Journal of Scholastic Inquiry Education, Volume 6, Issue 1, Spring 2016

Volume 6, Page 1

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry:

Education

Education Edition, Volume 6, Issue 1 Spring 2016

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)

Volume 6, Page 2

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Spring 2016

Volume 6, Issue 1

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 3Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education The Center for Scholastic Inquiry (CSI) publishes the Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education (JOSI: E) to recognize, celebrate, and highlight scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practice in the field of education.

Academic research emphasizing leading edge inquiry, distinguishing and fostering best practice, and validating promising methods will be considered for publication. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method study designs representing diverse philosophical frameworks and perspectives are welcome. The JOSI: E publishes papers that perpetuate thought leadership and represent critical enrichment in the field of education.

The JOSI: E is a rigorously juried journal. Relevant research may include topics in administration, early childhood education, primary education, elementary education, secondary education, vocational-technical education, alternative education, special education, higher education, international education, change agency, educational leadership, and related fields.

If you are interested in publishing in the JOSI: E, feel free to contact our office or visit our website.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan Executive Director & Managing Editor Center for Scholastic Inquiry 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241

Â

Web: www.csiresearch.com

Phone: 855-855-8764

Email: editor@csiresearch.com

Volume 6, Page 4

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

JOURNAL OF SCHOLASTIC INQUIRY: EDUCATION Spring 2016, Volume 6, Issue 1

Managing Editor Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jamal Cooks

General Editor & APA Editor Jay Meiners

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Shirley Barnes, Alabama State University Joan Berry, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Brooke Burks, Auburn University at Montgomery Timothy Harrington, Chicago State University Michelle Beach, Southwest Minnesota State University Kenneth Goldberg, National University Linda Rae Markert, State University of New York at Oswego Lucinda Woodward, Indiana University Southeast Arina Gertseva, Washington State University Robin Davis, Claflin University

PEER REVIEWERS Robin Davis Emily Hause Kristen Cole John Simon Michelle Beach

Joan Berry Ronald Stunda Linda Rae Markert Cathy Ann Tully Rosemarie Michaels

Azim Danesh Lucinda Woodward Howard Lawrence Jodi Brown Ronald Stunda

Teresa Weaver Judith Richards Joyous Bethel Tanya McCoss-Yerigan Veronica Guerrero

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 5

    



Would you like to elevate your status as a scholar‐practitioner and develop your professional reputation and credentials through presentation and publication?

Would you enjoy stimulating professional rejuvenation and tranquil personal relaxation at the same time by combining meaningful professional development with a luxury getaway?

Would you enjoy tailored continuing education experiences by choosing the conference sessions that best suit your professional interests and vocational pursuits?

Would you appreciate collaborative collegiality with luminaries and pioneers conducting the most academically and scientifically meritorious research?

Are you interested in developing your thought leadership and contributing to the body of validated knowledge

in your academic or professional field?

Are you interested in diverse scholarship by learning with and from education, business and behavioral science

practitioners and professionals from around the world on a wide range of contemporary topics?

No matter your role in business, education, or behavioral science, there is something for everyone.

Professionals from the public and private sectors will learn about emerging trends, best practice and innovative strategies.

For more information about attending, presenting and/or publishing, check out CSI’s website: TABLE OF CONTENTS

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Publication Agreement and Assurance of Integrity Ethical Standards in Publishing Disclaimer of Liability

Research Manuscripts

7

8-86

Assessment and Grading Practices: Consideration of Academic and Non-Academic Factors Diana M. Yesbeck, Randolph-Macon College

8

Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Ethnic Identity Matthew Kaplan, California State University-Northridge Jodi Constantine Brown, California State University-Northridge Que-Lam Huynh, California State University-Northridge Virginia Huynh, California State University-Northridge

34

Kenyan Female Entrepreneurs and Negotiation Education: Exploring Efficacy Development Utilizing Distance Learning Judith Richards, California Lutheran University Veronica Guerrero, California Lutheran University Allison Domicone, University of California Berkley (student)

48

Using Student Conversation to Build Upon Prior Knowledge Teresa Weaver, Forest Avenue Academic Magnet School Shelly Hudson Bowden, Auburn University at Montgomery Gilbert Dueñas, Auburn University at Montgomery

67

Manuscript Submission Guide

87

Why Read Our Journals

89

Volume 6, Page 7

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT AND ASSURANCE OF INTEGRITY By submitting a manuscript for publication, authors confirm that the research and writing is their exclusive, original, and unpublished work. Upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication, authors grant the Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC (CSI) the sole and permanent right to publish the manuscript, at its option, in one of its academic research journals, on the CSI's website, in other germane, academic publications; and/or on an alternate hosting site or database. Authors retain copyright ownership of their research and writing for all other purposes.

ETHICAL STANDARDS IN PUBLISHING The CSI insists on and meets the most distinguished benchmarks for publication of academic journals to foster the advancement of accurate scientific knowledge and to defend intellectual property rights.

The CSI stipulates and expects that all practitioners and professionals submit original, unpublished manuscripts in accordance with its code of ethics and ethical principles of academic research and writing.

DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY The CSI does not endorse any of the ideas, concepts, and theories published within the JOSI: E. Furthermore, we accept no responsibility or liability for outcomes based upon implementation of the individual author’s ideas, concepts, or theories. Each manuscript is the copyrighted property of the author.

Volume 6, Page 8

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Assessment and Grading Practices: Consideration of Academic and Non-Academic Factors Diana M. Yesbeck.

Randolph-Macon College

Abstract

In the current era of student accountability, coupled with high-stakes testing, schools have focused on the alignment of standardized curricula and assessments. However, developing standardized grading practices are still under examination. Grading serves as an important responsibility, yet many teachers still find the process of determining which academic and non-academic factors correctly represent student achievement a challenge. This study was designed to examine the grading factors middle school language arts teachers consider when determining students’ final grades. Overall results in the areas of using academic and non-academic factors, teachers’ influences, the use of formative and summative assessments, and the need for professional development are consistent with the literature. Recommendations for practice include teacher reflection on determining why they grade, becoming familiar with measurement theory recommendations in terms of using academic factors that measure student achievement, how to use non-academic factors in other ways to support student learning, and providing staff development in the area of grading practices. Five recommendations for future research emerged, ranging from applying a similar investigative approach to other disciplines to examining student reporting systems.

Keywords: Academic factors, assessment, grading, non-academic factors

Introduction With an increase in student and teacher accountability, coupled with mandated state assessments, a significant amount of literature exists which focuses on the variation of grading practices. In addition, federal programs, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, are intended to reward states for educational innovation by creating standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and in the workplace. In order to meet the requirements,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 9

standardization of curricula and assessments are a focal point, yet developing standard grading practices are still under examination. Although measurement experts recommend a variety of grading practices, teachers develop their own practices based on the importance they place on academic and non-academic factors (Brookhart, 2011). Since grades communicate results to students and parents, different messages are being conveyed about academic performance and indicators of student achievement (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011; McMillan, 2001).

Grading practices continue to be controversial and misunderstood. A disconnect exists between grading purposes, practices, and policies and the current era of accountability. Student performance in class should, in theory, partially match performance on standardized tests.

Measurement experts believe that since educational reform is on a rise in the areas of curriculum development, standardized assessment, and high-stakes testing, there is a greater need to expand the reform to include grading practices among classroom teachers, in order to eliminate the attitude that since grading practices are so ambiguous that the actual grade is meaningless (Marzano, 2000).

Teachers’ grading practices are becoming more scrutinized to adapt to more accountability testing and performance-based assessments, which calls into question how to determine grades that accurately measure student achievement. Given the variety of grading practices that studies and literature report, there is a need to more fully understand why variation exists among teachers’ grading practices and how the practices relate to measurement theory using qualitative interviews.

When teachers employ the use of measurement theory, defined as “the study of how numbers are assigned and how different measures relate to one another” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016), they will have a greater understanding of how assessments and grades relate to one another. Inquiries may lead to understanding a summary of grading practices that teachers use to generate grades, such as the measurement procedures they use, their rules of evidence or the standards they apply (Stiggins, Frisbie & Griswold, 1989).

This article reports the results of a qualitative study which investigated the academic and non-academic factors that middle school language arts teachers consider when determining grades.

Academic factors simply include student performance on graded assignments. Non-academic factors include responsibility, effort, attitude, behavior, motivation, and attendance. What are the academic factors? The study used in-depth interviews with 10 teachers to determine the reasons for assigning or calculating final grade and was limited to middle school language arts teachers.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 10

The problem this study examined is complex in nature because teachers’ judgments and values determine current grading practices. According to Brookhart (2011), grades are the most common form of interpreting measurement results, yet the practice of grading varies greatly.

Moreover, Brookhart believes that students’ grades should reflect the relationship of a student’s ability and their expected performance, contrary to Wormeli (2006) and Winger (2005) who believe that grades should reflect an accurate measure of student mastery of content. In addition, Winger and Wormeli believe that teachers ultimately fail students when non-academic factors, such as effort, responsibility, and attitude are misused when calculating grades because students are learning that diligent work and cooperation are the components of their grade, not the ability to make connections with the learning through deep understanding. In 2006, Guskey affirms his idea that grades have been identified as example of unreliable measurements. Since teachers’ criteria differ, significant variation remains in the grading practices of individual teachers.

The results of this study will assist with the understanding of middle school language arts teachers’ approaches to assigning grades in an effort to understand the arbitrary grading practices teachers employ. It informed practice by bringing awareness to teachers’ understanding of measurement experts’ recommendations, and it produced meaningful conclusions based on similarities and differences on how teachers determine student grades. Furthermore, the results of this study will help enable additional research for other content areas to determine variation among grading practices and why the variation exists.

The research questions served as a guide for the researcher. The questions focused on which academic and non-academic factors teachers consider and why these factors were chosen. The two major questions included: 1. What are the academic and non-academic factors that guide your practice?

