Basic Skills in Complex Contexts

FIN Commons

Barriers to Research at the Campus Level

Posted by Leigh Anne Sippel on May 4, 2009 in FIN Grant Logistics, Proposals, Revised Inquiry Plans, Using Institutional Research with No Comments


Skyline College’s process of inquiry has proven to be a wonderful collaborative effort that has great support from faculty, students, and administrators. You’d think that the campus research approval committee would be the last barrier to our success, and like us, you’d have another “think” coming. We are interested to know if any other colleges have experienced difficulty in getting their research committee to agree to the research parameters of the inquiry projects.

Skyline’s FIN group had no idea what was in store when we presented our proposal. We were given a 9-page packet of protocols and instructions from our research committee. The informed consent page template alone had 11 points to it, and there were over 40 numbered steps and clearances that we had to surmount before being approved. We dove in with aplomb, and got the proposal kicked back to us. Most of all, they were concerned that the video process would endanger student privacy and felt that students were being put at undue risk of unprotected identity (despite an informed consent clause stating that pseudonyms would be used and permission signatures would be obtained).

We were shocked to confront this, mainly because we are pretty sure that we aren’t the first research group to use video (!). After much emailing among our FIN group, we rewrote our proposal, and now, we wait to see what the committee’s response is. Meanwhile, our research hovers in the near future, waiting for the flag to drop so we can speed towards it. If anyone else has had such experiences with their research committee, we’d be interested to know how you dealt with it. FIN would do well to consider this potential snag prior to future inquiry projects so that they can provide the appropriate support to groups to help them get their research off the ground.

Student Team at BCC

Posted by Scott Hoshida on April 25, 2009 in FIN Grant Logistics, Learning to Learn, Student Teams, Student Voice, Uncategorized with 5 Comments


STUDENT TEAM DEVELOPMENT:
When first encouraged by the FIN staff to work with students on this project, it seemed to be a logical, if not difficult, choice. Students who live and breathe the lessons that we teach, or attempt to teach, should be both the subjects of our research and our co-pilots. Of course, the actual implementation of a team has become a little more difficult.

Originally, at the core of our project was the idea to tape classes, interviews, and focus groups, each built to inform the next in a spiral-like fashion that sounds much more orderly than the actual process involved. The neatness of the proposal, however, is much more difficult as more minds focus on our question of how storytelling (sharing, writing, speaking, etc.) can impact student motivation and metacognition.

We’ve finally been able to employ two students with a third has decided not to participate. One is a re-entry student who had successfully moved herself up the ladder of English classes and now is taking a critical thinking course in preparation to transfer in the next year or two. The second is a student who has started a film club on campus and is hoping to be a film major at UCLA or SF State.

In organizing this team, I thought it best to bring the team in at ground zero: brainstorming, organizing ideas, matching it to a work plan in the same way that we developed our plan to give them a sense of how we started this project and to get their input on how to move forward. I also met with our Multimedia Studies Dept. Chair who we’ll be working with in the upcoming semesters for sound room/video room time. She also recommended a course or two that students (and teachers) ought to take to familiarize themselves with video making terminology and equipment.

After taping our first focus group and our initial meetings (time sheets, hiring, and other logistics), we decided that we’re going to focus on the students who participated in the focus groups, try to tape more of the lesson plan in Cleavon’s class (if scheduling permits) and roll out an informal interview process on our question.

The students also brought up some great ideas:
- Interview support staff (counselors, EOPS folks, etc.)
- Have our student team interview the FIN teachers (this I think would be great)
- Try to understand not only the intent of our question, but how lessons around storytelling/sharing actually are framed and taught by various teachers (not just FIN teachers).

We just set a schedule to review some tape, do our first interviews, and hopefully everything will start to come together soon.

This is definitely a work-in-progress that’s evolving as we go!

