

3) What questions/concerns do you have about this element of your Inquiry? Is there any support you’d like from the FIN Leadership Team in this area? How will this video process affect the behavior of participants? I’m sure there will be inquiries from time to time on process and collection.

E. Inclusion of Student Voices

As noted during the Kick-Off Convening, an additional $1,000 will be made available to each team to support making student voices a central part of each Inquiry. We encourage you to be creative and draw upon students as co-inquirers who can provide expertise in helping you understand the problem/issue you are investigating. Please describe how you plan to include student voices in your Inquiry (e.g. hiring students to capture video footage, interview other students, review data from your inquiry and tell you what they see). We feel that we should include one student who is not basic skills challenged and one student who is. This will help us to determine need and direction for this inquiry as far as basic skills inclusion is concerned.

Timeline/Calendar

So that we can visualize how the work will proceed over the next several months, please give a timeline for when the above components will occur. It can be in either calendar or outline format.

March: Video

-Initial Student Assessment,

-Meet with IR Officer

April: Video

-Collaborative lesson planning & observation

form development

May: Video

-Lesson observation & preliminary analysis

June- Video

Retreat & data analysis

About FIN

The Faculty Inquiry Network’s (FIN) purpose is to support professional development which includes: conducting faculty inquiry; revisiting basic skills assumptions; interpreting and integrating data; accessing student voices; developing students as co-inquirers; making visible; using technology for teaching and learning; creating and supporting new initiatives, curriculum and program development; constructing educational tools using digital media; and hosting dialogue around student and faculty learning.

FIN Commons

Some Tips For Interviewing

Cerritos College FIN Budget Feb 09

Cerritos College Detailed Inquiry Plan Feb 09

College of Alameda Revised Budget 2/27/09

College of Alameda Plans for Data Collection and Analysis

About FIN

Archives

Recent Post

Categories

Tags

Tag Cloud

lesson study

Links

Meta