2. What beliefs and values are used to determine those factors?

Literature Review

Often the words measurement, assessment, and grades are used interchangeably. In some way, all three terms describe evaluation. To better understand the importance of the study of assessment and grading, clarification of all three terms is important.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 11

Measurement

McMillan (2008) describes measurement as a process used to quantify the degree of how much something has been demonstrated and then a value is assigned which is based on a scale.

Teachers measure traits, such as performance, behaviors, and attributes, by administering tests and recording the measurement of the trait.

Measurement experts believe that grades should be focused on levels of student achievement, but recognize that other factors are considered when assigning grades. The other factors include effort, progress, participation, behavior, and attitude. When other factors are considered, measurement experts question the validity and reliability of the grades (Stiggins, 1999).

This is supported by Guskey (2006), who believes that the use of arbitrary grading practices questions the validity of a student’s grade. Gallagher (1998) believes that the most fundamental principles related to measurement and classroom grading are validity and reliability. Furthermore, measurement experts’ recommendations (from a sample of introductory measurement textbooks), as outlined in Stiggins et al. (1989) study, believe that most grading practices are not in line with best practices for student assessment. The most conclusive recommendation that is not consistently followed among teachers is the use of assigning grades based primarily on student achievement (Stiggins et al., 1989). Other non-academic factors, such as effort, participation, interest, and attitude, are often used by teachers to determine a final outcome (Stiggins et al., 1989).

In terms of measurement, a grade should reflect a clear measure of the best a student can do.

However, grades reflect a mixture of multiple factors, resulting in an ineffective communication system (Marzano & Heflebower, 2011; Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006). Brookhart (2011) agrees that since grades are the most common form of reporting student performance, developing consistent grading practices are imperative for interpreting the meaning of grades. To better understand the meaning of student grades, O’Connor (2007) believes that teachers need to assign grades which are consistent and accurate as a clear measure of the students’ understanding, and which reflect the school’s content standards and desired learning outcomes.

Research supports that a gap clearly exists between grading practices and measurement theory, which is documented in Brookhart’s (1994) comparative study of teachers’ grading practices. In Brookhart’s report, grading practices from 19 different studies were compared to recommendations from measurement experts. It was determined that although measurement experts

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 12

have outlined recommendations for grading, teachers employed a mixture of grading practices, which met some of the recommendations, but not all. The greatest discrepancy fell in the area of measuring student achievement in terms of academics as well as non-academic factors, such as effort, progress, participation, behavior, and attitude. However, measurement experts caution against the use of non-academic factors and arbitrary grading practices because engaging in this practice questions the validity and reliability of the students’ overall grades (Gallagher, 1998; Guskey, 2006; Stiggins, 1999).

Gallagher’s (1998) recommendations are based on basic measurement theory, assessment reliability and validity, and designing assessments that bridge the gap between research and practice in the area of student assessment. Guskey’s (2006) study found that establishing grading policies and practices need to focus on the importance of clarity and fairness that are not perceived as ridiculing or embarrassing to students. Stiggins (1999) found that classroom assessment training in teacher education programs lacked clarification of grading practices and policies, questioning the validity and reliability of classroom assessments.

Assessment

Airasian (1997) describes assessment as a way to help with decision-making by collecting, synthesizing, and interpreting information. It differs from former views of assessment which narrowed the definition to the mere task of testing and gathering information. Grading is based on professional judgment, and McMillan (2008) finds the practice to vary significantly. It is the method by which grades are determined that necessitates a deeper understanding of what researchers define as the purpose of grading.

Classroom assessment can fundamentally transform classroom instruction (Popham, 2008).

Former views of assessment constrict the task of assessment to testing and gathering information (McMillan, 2008); however, current views describe assessment as a way to help with decision making by collecting, synthesizing, and interpreting information (Airasian, 1997).

To better understand the purposes of assessment, it is helpful to understand the two types of assessment that research currently supports – formative and summative. The purpose of formative assessment, as defined by Popham (2008), Brookhart (2009) and McMillan (2008) is to gather evidence to help students make informed decisions about how to improve their current learning.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 13

Taras (2005) clarifies the definition further to include that formative assessment indicates the existence of a gap between the actual level of the work being assessed measured against the standard. Simply put, formative assessment provides meaningful feedback to students to assist in improving their performance.

McMillan (2008) describes formative assessment as a cyclical teaching tool. During instruction, formative assessment allows students to ask questions, develop intrinsic motivation to deeply understand the material, and apply the new learning. Formative assessments assist teachers in making sound decisions concerning instruction. For example, when students perform poorly on a homework assignment or quiz, teachers can monitor and adjust the instruction according to the individual’s weaknesses.

If formative assessment is intended as feedback to improve, conversely, the purpose of summative assessment is to provide a final grade as an outcome of learning (Brookhart, 2009).

Summative assessments include unit tests, standardized tests, or any assignment that counts towards the report card grade. Unfortunately, summative evaluations can produce a final outcome that does not allow student and teacher dialogue about ongoing instruction. Summative assessments, such as standardized tests, measure students’ understanding of material over a period of time and the data are often used to help schools make decisions about instructional programs. Additionally, summative assessments are used in the reporting of grades on individual student reports (Brookhart, 2009, 2011; McMillan, 2008). Brookhart suggests caution in the use of making educational decisions based solely on summative evaluations, because students would be expected to move forward instructionally, whether or not they mastered or demonstrated previous material, which contradicts the art of meaningful learning.

Popham (2008) supports the use of assessment by evaluating student work frequently to make instructional decisions. In fact, instruction and assessment are inseparable, and can be thought of as a cyclical process. McMillan (2008) describes the transformation that assessment has undergone in recent years, from determining student skills as isolated and disconnected facts to interconnected skills that teach students how to integrate knowledge.

Popham (2008), Brookhart (2009) and McMillan (2008) strongly recommend that teachers employ more informal (formative) types of assessment on a regular basis to balance the types of assessments in the classroom. Popham supports many informal and formative style assessments that provide meaningful feedback for the students and the teacher in order to make informed

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 14

instructional decisions. As a proponent of formative assessment, Brookhart agrees that formative assessments assist with the development of knowledge and skills. McMillan recommends in providing ongoing feedback through informal assessments, such as observations, journaling, and individual conferences assist with the overall understanding of students’ understanding of incremental learning steps.

Grades and Grading Practices

Grades mean the actual score or mark that a student receives based on the quantity of measurement and decision-making of assessment. McMillan (2008) describes grades as a means of communication concerning student performance. In recent studies, results found that the meaning of grades continues to be controversial. In fact, Cross and Frary (1999), explain that school marks and grading have been a source of controversy since the turn of the century. Furthermore, Marzano (2000) believes that there has been widespread speculation on the value of grades due to an inaccurate system of grading practices. Therefore, when the three components – measurement, assessment and grading – are aligned, then the grade reflects a true indication of the student’s understanding on an assessment that was developed based on measurement recommendations.

The validity of grades is called into question when the grades do not represent a true measure of the learning outcome. To ensure validity, it is recommended that performance on assessments match instructional goals and objectives (Brookhart, 2009; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011).

McMillan (2008) believes that grading is based on professional judgment, and finds that the practice varies considerably among teachers, even teachers in the same school.

One of the primary responsibilities of classroom teachers is to report grades based on student learning. In classrooms across the country, students learn a variety of content, and teachers are required to assess students’ knowledge of this content and summarize the learning into a letter or numerical grade (Allen, 2005; Marzano & Heflebower, 2011). Simply put, there is much variability in grading practices which offers little consistency across schools and within classrooms, even when schools and teachers have adopted the same grading guidelines (Brookhart, 2011; McMillan, 2008).

During the course of teacher preparation classes, preservice teachers have limited knowledge and training in grading methods and the effectiveness of grading practices (Guskey, 2004). In teacher preparation courses, emphasis is placed on the design and delivery of instruction, but little

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 15

emphasis is placed on developing appropriate measures of assessment and contributing factors to consider when assigning grades, which supports the findings of Brookhart (1994) and Stiggins and Bridgeford (1985). Teachers are not equipped in developing assessments based on valid measurement standards.

In 2004, a change in grading policy made headlines when a school proclaimed that student effort would become a required substantial component of all students’ grades. Including this component became controversial, since effort would increase the overall grades of hardworking students who achieve poorly, but students who achieve extremely well requiring little effort would suffer a grade loss making their grades an inaccurate measure of their level of academic achievement (Sadler, 2010).

Randall and Engelhard (2009) examined grading practices among 516 public school teachers of all grade levels. Of notable interest in the study was the interpretation of how teachers graded student work. The results of the study indicated that teachers generally assign grades based on performance on day-to-day assessments, such as homework, quizzes, and tests, yet the students’ final grades for reporting purposes factored in other non-academic criteria such as effort, ability, and behavior.

According to McMillan (2008), many components are used in grading: teacher’s intuition, subjective evaluations, and teacher’s values, beliefs, and philosophies. Although Wormeli (2006) agrees that the use of non-academic factors is a common practice, he cautions teachers in using subjective components. Wormeli believes that when teachers make arbitrary decisions about students’ grades, the factors of effort and responsibility usually do more harm than good, and it clearly sends the message to the students that failure in responsibility affects student achievement.

Wormeli proposes that grading non-academic factors is a misuse in reporting student achievement, which can lead to students’ perception of failure.

Using a different perspective in terms of grading practices, Holmes and Smith (2003), conducted a survey investigating students’ opinions about how teachers grade their assignments.

The results of the investigation led to two major conclusions. The first is that students reported that the issue of grade fairness was a concern because the grades appeared inconsistent with other students’ similar work that earned different grades. Second, students reported that teachers do not provide sufficient feedback about an explanation of the grade and/or how to improve the grade.

Volume 6, Page 16Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Holmes and Smith suggest that teachers set clear assignment objectives and use rubrics when grading to reduce negative student comments and opinions.