Los Medanos Puente Math Revised Budget

Posted by Maria Tuttle on March 11, 2009 in FIN Grant Logistics, Uncategorized with No Comments


Team Budget

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
     

Berkeley City College Summary of Inquiry

Posted by Scott Hoshida on February 27, 2009 in Faculty Inquiry Groups (FIG), FIN Grant Logistics, Identity, Learning Communities, Learning to Learn, Metacognition, Proposals, Revised Inquiry Plans, Student Confidence, Uncategorized with 2 Comments


ANSWERS TO FIN QUESTIONS:

A. Zoom-Lens Inquiry: Focusing on Students

The team will gather student data in four ways: one-on-one interviews (on camera and informally); student writing assignments that demonstrate both autobiographical narratives and metacognitive reflection; video taping classroom discussions; and a small focus group, which will provide us feedback on our inquiry questions, process, and analysis. We hope to better understand the confidence with which students develop their own narratives around educational success and failure, develop metacognitive reflection and planning skills, and shift their identities in relationship to their own learning.

In order to frame this inquiry, the team will develop a rubric that will be used to evaluate student narratives and metacognition in their writing and spoken communication to understand if a focus on student identity, autobiographical writing, and metacognition changes their ability to transfer skills and confidence to other classrooms and into their lives.

The timing of analysis will be ongoing. At each stage of the inquiry, the team will make adjustments to the collection schedule and instruments. For instance, after video taping our lesson plan, we have been working on making sure our classroom surveys measure three things: metacognition, locus of control (self-efficacy/self-confidence), and other measures of classroom engagement. At the end the of the semester, we will have a retreat with our student inquiry team to evaluate the information that we’ve collected to make a schedule for the following semester and evaluate what we’ve learned.

Questions: We’ve set up a data collection schedule that we hope to fulfill. Whether or not we’re able to analyze and understand it might be much more difficult. Any thoughts?

B. Mid-Range Shots: Focusing on the Classroom

The lesson study will focus on the presentation and discussion of Joseph Campbell’s the Hero’s and Heroine’s Journey. After a lecture and discussion of this framework, students will take a look at their own writing to see how it matches up to the Hero’s Journey. Hopefully, as we tape these discussions, we’ll have a chance to see if this framework helps students see a link between their own journey and story with a broader story of overcoming obstacles. In addition, the lesson teacher will develop a rubric with those students to determine the quality of their story. We’ve already taped the planning of that lesson and the first class for this lesson study. While taping the class, we found that students did not want to share in front of the camera, and we are worried that it might feel invasive and cause students to feel vulnerable. Even though we had scheduled a second classroom shoot, we missed that day, but will try to return after students complete the assignment.

Ideally, we would like to pull students aside and have them narrate their thoughts on connecting their narratives to the Hero’s Journey, sharing their own stories, and thinking about how to develop authentic autobiographical narratives that help them examine their lives more closely. With such sensitive and personal information, it seems that it might be difficult to videotape students in the midst of this process, but we might be able to conduct pre and post discussions with them. Once we finish taping the video and look at the student work to develop a rubric, then we’ll sit down to analyze the data.

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

We will gather institutional data on grades, writing assessments, persistence, and possibly administer the survey to students taking transfer-level classes. We would like to track down students who started in English 269 and have moved past English 1A to understand what helped them successfully move through the required classes.

D. Video Footage

In addition to the footage taken in class, we will conduct at least one focus group this semester with about 10 students (3 students from 3 classes) to help us better frame the questions for our inquiries and to test our assumptions. The focus group will be videotaped, and hopefully these students will agree to be interviewed in one-on-one on tape for more discussion on the project. Also, we hope to tape our day of reflection or retreat where we will analyze the data gathered and begin planning for next semester.

E. Inclusion of Student Voices

We will use students to help videotape each section of our inquiry, work with them to edit our tapes, and use our team to shape our inquiry. In addition, the focus groups will provide students in our class a chance to shape the focus of our inquiry; the focus group will also help us recruit students who would like to participate in our project for the long haul. We hope to work with our student team to develop a plan for the fall semester, especially to develop our inquiry questions and methods for capturing authentic video footage.

Berkeley City College Calendar and Budget

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.

  • Recent Post

  • Tag Cloud