Research supports that the task of assigning grades vary, and that there are numerous grading practices (Brookhart, 2009). Although school systems may employ standards in terms of grading, teachers usually use arbitrary methods and a combination of both academic and non-academic factors to determine grades. Since there does not appear to be a definitive method in calculating grades, grading practices continue to be controversial and misunderstood (McMillan, 2008; Wormeli, 2006). In order for grading practices to improve and be more accurate and educationally meaningful, Allen (2005) suggests that two major changes occur. The first change is to determine student grades based solely on achievement, without factoring in non-academic factors, such as effort, attitude, responsibility or behavior. Secondly, Allen suggests that teachers need professional development in terms of creating effective assessments to accurately measure student achievement objectively.

Methodology

A qualitative study of 10 middle school language arts teachers was conducted to determine how and why they use academic and non-academic factors in grading. Language arts teachers were selected to participate in the qualitative interviews to keep the comparison of teachers’ grading practices within one core subject. The core subject of language arts was chosen because there is much teacher subjectivity and opinions associated with grading of language arts assignments, such as writing pieces, journals, research papers, and essays. Language arts teachers focus on different criteria for different assignments. The choice to use only one department was made in order to gather data used for comparing and contrasting within the same content. In addition, studying one area in depth provided different and more meaningful perspectives from one area of study that is rich in subjectivity in terms of grading written and oral responses in the forms of presentations, essays and term papers, contrary to concrete and precise answers found in most mathematics and science works.

Appropriate for this study, maximum variation sampling was used to select subjects on the basis of characteristics of the population. All 10 middle school language arts teachers are from the same mid-size suburban Virginia school division. The school division is one that has grown in Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 17

reputation and in enrollment over the past 20 years largely due to an increase in student achievement in standardized test scores and overall rigorous curriculum. The school division serves approximately 19,000 students in grades Kindergarten through 12th. The ethnicity of the student population within the school division is predominantly white, making up 84% of the population; 9.5% of the students are African-American, and the remaining 6.5% of the students are Hispanic, Asian, or American Indian. Approximately 14% of the students receive special education services, and 12% of the students receive gifted and talented services. The middle school population is approximately 5,900 students. The 10 participants in this study are all female, with an average age of 41, and have an average of 15 years teaching experience.

The primary data collection involved interviews with 10 teachers to determine their reasons for using both academic and non-academic identified factors when assigning student grades. In recent research studies, many researchers have used quantitative data to focus on the types of grading practices teachers employ. In this study, a phenomenological design was used to describe and analyze the reasons behind the teachers’ grading decisions to make sense of their individual and collective choices involving grading practices. Since all participants share similar experiences in assigning student grades, a phenomenological study was appropriate to focus on one shared phenomenon to gain an in-depth understanding.

Appropriate for a phenomenological study are in-depth interviews that produce informative data in terms of the research questions. Generally, the broad questions focus on what the participants have experienced and what factors of influence affected the experience. An interview guide was used during the audio-taped interview, and the researcher asked participants questions which focused on what considerations were used in grading, and how the factors relate to measurement theory. Questions were open-ended, which allowed for more in-depth responses, and at times, the participants’ answers elicited more probing questions.

The interviews were conducted at a location convenient for all parties, with emphasis placed on a quiet setting with few or no interruptions. The participants were not rushed to answer due to the reflective nature of the questions. In the interview guide some questions were related to demographic information, yet the majority of the questions were open-ended, relating to the topic of grading practices. At times, the order of the questions varied, depending on the flow of the conversation with each participant. The average duration of the interviews was 45 minutes, and only one interview per person was necessary. A transcriptionist transcribed each interview within

Volume 6, Page 18

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

two days of each interview. Each participant received a copy of the interview to review and request changes, ensuring the validity of their responses.

Once the interviews were transcribed, a general analysis of each interview took place, looking for emerging themes during the discovery phase. The analyses of the transcribed interviews, from coding to comparing and contrasting, were completed with the assistance of a qualitative research software program, NVivo.

Deconstructing the interviews was the next step. During this process, codes were developed to identify recurring ideas and major themes. The literature supported that codes would emerge based on the reasons teachers assign grades using academic and non-academic factors, as well as the limitations teachers experience in terms of staff development in the areas of developing assessments and implementing fair grading practices (Allen, 2005; Guskey, 2004). Results from the qualitative data analyses were shared in narrative form, with emphasis placed on the comparison and contrast of the participants’ responses (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006), which produced substantive and conclusive themes and subthemes.

The judgment that qualitative analysis is trustworthy is based on the rigor of the process used for collecting and analyzing data. Three techniques were used to confirm the interpretations of the data to establish internal validity, also known as credibility. Participant language was employed by using direct quotes within the report to illustrate the participants’ meaning and to ensure validity.

Secondly, participants reviewed the findings of the researcher’s syntheses to ensure accuracy of the representation. Finally, negative cases or discrepant data were reported in findings that contradicted the emerging patterns. These are known as outliers of the findings. To determine dependability, also known as reliability, it was determined that the data measured the original intent of the research (Creswell, 2007; McMillan & Schumacher, 2006).

Results/Findings

The following results describe the beliefs and grading practices of a sample of 10 middle school language arts teachers. During the qualitative interviews, questions concerning assessment and grading practices ranged from the type of factors considered when grading to conflicts they experienced once they developed their system. Specifically, the participants easily answered the two main questions of the study:

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 19Â

1. What are the academic and non-academic factors that guide your practice?

2. What beliefs and values are used to determine those factors?

Of notable interest, the findings of this study indicate a cyclical pattern on the subject of how teachers view their assessment and grading practices, which is in alignment with the literature.

When the topic of grading practices was first introduced, the participants began their discussion with why they grade, which identified the purposes of assigning student grades. From there, the discussions naturally led to how they grade and which factors, both academic and non-academic, they used in determining a student’s grade. When probed about what type of assignments students produce for their grades, the discussion turned to assessments, both formative and summative types of assessments. Once teacher-participants were asked how they determined their grading practices, this logically led to the topic of professional development in terms of teacher training.

Throughout the interviews with all participants, the first important finding involved the purpose of grading. Although grading practices may be considered arbitrary, the purpose of grading was not a hotly-debated topic. When asked to define the purpose of grading, all 10 teacherparticipants answered quickly, as if this were an area that withstood investigation. Collectively, four themes emerged when describing the purposes of grades: (a) to communicate with students and parents; (b) to provide feedback to students; (c) for students to demonstrate progress and mastery over time; and (d) to adhere to grading policies and procedures.

With ease, the participants explained that they have always understood that grading essentially means communicating, all sharing a similar philosophy. The different modes of communicating range from providing feedback to students and parents to using systematic approaches in sharing the results of assessments. Additional beliefs surfaced that defined the purpose of grading to also include student progress and mastery of material and adhering to grading policies and procedures. This suggests that teachers use practical experiences to confirm their beliefs. Once the teacher-participants defined the purpose of grading, the next topic of grading factors flowed naturally in the discussion.

This study examined how middle school language arts teachers consider the use of academic and non-academic factors when grading. The theoretical framework that guided this study was based on the composite model gleaned from the literature. Based on the field notes, the researcher believes that teachers spend more time thinking about instruction than they do on their assessment and grading practices. What appeared evident to the researcher was that teachers generally felt Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 20

comfortable discussing their curriculum content, yet a discussion about assessments and grading appeared to be a bit uncomfortable and foreign since most teachers have not been asked to reflect nor discuss these topics.

A significant amount of time in each interview was devoted to the theme of grading factors, meaning which factors the teacher considered when assigning or calculating grades. The researcher noted that participants spoke passionately about grading factors and grading practices, ranging from the influences in their professional careers that helped define how they currently grade to those factors they identify as most important. At some point it appeared to the researcher that the teachers became uncomfortable in discussing their choices in using academic and non-academic factors. The researcher’s field notes suggests that this discomfort may have been due to their necessity to defend their positions, which gave the researcher the impression that perhaps the teachers have had to defend their practices in the past.

When grading student work, teachers considered many factors, ranging from student behaviors to student performance on tests and projects. When the researcher considered the discussions that resulted in identifying grading factors, it was apparent that one important factor emerged, student effort, indicating a shared viewpoint that student effort is a valuable component when grading. The earnest discussion about the importance of using non-academic factors, such as student behaviors and student responsibility led the researcher to believe that the participants have had practical experiences in which non-academic factors have resulted in both positive and negative experiences for students.

As indicated by the qualitative data analysis, important conclusions were determined by the teachers’ discussions of the grading factors they use when developing their grading practices.

Initially, teachers use influences from their teacher-mentors and their own teaching experience to develop grading practices. A mixture of variables, ranging from academic factors to non-academic factors, are used in determining student grades, identifying academic factors as those that relate to student achievement, and non-academic factors as those that relate to student work habits, such as effort and participation. The interpretations are consistent with the literature, supporting that teachers use mixed methods in determining student grades, and they lack consistency across schools and school divisions.

Once grading factors were discussed at length, the flow of the discussions naturally led to how grading practices are used in formative and summative assessments. Assessment is often

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 21

interchangeable with grading, which was evident when the participants spoke about student assessment. Most participants recognized that daily assessments occur in the form of questioning, warm-up exercises, and homework assignments, all known as formative assessments. However, during the interviews, the researcher’s field notes suggest that the ideas of formative and summative assessments were not clearly understood by all participants.

Very little was discussed about summative assessments, and most participants identified summative assessments with standardized testing; however, the greater discussion took place regarding the use of formative assessments. For some participants, they readily admitted that the term formative assessment was relatively new to them, and that they were still learning how to properly use formative assessments as instructional tools.

An important conclusion was confirmed by the teachers’ discussions of assessments that are supported by literature. It was noted that the participants appeared honest in their answers and were not influenced about whether the use of formative or summative evaluations reflected on their methodology in assessing student work. All agreed that using formative type of assessments, which range from questioning to classwork assignments, provide teachers meaningful information about students’ current level of understanding. Furthermore, the teacher feedback offers valuable information to the students, providing suggestions in which they can improve their overall understanding, resulting in greater success. All participants shared a similar opinion concerning summative assessments, in which they identify summative assessments as a method to evaluate student mastery; however, all participants believed that student assessments need to consist of a mixture of components. The interpretations are consistent with the literature, supporting that teachers use a variety of assessment components to evaluate and report student work.

The questions about assessments led to the discussion of meaningful and practical professional development opportunities. Moments of clarity occurred during the discussions on professional development because it became rapidly obvious that teachers lack training in the area of grading practices. The researcher noted that the participants appeared not to have given thought to the fact that they had very little training in the area of assessment and grading practices until it was discussed during these interviews.

A lack of teacher training for pre-service teachers created an environment in which teachers developed their own grading practices with little regard to measurement recommendations. Perhaps one of the reasons teachers have not developed practices that relate to measurement standards is due

Volume 6, Page 22

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

to the ready-made assessments that accompany textbooks and ancillary materials for each content.

Using these pre-made assessments lightens the work for teachers, but they are typically mirrored after the format of standardized tests, resulting in low cognitive levels of student understanding.

Furthermore, with pre-made assessments, scoring guides are usually included, making the practice of meaningful grading unimportant.

As evidenced by all of the participants’ comments and reflective thoughts, the subject of assessment and grading practices is thought-provoking and controversial. One common theme that emerged from the interviews is that having standard practices does not necessarily work when teaching students who are unique and individual.

Discussion

This study has contributed to the literature by developing an understanding of the various ways grades can have different meanings. The current literature indicates that the study of grading practices will add to the understanding of the significance and meaning of student grades. Literature in this field continues to provide a variety of information while simultaneously revealing unanswered questions and the need for further research (McMillan, 2001).

Grading: Academic and Non-Academic Factors

The discussion of the academic and non-academic factors teachers use when grading proved to be the most referenced and most debated topic during all of the interviews. This is consistent with McMillan (2008) who agrees that grading is a challenge for most teachers due to the variability in grading practices. In Brookhart’s 1993 study of 84 classroom teachers, she concluded that an assortment of variables were included in how teachers develop their grading practices, consistent with the results of this study.

Consistent with the literature, all participants use academic factors as a large portion of their grading practice. Collectively, research conducted by McMillan (2001), Brookhart (1993), Cross and Frary (1999), and Stiggins et al. (1989) indicated that student grades should be a representation of student mastery of the content, which includes grades on assessments. Adding controversy to an already much-debated topic, Wormeli (2006) agrees that only academic factors should be the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 23

exclusive components to account for student achievement. However, inconsistent with the literature referenced above, are the factors that are included in student grades that are not clearly defined as academic factors. The controversial factors are those that literature defines as non-academic: student behaviors, student effort, and student responsibility.

The interpretations of this study’s findings are consistent with the works of Brookhart (1993) and McMillan (2001) as it relates to the use of non-academic factors when teachers develop their grading practices. In the above-referenced studies, results indicated that non-academic factors such as effort and class participation were used widely in determining student grades. O’Connor (2007) cautions the use of using effort and other behavior factors because they mistakenly report a grade that reflects academic merit, but is muddied by behavior incentives.

In this study, several important findings emerged concerning the use of non-academic factors. Not surprisingly, all participants agreed that student behaviors affect student learning and the classroom environment; additionally, the participants agreed that student misbehaviors should not be reflected in student grades. However, the participants agreed that they use some nonacademic factors, such as effort and participation, as a cushion when student grades are on the borderline. The interpretation of this finding is consistent with McMillan’s 2001 study of secondary teachers, where the results of his study identified four distinct components of grading factors, one labeled as academic enablers, such as effort and participation, and a second component labeled as use of extra credit and borderline cases. Consistent with this study, participants’ use of effort and participation as a cushion falls into both of McMillan’s categories, academic enablers and borderline cases. This would suggest an overall finding that teachers in both middle and high schools agree that using non-academic factors such as effort and participation in the case of borderline grades are widely used and accepted practice.

Another non-academic factor that was heavily mentioned throughout the interviews was student responsibility, as it relates to students’ completing and submitting assignments on time. The findings in this area were inconclusive because the teachers were divided about including student responsibility as part of a final grade. Those participants who were against using responsibility as part of student grade are supported in literature by Wormeli (2006). Wormeli is an opponent of using non-academic factors, such as student responsibility, in determining a grade. He cautions teachers in using subjective components because he believes it sends a message that student failure

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 24

in responsibility affects student achievement, which misleads students about their level of content mastery.

The results of this study, with respect to grading factors, reveal that gaps exist between teachers’ grading practices and the recommendations made by measurement experts. Measurement experts outlined grading recommendations in Stiggins et al. 1989 study. The 1989 study recommended that the only grading factors that should report student performance are those that relate to student achievement. As indicated in this study, the participants use an assortment of grading factors, ranging from achievement grades on tests and quizzes to non-achievement grades such as student participation, student effort, and student responsibility.

Assessments: Formative and Summative

After comparing and contrasting the results of this study, two important findings emerged with respect to the use of formative assessments. All teachers agreed that the use of formative assessments is prevalent in the language arts classroom, especially during student writing exercises, which assists students in making decisions about how to improve their work, and assists teachers in making instructional decisions about curriculum pacing.

The teachers agreed that they use a systematic approach in providing immediate and meaningful feedback to students when they write, which helps the students improve their work. The exercises usually begin with generating ideas and developing an outline. At this point, teachers begin the process of providing comments and meaningful feedback to help the students with the direction of their writing. Once the rough drafts are written, teachers explained that they work quickly to provide meaningful feedback about the students’ initial writing, offering ideas on how to improve their work, and focusing on the traits of writing: voice, style, connections, and mechanics.

It appeared that all of the teacher-participants took pride in discussing how they use formative evaluation to shape the student’s work for the final product stage, since they all believed that students benefit more from comments than merely an assigned grade.

When discussing how formative assessments assisted the teachers with their own curriculum pacing, their ideas moved beyond the writing component of language arts. The teachers expressed that the students’ responses to classroom discussions and questions, and their answers on homework and classwork exercises provide considerable value in determining if students understand the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 25

material before they were asked to demonstrate mastery on a quiz, test, or project. Furthermore, the teachers believed that one of the greatest benefits in using formative assessments for student work is the method in documenting individual progress.

The interpretations of this study’s findings as it relates to formative assessment are consistent with the literature. Popham (2008), Brookhart (2009), and McMillan (2008) all define the purpose of formative assessment as the process of collecting evidence to help students make informed decisions about how to improve their learning. In addition, Sadler (2010) furthers the definition of formative assessment by explaining that teacher feedback assists students in identifying the gaps between their current level of understanding as compared to the criteria that meets expected performance and that the emphasis should be placed on continuous improvement, not necessarily the final outcome.

Marzano and Heflebower (2011), Wormeli (2006) and McMillan (2008) describe that formative assessment should be effectively used as a cyclical teaching tool. Wormeli emphasized that just as students are held accountable for their work, teachers are held accountable to the students. The results of this study, with respect to using formative assessments to inform instruction, reveal that gaps exist between teachers’ practices and the recommendations made by measurement experts (Stiggins et al., 1989).

Teacher Training and Professional Development

The conclusions and significance of this study may lead to implications in constructing professional development to determine fair and best practices in recording student achievement in terms of the relationship with academic and non-academic factors with an emphasis on student accountability (Allen, 2005). Allen supports the idea of requiring teachers to participate in professional development or teacher-education programs that emphasize adequate instruction on classroom assessment and grading practices. Allen further supports that measurement textbooks need to address grading practices in which teachers can fully understand the importance of improving practices that relate to the purposes of grades.

The interpretations of this study’s findings with respect to lack of teacher training are consistent with the research conducted by Guskey (2004), Brookhart (1994), and Stiggins and Bridgeford (1985). Collectively, their research findings documented that teachers are ill-equipped

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 26

in developing and grading assessments that are based on valid measurement standards.

Furthermore, Guskey found that limited training and knowledge of grading practices impact the effectiveness of student grades and how it relates to student achievement, which supports the general conclusion that grades misrepresent student success (Wormeli, 2006).

Professional development allows all stakeholders to grow in their area of expertise and remain informed about best practices. However, professional development in education does not begin once teachers are hired to teach, it begins in teacher training courses when they are college students and continues throughout their careers as classroom teachers and leaders. Professional development is an area that is rich in providing opportunities for teachers to learn new strategies, new approaches, and overall review curriculum standards and assessments. It is also an opportunity for schools to enrich their staff with new opportunities based on educational research in practical learning experiences to enhance instruction and assessment. When the researcher considered the discussions from the participants that resulted in identifying the need for professional development, it was evident that the participants completely understood their lack of training in the areas of grading practices and how it relates to assessments.

Limitations

In research studies, limitations are discussed to analyze possible threats to the study’s validity and to acknowledge existing flaws to the research design. There were two notable limitations to this study. One limitation was that the school district only allowed the researcher to collect data from the participants during a certain time of the school year. Since the interviews could not take place during most of the second semester, they took place towards the end of the school year. During the last weeks of school, teachers may have felt the stresses of standardized testing and wrapping up the school year, which would have divided their focus. The data may have been different had the collection periods been during a different time of the year, or even throughout the year. The second limitation is based on participant gender. All participants were female.

This study limited its focus to middle school language arts teachers; therefore, the selected participants only represent one content area within a mid-size school division, from female teachers’ perspectives. The results of this study may be transferable if the range of contexts of this study is realistically replicated in a similar inquiry.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 27Â

Recommendations for Practice

Based on the results of this study derived from qualitative data and the analysis of the research on grading practices, the following recommendations should be considered as implications for practice. All of the recommendations encourage the participants of this study to become agents of change within their departments by first developing professional learning communities as a department. It is recommended that the learning community form group discussions or book talks that relate to current educational topics such as assessment and grading practices. Through the use of journal articles and other literature, the participants can lead fruitful discussions about the positive impact that well-designed practices may have on student understanding and overall achievement. The ripple effect may then become a logical step in the reform of establishing assessment and grading practices that truly measure student achievement in their one small department as well as other departments within the school.

However, the first logical step within the professional learning community should be focused on conversations. The teachers who participated in this study are recommended to have similar conversations within their language arts departments about assessments and grading. The participants are encouraged to become leaders within their departments to foster change that represents current research, supporting student-centered assessments as opposed to traditional type assessments which are teacher-centered. To begin this process, it is recommended that the participants lead their departments in meaningful reflection.

Reflection is an important component of teaching. It is recommended that the reflection exercise focus on (1) why teachers grade, and (2) what student grades represent in terms of student achievement. This exercise will lead to a greater understanding of the meaning of grades before teachers assign grades. Teachers then need to share their ideas and opinions with their colleagues within the department in order to create a uniformed understanding of why they grade.

Furthermore, comparing and contrasting their ideas and opinions with their schools’ policies and practices will also generate discussions that should lead to a greater understanding of the importance of grades.

This study asked teachers to examine their assessment and grading practices; their influences; what factors are of most value, and why they chose the factors. It is recommended that the participants lead their language arts departments in a similar examination of their own Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 28Â

assessment and grading practices to determine if the practices are in alignment with school policies and to determine if student grades truly reflect student achievement. Moreover, it is recommended that the participants from this study lead the departments in reviewing measurement theory recommendations as it relates to grading outlined in research and literature. Contributing to indepth discussions with other teachers on the topic of academic and non-academic factors is a sensible exercise for practitioners, which may lead to the discovery that their current practice may misrepresent student achievement. It is further suggested that the participants and their colleagues within the department examine student work samples in order to determine if discrepancies exist when determining student grades. It is recommended that an exercise of sharing student work within the department would lead to a greater understanding of how student performance is measured as practitioners compared to what measurement experts recommend.

This study examined the types of assessments that teachers use to assess student work. The results indicated that the participants need to develop a greater understanding of formative and summative assessments, and how they work together to assess student understanding and mastery.

It is recommended that the participants again lead their departments in research to gain a greater understanding of how formative and summative assessments work together to support two main objectives: (1) to assist students in improving their work and level of understanding; and (2) to assist teachers in making sound instructional decisions based on the results of the evaluations. A greater awareness needs to take place by classroom teachers concerning what formative assessments look like in the classroom and what conclusions can be derived from the information they provide.

These types of assessments range from questioning techniques to classwork assignments, and they provide valuable and timely information to the teachers to monitor and adjust instruction. In addition, feedback on formative types of assessments also provides instant information to the students in order for them to improve.

With respect to professional development, this study explored teaching training opportunities as they prepared to become teachers as well as current opportunities structured as professional development. It is recommended that the participants of this study communicate to their current administrators the desire to learn more about affecting change in their assessment and grading practices that relate to current measurement standards as well as ensuring that grades truly reflect student achievement.

Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 29Â

However, classroom teachers are not the only educators who need to participate in some form of professional growth as it relates to developing a greater understanding of assessment and grading practices. It is further recommended that the participants initiate conversations with school administrators concerning the topic of current recommendations in grading in order to affect change within the school in developing practices that are sensible, realistic, and measure student achievement. When school administrators examine the assessment and grading practices within their own building, the school leaders will gain a better understanding of how student grades are averaged and reported. The results of this examination have implications with teacher evaluation, analysis of student data, and a comprehensive awareness of how student grades are determined.

Recommendations for Research

Five recommendations for future research emerged from the findings of this study. First, a similar investigative approach may be applied to other disciplines. This qualitative study was limited to middle school language arts teachers. The findings concluded that all participants shared similar approaches to grading, noting differences in which factors they placed their importance.

Future studies which include teachers from content areas of mathematics, science, and social studies may yield varying results. It would be interesting to study the assessment and grading practices within the other three disciplines to compare and contrast the findings and conclusions. In the language arts curriculum, the grading is very subjective due to the nature of the student work, yet in the areas of mathematics, science, and social studies, the grading is more content-based and objective, and the findings and conclusions, as it relates to grading practices may be similar to one another yet very different from the perspective of the language arts participants.

Secondly, if this investigation were to be replicated, it is recommended that focus groups be used in order to benefit from the discussion among practitioners as they compare and contrast their approaches to grading. In addition, a quantitative investigation which may complement this study could be generated using the results of this study as a survey instrument for similar participants to determine if comparable results exist as it relates to the purposes of grades, which factors teachers use, and how they relate to measurement experts.

As a third recommendation, additional research is needed to determine why a disparity exists between measurement recommendations and practitioners and to determine how to narrow the gap. Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 30

Although the results of this study indicate that the teachers agree with some of the measurement recommendations, there were a considerable amount of recommendations in which they disagreed, most notably that the teachers of this study do not solely rely on student achievement grades, yet rely on a variety of factors. An investigation of the measurement recommendations may find that the recommendations are outdated and do not relate to the practical use in the classroom.

The fourth recommendation for research is in the area of how to report grades that serve as a multipurpose tool which includes both academic and non-academic factors. Developing a student reporting method that produces a comprehensive picture about student performance, ranging from achievement grades to student behaviors, such as effort, motivation, and responsibility, may alleviate the teachers’ need to average student achievement grades with varying non-achievement factors. This may lead to a comprehensive understanding by students, parents, and teachers about what student grades represent.

The final recommendation includes future research to determine the effectiveness of teacher training or professional development opportunities to help teachers meet the challenge of grading.

With respect to the findings of this study, teachers expressed a great need for professional development in the areas of assessment and grading. Research would determine if the teaching training opportunities were effective or not by examining the teachers’ grading practices, to conclude if teachers followed the guidelines and recommendations by measurement experts, or if they chose to develop grading practices that continued to incorporate a mixed-bag of academic and non-academic factors. The results of the investigation may lead to a restructure of current teacher training programs and professional development opportunities.

In conclusion, the need to continue to examine assessment and grading practices within the context of measurement recommendations and assessment best practices may be warranted if teachers continue to report grades that are determined by multiple pieces of information, possibly misrepresenting the accuracy of student grades. Ultimately, for grades to be interpreted with accurate understanding, the grade requires an understanding from both the student receiving the grade and the teacher assigning the grade (Zoeckler, 2007).

Volume 6, Page 31

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Author Biography

Diana Yesbeck has served as an educator for 25 years. During her tenure as a teacher, she taught in private and public K-12 schools in the areas of mathematics and science. Her mathematics teaching ranged from Math 6 content through Algebra II content, while her science teaching was in the area of physical science. Throughout Dr. Yesbeck’s years of teaching, she fostered a learning environment of active student engagement and focused on relating content to real life applications.

Considered an expert in the field of mathematics instruction, Dr. Yesbeck presented at multiple conferences and workshops on authentic assessments, instructional best practices, and grading practices. After serving in the classroom for 15 years, Dr. Yesbeck became a school administrator for five years, working with a collaborative team of professionals in a middle school setting.

Dr. Yesbeck’s educational journey began at Virginia Commonwealth University, earning a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mathematics. She continued her education at University of Virginia, earning a Master of Education Degree in Administration and Supervision. Seven years later, she earned her Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Educational Leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University. Within one year of earning her terminal degree, Dr. Yesbeck began a new position at Randolph-Macon College as an assistant professor of education. Currently, the director of the elementary education program, she teaches elementary methods courses in mathematics and science in the teacher preparation program, as well as supervises elementary student teachers.

Diana Yesbeck lives in the Richmond, Virginia area. She is a music and sports enthusiast; an avid reader of a variety of materials; and outdoor adventurist, and one who enjoys travel and family activities.

References Airasian, P. W. (1997). Classroom assessment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Allen, J. (2005). Grades as valid measures of academic achievement of classroom learning.

Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(5), 218-223.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (2009). U.S. Department of Education.

Brookhart, S. (1993). Teachers’ grading practices: Meaning and values. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(2), 123-142.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 32

Brookhart, S. (1994). Teachers’ grading: Practice and theory. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 279-301.

Brookhart, S. (2009). Grading (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Merrill.

Brookhart, S. (2011). Starting the conversation about grading. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 10-14.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cross, L., & Frary, R. (1999). Hodgepodge grading: Endorsed by students and teachers alike.

Applied Measurement in Education, 12(1), 53-72.

Encyclopedia Britannica. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/technology/measurement Gallagher, J. D. (1998). Classroom assessment for teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Guskey, T. (2004). Are zeroes your ultimate weapon? Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 70(3), 31-35.

Guskey, T. (2006). “It Wasn’t Fair!” Educators’ recollections of their experiences as students with grading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Holmes, L. E., & Smith, L. J. (2003). Student evaluations of faculty grading methods. Journal of Education for Business, 78(6), 318-323.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). Transforming classroom grading. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R., & Heflebower, T. (2011). Grades that show what students know. Educational Leadership, 69(3), 34-39.

McMillan, J. (2001). Secondary teachers’ classroom assessment and grading practices.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(1), 20-32.

McMillan, J. (2008). Assessment essentials for standards-based education (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: A conceptual introduction. New York, NY: Longman.

O’Connor, K. (2007). A repair kit for grading: 15 fixes for broken grades. Princeton, NJ:

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 33

Educational Testing Service.

Popham, W. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Randall, J., & Engelhard, G. (2009). Examining teacher grades using Rasch measurement theory.

Journal of Educational Measurement, 46(1), 1-18.

Sadler, D. R. (2010). Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), 727-743.

Stiggins, R. J. (1999). Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education programs.

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(1), 23-27.

Stiggins, R. J., & Bridgeford, N. J. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 271-286.

Stiggins, R. J., Frisbie, D. A., & Griswold, P. A. (1989). Inside high school grading practices: Building a research agenda. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(2), 5-14.

Taras, M. (2005). Assessment – summative and formative – some theoretical reflections.

British Journal of Educational Studies, 53(4), 466-478.

Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Supervision Development.

Winger, T. (2005). Grading to communicate. Educational Leadership, 11, 61-65.

Wormeli, R. (2006). Accountability: Teaching through assessment and feedback, not grading.

American Secondary Education, 34(3), 14-27.

Zoeckler, L. (2007). Moral aspects of grading: A study of high school English teachers’ perceptions. American Secondary Education, 35(2), 83-102.

Volume 6, Page 34

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Exploring the Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Ethnic Identity Matthew Kaplan California State University-Northridge Jodi Constantine Brown California State University-Northridge Que-Lam Huynh California State University-Northridge Virginia Huynh California State University-Northridge

Abstract

Multicultural theories of intersectionality state that identity is never monolithic but rather a lens of experience formed by interrelated cultural factors, with two such factors being socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic identity. This exploratory study investigates whether SES is associated with three dimensions of ethnic identity (exploration, resolution, and affirmation) among Latino college students (N=36) at a Hispanic serving institution. Results suggest a negative relationship between reported income and affirmation, and between perceived social status and all dimensions of ethnic identity. Latino college students who self-identify as working and lower-middle class feel a stronger sense of identity than higher-SES Latino students and may consider themselves more positively regarded by non-Latinos.

Keywords: Ethnic identity, socioeconomic status, Latino students

Multicultural theories of intersectionality state that identity is never monolithic but rather a lens of experience formed via a mix of interrelated cultural factors, with two such factors being socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnic identity. However, previous literature examining correlations between SES and identity is limited. This study explores whether SES—as determined by both reported income level and perceived social status—among Latino college students at a large

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 35

Western United States university is related to three particular dimensions of identity: ethnic affirmation/pride, searching for connection with one’s ethnic group, and perceived public regard for one’s ethnic group.

Critical Race Theory, LatCrit, and Intersectionality

This study is based in the larger framework of social justice and Critical Race Theory.

Travino, Harris, and Wallace (2008) define Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a method of critical examination that illuminates structural marginalization: At its core, CRT is committed to advocating for justice for people who find themselves occupying positions on the margins – for those who hold ‘minority’ status. It directs attention to the ways in which structural arrangements inhibit and disadvantage some more than others in our society. It spotlights the form and function of dispossession, disenfranchisement, and discrimination across a range of social institutions, and then seeks to give voice to those who are victimized and displaced. (p. 8) Though the research conducted here does not aim to address racism per se, it is meant to explore the understanding of what it is to be part of an often overlooked and underserved ethnic minority community, given that the complex and intertwined dimensions of perceived class and identity may produce feelings about one’s ethnicity that are hardly homogenous across even a specific geographic and social subset of members. Indeed, Latino Critical Race Theory, or “LatCrit” – a Latino-specific adaptation of Critical Race Theory (Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solórzano, 2009) – seeks to contest the notion that the Latino community in particular is as monolithic as often portrayed. Stefancic (1997) poses the concept rhetorically: “Is the Latino community one, or many? How do middle, working class, and immigrant Latinos differ? Is language their only common trait?” (p. 426).

If to be considered monolithic is to be stereotyped and thus marginalized with regard to the important intersectional differences that underlie an ethnic community, it is necessary to then build upon a body of literature that paints a more textured view of Latinos as a diverse group with varying and complicated notions of identity. This study aims to illuminate potential differences between Latinos of various self-reported income and perceived social status, particularly with regard to how they feel about their ethnicity and about public regard for their ethnicity. Though the body of literature examining differences among Latino populations is by no means insignificant, SES itself

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 36

is rarely examined as a possible factor that may indeed account for some of the subtle identity variations to which Stefancic (1997) alludes when pointing to class.

Ethnic Identity

Although ethnic identity is sometimes defined differently depending on the aims of a particular study, it generally means maintaining and retaining heritage, cultural values and practices, and a sense of belonging (Rogers-Sirin & Gupta, 2012, p. 556; see also Phinney & Ong, 2007).

Umaña-Taylor, Yazedjian, and Bámaca-Gómez (2004) identified three components of ethnic identity: exploration (engaging in cultural-specific behaviors and roles), resolution (understanding group membership), and affirmation (the development of “positive feelings about the self and the group”; p. 1427). In a sense, the first two components can be understood as being related to identification broadly and the third specifically to pride. These concepts inform our treatment of the data, wherein we measure exploration/search and pride/affirmation. Our data also include measurement of another component – perceptions of the “public regard” for one’s ethnicity – the extent to which individuals feel that others view members of their race positively or negatively (Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997). Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) theorize that others’ perceptions may influence individuals’ views about their own group.

In terms of ethnic identity as it pertains specifically to Latinos, much of recent scholarship has focused on the correlation of identity with (a) attitudes, and/or (b) success-related outcomes.

With regard to the first correlate, research indicates that the formation of ethnic identity and pride are strongly linked to both parents and peers (Hernandez, Conger, Robins, Bacher, & Widaman, 2014), and shifts in identity may occur throughout life, at times corresponding to major changes in life circumstances and environments (Torres et al., 2012). The resulting level of affirmation/pride is critical in that it may impact values regarding collectivism versus individualism, traditions, and even the intrinsic goodness of human nature (Carter, Yeh, & Mazzula, 2008). Moreover, strong ethnic identity among Latinos – whether via enhanced identification or pride – is positively related to selfesteem and well-being (Hernandez et al., 2014; Umaña-Taylor, Diversi, & Fine, 2002), attitudes regarding civic engagement (Anglin, Johnson-Pynn, & Johnson, 2012), and predicts fewer withdrawn and depressed symptoms (Rogers-Sirin & Gupta, 2012).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 37

Much of the literature surveyed also associates strong ethnic identity with positive academic outcomes (Hernandez et al., 2014; Ong, Phinney, & Dennis, 2006; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2004). In a study of Latino high school students, Gushue (2006) found that ethnic identity is associated with self-efficacy and related task-oriented strengths. Specifically, as adolescents achieve an ethnic identity they may gain confidence in their career decision-making skills such as gathering information, setting goals, and problem solving.

Similarly, Morales (2010) states that some low-SES students of color, including Latinos, use ethnic identity itself as the platform for success. Students in Morales’ (2010) study were aware of their cultural history and felt they were defying stereotypes by exceeding expectations (p. 171).

Although the present study does not directly add to the body of literature on the relationship between identity affirmation and academic outcomes, it helps to illuminate the larger context in which high ethnic affirmation and other positive identity factors may preexist for those in the Latino college student sample with low reported SES.

Socioeconomic Status (SES)

SES corresponds disproportionately with negative outcomes in employment, education, and physical and mental health (American Psychological Association, 2014). However, few studies have explicitly focused on the association between ethnic identity and SES. For example, Calaff (2008) uses a framework of immigrant status, class, and SES to describe how a sample of academically successful, yet socioeconomically diverse, Latino schoolchildren have adopted their parents’ work ethics and attitudes about educational achievement but does not specifically examine SES related to ethnic identity (pp. 209-215).

One study that drew clear connections between SES and identity did not include Latino samples. Specifically, Sanchez and Garcia (2012) analyzed SES data among three multiracial segments (black-white, Latino-white, and Asian-white) according to neighborhood and asked participants to identify the importance and perceived social value of their minority component identity. The authors found that “multiracial people from higher SES and neighborhoods and largely White contexts reported lower private regard (pride) and importance (centrality) for their minority background” (para. 4). In other words, high SES is negatively correlated with racial affirmation/pride.

Volume 6, Page 38

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Given the observed gap in extant literature, it is perhaps telling that Sanchez and Garcia (2012) confirm, “little attention has been given to the interplay between [SES] and race” (para. 1), and naturally, this limitation of the research would seem to extend to ethnicity as well. Our study attempts to begin to plug a rather considerable hole in the present scholarship.

Methodology

Study Design and Sample

The current study uses survey data from a larger study that focused on biological indicators of stress among Latino students who experience subtle discrimination. Participants were recruited through the use of flyers. All students provided written consent to participate. The California State University Standing Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects approved this study.

Participants (N=36) included 24 female and 12 male students ranging in age from 18-36 (M=20, SD=3.4). The analytic sample included 35 participants due to a single missing response in each set of ethnic identity ratings. In each of these instances, the respondent was not counted towards the mean score or correlation coefficient. Participants were asked to self-report their SES and ethnic identity.

Instrumentation

The measures were adapted from two established ethnic identity scales: the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure – Revised (MEIM-R) and the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI).

The MEIM-R. The MEIM-R has subscales to measure identity “exploration” and “commitment” (Phinney & Ong, 2007). The 5-item exploration subscale was used in this study with demonstrated reliability ( = .85). Example items include “I have often done things that will help me understand my ethnic background better” and “I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs.” All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.”

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 39

The MIBI. The MIBI assesses four dimensions of ethnic identity as outlined by the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity (Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998).

We focused on the regard dimension of this model, which comprises private regard (7 items; pride/affirmation;  = .93) and public regard (5 items; how one feels their ethnicity is viewed by non-members;  = .68). Example items for pride/affirmation include “I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me” and “I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group.”

Example items for public regard include “In general, others respect members of my ethnic group” and “Society views members of my ethnic group as an asset.” Though the MIBI was originally designed to be used with black participants (Sellers et al., 1997), it has been adapted for use with other populations, including Latinos (Rivas-Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2009). All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree.”

Data Analysis

There were two independent SES variables in the survey data: reported family income level and self-identified “socioeconomic status” category. Family income level was broken into 12 separate income ranges in the survey, though given the small sample size this was condensed into three broader ranges: less than $25,000; $25,001 to $50,000; and greater than $50,001.

Socioeconomic status was strictly categorical, with choices offered as “working class,” “lowermiddle class,” “middle class,” “upper-middle class,” and “upper class.” None of the participants identified as “upper class” and only one identified as “upper middle class.” Due to the sample size, responses comprising “middle class” and “upper middle class” were combined into a single category for the sake of statistical comparison and analysis, resulting in the socioeconomic status variable containing three categories instead of the original five.

Univariate analysis was used to determine frequency and distribution of scores among the sample. Given the limited sample size, a bivariate analysis was performed using a Spearman’s Rho correlation, the non-parametric alternative to Pearson’s R correlation and better suited to smaller data sets.

Volume 6, Page 40

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Results

The sample is primarily low income, reports low SES, and has higher ethnic identity pride/affirmation than search/exploration or public regard. For participants with a reported family income of less than $25,000 (n=13), the mean rating for affirmation was 3.80; for $25-50,000 (n=14), it was 3.68; and for those reporting over $50,000 (n=9), it was 3.52. Mean ratings for search were 2.44, 2.85, and 2.57, respectively. Mean ratings for regard were 2.64, 2.89, and 2.66, respectively. Affirmation scores on the whole were noticeably higher than those for search and regard, with an average rating of 3.68 compared to average ratings of 2.64 and 2.74 (see Figure 1).

Those reporting an SES category of “working class” (n=14) rated their affirmation an average of 3.76, “lower-middle class” (n=16) rated a similar average of 3.84, while “middle class and above” (n=6) rated only an average of 3.07. Mean ratings for search were 2.84, 2.70, and 2.00, respectively. Mean ratings for public regard were 2.80, 2.73, and 2.63. Again, affirmation scores were noticeably higher than those for search and public regard (mean of 3.68 compared to 2.64 and 2.74) (see Figure 2).

The relationship between reported income, avowed SES, and the three measures of ethnic identity – affirmation, search, and public regard – was investigated using a Spearman’s Rho correlation. As seen in Table 1, there was a negative correlation between reported income and affirmation, r = -.13, p = .42, with higher reported income associated with a lower affirmation rating. Correlations of income and both search and regard (r = .06, p = .73 and r = -.01, p = .95, respectively) were negligible. Analysis of SES as correlated were more illuminating: Negative correlation was observed between SES and affirmation (r = -.21, p = .22), search (r = -.22, p = .19), and public regard (r = -.10, p = .56), with notable drops in expressed affirmation and search for respondents identifying themselves as middle class or above, as identified by the mean scores previously reported. In all cases, results were statistically insignificant likely due to the limited sample size, however the magnitude of the correlation coefficients was moderate suggesting the likelihood for statistical significance given a larger sample size.

Discussion

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 41

The findings reveal a disparity between income and perceived SES as they pertain to ethnic identity. While this may seem counterintuitive due to how often income and SES are conflated, a number of factors may account for the incongruity, including student respondents not knowing their family’s household income, students not being supported by their family and individually having a low SES, the general fluidity of SES labels within society, and the difference between one’s income and the way one actually perceives himself/herself in terms of social status. Indeed, there were multiple instances in which a respondent would report a relatively high or low family income yet select a contrasting SES. For example, one participant reported a total family income between $75,000 and $100,000, yet identified as “working class,” the lowest SES option available. It is both conceivable and justifiable that this individual simply does not identify as anything other than working class despite a seemingly moderate family income because class is a matter of their perception rather than an objectively determined quantity. In this sense, it is possible to feel working class and perhaps even to embody working class identity (however fluid or subjective the concept may be) despite fiscal proof to the contrary – a class identity negotiated somewhere between the dual forces of self-perception and evolving societal definition. As an alternate explanation, a seemingly moderate amount of family income could still be considered “working class” depending on family size.

Is that negotiated SES identity at all related to one’s ethnic identity? Examining the relationship between reported income and the dimensions of ethnic identity yields a mixed picture: We found a slight inverse relationship between affirmation and reported income, perhaps indicating on some level a correlation between class-as-defined-by-income (the most typical social definition of class) and ethnic pride. However, no such relationship was found for search and public regard, perhaps casting some doubt on a potential connection between how status is defined socially (e.g., income) and how ethnicity is experienced.

On the other hand, results for perceptions of status were clearer and potentially support the findings of Sanchez and Garcia (2012) who found that in a sample of multiracial participants, people with a higher SES were more likely to categorize themselves as White than Black. It is possible that the findings of the present study point to a similar connection between self-categorization of both ethnic identity and SES: As self-perception of SES increases, self-perception of pride, the desire to seek connection with one’s ethnicity, and the sense of how one’s ethnicity is viewed by others may actually decrease. Again, it is impossible to pinpoint the cause for this correlation given the limited

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 42

scope of the present study, including a sample with an age range that includes students who may have completed their identity exploration, but one possible reason may be the prevailing sense that identification with minority ethnicity is somehow “lesser” than, or otherwise separate from, what it is stereotypically considered to be “average” or “high-up” in class. In the context of the present study, this tension between class and ethnicity may result in higher-SES Latino students feeling like outsiders among other members of their own culture and perceived status, and more likely to perceive social marginalization.

Inversely, the findings here suggest that Latino college students who identify themselves as working and lower-middle class may also feel a stronger sense of identity and even consider themselves more positively regarded by non-Latinos. Again, potential reasons for this are numerous and require future inquiry. However, as previously mentioned, research has shown that strong ethnic identity is an indicator of positive self-esteem and academic success (Hernandez et al., 2014; Morales, 2010; Ong, Phinney, & Dennis, 2006; Supple, Ghazarian, Frabutt, Plunkett, & Sands, 2006; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2002). Thus, it is possible that a strong sense of ethnic identity allows some Latino college students to succeed in spite of what they feel are humble origins (that is, lower avowed SES), thereby reinforcing the sense that their ethnicity is a source of strength and may be seen by others as going hand-in-hand with industriousness, as indicated by overall higher ethnic identity scores.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that ratings for affirmation were higher across the board, regardless of income level or SES, when compared to search and public regard, suggesting that the examined population likely has pride in its ethnic background even when connections to, and perceived outsider impressions of, said background are not as strong. Moreover, because affirmation ratings were relatively high in all cases, this potentially indicates that even if ethnic pride is negatively associated with higher income and avowed SES, deleterious effects among this population are limited and perhaps mitigated by other factors (for example, a strong sense of personal pride due to academic advancement). Finally, it appears that regardless of income or perceived social status, Latino college students did not differ in their perceptions of how society views their group. Thus, status does not appear to protect or enhance Latino students’ feelings of public regard.

Data from the current study are drawn from a pilot study that focused on biological indicators of stress among Latino students who experience subtle discrimination. Given the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 43

relatively small sample size, this study is meant to be largely exploratory and the convenience sample limits generalizability of results. However, such research does afford the opportunity to begin to explore potential larger trends among this specific population, illuminates a potential relationship between SES and the three dimensions of ethnic identity, and lays the groundwork for future research.

Implications & Conclusion

Given the population studied, a potential relationship between SES and ethnic identity carries implications for those in both the academic and social work professions. With regard to SES, college educators and counselors should keep in mind the potential for ethnic minority students with seemingly high avowed SES – often assumed to be a protective factor – to be vulnerable to feeling like outsiders or perceive social marginalization. These students may need additional support in order to maintain academic wellbeing. Similarly, counselors and educators may want to consider how individual students will react to cultural content, whether in class material or when provided with opportunities for socialization elsewhere on campus.

More broadly, this study reinforces for those in education the centrality of intersectionality as both a concept and basis for practice. Conceptually, this study supports the idea that even with a particular ethnic group, the manner in which ethnicity is experienced can depend on several other factors, one of which may be SES. In terms of practice, these findings indicate that positive ethnic identity may indeed be a protective factor in the face of economic hardship. Likewise, as a factor involved in the negotiation of one’s overall social identity, SES may be a complicating factor, perhaps impacting perception of one’s own culture in sometimes surprising ways. This in turn reinforces the notion that a student’s narrative, cultural expertise, and avowed identity must all be taken into account in order to get a full picture of what affects their psychosocial wellbeing and academic success.

Author Biographies Matthew Kaplan, MSW, graduated from the California State University, Northridge social work program in May 2015.

Volume 6, Page 44

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Jodi L. Constantine Brown, MSW, PhD, Associate Professor, Director of Online & Offsite Programs, joined the California State University, Northridge faculty in 2011 after five years as the Program Director of a non-profit organization that provides free exercise for individuals with cancer. Her teaching and research interests include health outcomes, organizations, program evaluation, and pedagogy.

Que-Lam Huynh, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at California State University, Northridge. Her research focuses on prejudice and discrimination, particularly the relationship between such experiences and ethnic minority identity and well-being.

Virginia Huynh, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Child and Adolescent Development at California State University, Northridge. Her research focuses on understanding social and cultural factors that influence the academic and psychological well-being of ethnic minority children and adolescents.

References

American Psychological Association. (2014). Ethnic and racial minorities & socioeconomic status.

American Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-erm.aspx Anglin, A. E., Johnson-Pynn, J. S., & Johnson, L. R. (2012). Ethnic identity and civic attitudes in Latino and Caucasian youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 15(5), 621-643.

Calaff, K. P. (2008). Latino students’ journeys toward college. Bilingual Research Journal, 31, 201225.

Carter, R. T., Yeh, C. J., & Mazzula, S. L. (2008). Cultural values and racial identity among Latino students: An exploratory investigation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30(1), 523.

Gushue, G. V. (2006). The relationship of ethnic identity, career decision-making self-efficacy and outcome expectations among Latino/a high school students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 85-95.

Hernandez, M. M., Conger, R. D., Robins, R. W., Bacher, K. B., & Widaman, K. F. (2014). Cultural socialization and ethnic pride among Mexican-origin adolescents during the transition to middle school. Child Development, 85(2), 695-708.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 45

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318.

Morales, E. E. (2010). Linking strengths: Identifying and exploring protective factor clusters in academically resilient low-socioeconomic urban students of color. Roper Review, 32, 164175.

Ong, A. D., Phinney, J. S., & Dennis, J. (2006). Competence under challenge: Exploring the protective influence of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students.

Journal of Adolescence, 29, 961-979.

Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271-281.

Rivas-Drake, D., Hughes, D., & Way, N. (2009). A preliminary analysis of associations among ethnic-racial socialization, ethnic discrimination, and ethnic identity among urban sixth graders. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19(3), 558-584.

Rogers-Sirin, L., & Gupta, T. (2012). Cultural identity and mental health: Differing trajectories among Asian and Latino youth. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(4), 555-566.

Sanchez, D. T., & Garcia, J. A. (2012). Social class in America: Racial fluidity and socioeconomic status. RSF Review. Retrieved from http://www.russellsage.org/blog/social-class-americaracial-fluidity-and-socioeconomic-status Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997).

Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 805-815.

Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A., & Chavous, T. M. (1998).

Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18-39.

Stefancic, J. (1997). Latino and Latina critical theory: An annotated bibliography. California Law Review, 85(5), 423-498.

Supple, A. J., Ghazarian, S. R., Frabutt, J. M., Plunkett, S. W., & Sands, T. (2006). Contextual influences on Latino adolescent ethnic identity and academic outcomes. Child Development, 77(5), 1427-1433.

Volume 6, Page 46

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Torres, V., Martinez, S., Wallace, L. D., Medrano, C. I., Robledo, A. L., & Hernandez, E. (2012).

The connections between Latino ethnic identity and adult experiences. Adult Education Quarterly, 62(1), 3-18.

Travino, A. J., Harris, M. A., & Wallace, D. (2008). What’s so critical about critical race theory?

Contemporary Justice Review, 11(1), 7-10.

Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Diversi, M., & Fine, M. A. (2002). Ethnic identity and self-esteem of Latino adolescents: Distinctions among the Latino populations. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(3), 303-327.

Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Yazedjian, A., & Bámaca-Gómez, M. (2004). Developing the Ethnic Identity Scale using Eriksonian and social identity perspectives. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4(1), 9-38.

Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 659 – 690.

Table 1 Spearman’s Rho Correlations between Income, SES, and Ethnic Identity Variable of Interest

1

2

3

4

5

1. Income

-

.38*

-.13

.06

-.01

-

-.21

-.22

-.10

-

.68** .28

2. SES 3. Pride/Affirmation 4. Search/Exploration 5. Public Regard

Note. * p < .05 (2-tailed); ** p < .01 (2-tailed).

-

.56** -

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Figure 1. Income level by ethnic identity.

Figure 2. Socioeconomic status by ethnic identity.

Â

Volume 6, Page 47Â

Volume 6, Page 48Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Kenyan Female Entrepreneurs and Negotiation Education: Exploring Efficacy Development Utilizing Distance Learning  Veronica Guerrero California Lutheran University Judith Richards California Lutheran University Allison Domicone University of California Berkley (student) Abstract Aspiring female entrepreneurs commonly lack key business skills that their male counterparts develop from experiences and expectations of the cultural environment. This skillset includes negotiation efficacy, a competency that may be pivotal for Kenyan women; especially those held back by poverty, who seek to launch and sustain a new venture. The purpose of this study was to explore the following questions: How should distance learning, higher educational training be implemented to Kenyan women in order to improve negotiation self-efficacy? Can formalized training increase negotiation self-efficacy across key success factors including confidence and likelihood in achieving goals, competitiveness and collaboration? Is there a shift in the proposed usage of strategies after the workshop? California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, CA collaborated with Akili Dada, a nonprofit organization in Nairobi, Kenya. Two half-day negotiation skills workshops were offered for aspiring Kenyan women entrepreneurs. Participants completed pre- and post-surveys to determine effectiveness of the training. According to the results, distance learning, higher educational training courses can be beneficial and should be implemented by employing train-the-trainer, videos and Skype. Formalized training can increase negotiation selfefficacy across key success factors including confidence, likelihood in achieving goals, and competitiveness. There was a positive shift in the usage of strategies. The outcomes of this study may provide support for educators in designing curriculum for women entrepreneurs. The study Â

Volume 6, Page 49Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

may also provide insight to specific educational pedagogies that are more effective for women in the area of negotiation skill development.

Keywords: Entrepreneurial education, negotiation, Kenya, females.

Introduction Self-efficacy has emerged as a proven construct to evaluate learning and change (Bandura, 2012). Self-efficacy is based on Social Learning Theory and can be explained as the confidence an individual has for persevering through specific tasks in order to achieve desired performance outcomes (Bandura, 1999). However, there is little research available on negotiation self-efficacy among female entrepreneurs in Kenya. This study will focus on the development of negotiation skills among emerging Kenya women entrepreneurs via distance learning in order to increase negotiation self-efficacy.

This research project will attempt to address the following questions: 1) How can a distance-learning platform be utilized to improve negotiation self-efficacy among women across global boundaries?

2) How can a formalized training session increase negotiation self-efficacy across key success factors including: Likelihood in achieving goals, confidence, competitiveness (distributive) and collaboration (integrative)?

3) What factors can be measured to evaluate training outcomes in support of negotiation selfefficacy?

Literature Review

Kenyan Culture Based on Gender

Kenya is experiencing rapid social modernization in urban areas, and to some extent rural areas, resulting in a more progressive understanding of womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in society and business. Women have tended to work more in the agricultural and informal business sectors. The majority of women who are in the formal sector have historically been employed in service industries, although this is changing quickly in high-growth sectors, such as telecommunication and mobile phones (Ellis, 2007). Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 50

Women continue to face multiple barriers to equal participation in society. According to the World Economic Forum, in 2013, Kenya had a Global Gender Gap ranking of 78 out of 136 countries, an improvement from ranking 99 out of 135 in 2011 ("The Global Gender Gap Report 2013," 2013). While it ranked 44 out of 136 for Economic Participation, it ranked 85 or lower for educational attainment, health and survival, plus political empowerment ("The Global Gender Gap Report 2013," 2013). These barriers continue to put women at an economic disadvantage.

Attempts to encourage an enterprise culture among youth, both male and female, through entrepreneurship education has been advocated at the government level as a development tool since the late 1980s (Nelson & Johnson, 1997). However, women in particular continue to face multiple barriers to socio-economic advancement. Challenges that women entrepreneurs continue to face include lack of access to finance, gender discrimination, conflict at the local policy level, demanding familial duties, poor access to justice, and lack of education and entrepreneurial skills (Mwobobia, 2012). There is a continued emphasis on the importance of the acquisition of entrepreneurship skills as early as primary and secondary school, and continuing through tertiary levels (Otuya, 2013).

Research into female-led enterprises in Kenya has shown that for many lower-income women, the decision to engage in business activity is determined by external factors, for example, the need to provide for the family. While these women’s businesses may become successful due to the women’s perseverance and hard work, formalized entrepreneurship training would make it much likelier that women would be able to grow their businesses to a level that could allow them to achieve greater economic mobility (“Kenya population situation analysis”, 2013).

Distance Learning

Distance learning has been described as an educational process whereas a significant proportion of the teaching is conducted by parties removed in space and/or time from the learner (Perraton, 2000). According to The American Council on Education, distance education could be, “A system and a process that connects learners with distributed learning resources” (Stevens, 2001, p.14). With the progressive development in technology and Internet usage, the popularity of distance learning and e-learning have been increasing. According to Web 2.0 research, the Internetbased environments have enhanced the virtual interaction between teachers and students (Chao, Hsu, Jin, Shih, & Yen, 2010), bringing an enhanced virtual learning environment.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 51Â

Besides utilizing the Web, combining multimedia or online collaboration platforms, such as video, digital graphs, e-mail, or web conferencing services have also shown positive impact on studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; learning experiences (Buckley & Smith, 2007; Discenza, Howard, & Schenk, 2002).

Distance learning is a cost effective education approach without sacrificing the quality (AssieLumumba, 2004; Pityana, 2009). This approach is especially needed in developing countries, such as South Africa or Kenya, due to lack of trainers, teachers, school and classroom resources (Gunga & Ricketts, 2007; Nyerere, Gravenir, & Mse, 2012). In particular, there is a lack of opportunities in remote areas (Wims & Lawler, 2007). Currently, there are some developed distance learning platforms and resources in Kenya with the most popular being Moodle and Blackboard (Muuro, Wagacha, Oboko, & Kihoro, 2014). The most common challenges of distance learning in developing countries are lack of e-learning resources and the difficulties of implementing programs (Muuro et al., 2014).

Distance learning may bring positive impact to developing countries; however, it also has some disadvantages, such as communication limitations due to lack of face-to-face interaction (Muuro et al., 2014). Gunga and Rickets (2007) indicated that the blended learning approach, which is a mix of traditional face-to-face teaching and electronic tutoring is preferable. To avoid a gap of communication, in this study, a leader was trained via Skype, FaceTime, and e-mail, which provided real-time interactions with the professor in the U.S. The trained leader implemented the workshop in Kenya to lead the learners in order to provide instant feedback, face-to-face interaction, plus execution of multimedia, which encompassed videos and Skype.

Negotiation Styles, Strategies and Tactics

In a negotiation situation, distributive tactics are used to gain concessions from the other party while integrative tactics involve trade-offs and satisfying the interests of all the negotiation participants (Yiu & Cheung, 2012). Distributive situations are also known as zero-sum or win-lose negotiations, where one individual obtains their goal while the other person fails to achieve their respective goal (Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2011). Conversely, integrative situations are associated with non-zero sum or win-win negotiation scenarios where both parties can meet or exceed their targeted outcomes (Lewicki et al., 2011). Generally, integrative or collaborative skills are involved in value-creation which occurs first, while distributive or competitive tactics are employed Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 52

in the value-claiming stage which follows (Lewicki et al., 2011). Normally negotiation involves a process of engaging in a combination of both creating and claiming value strategies (Lewicki et al., 2011). Therefore, it is imperative that negotiators comprehend how to both create and claim value in order to maximize their targeted goal outcomes and refrain from leaving unclaimed value on the bargaining table.

Gender stereotypes categorize the male negotiator as strong, dominant, assertive plus rational versus the female as weak, submissive, accommodating and emotional (Hames, 2011).

Hames (2011) described women as behaving more collaboratively in negotiations and viewing negotiation in terms of ongoing relationships with greater concern for feelings and emotions. Thus, women may settle for lower outcomes than men as a result of their concern for preservation of the relationship (Guerrero & Richards, 2015). Men tend to utilize more persuasive tactics, which results in better outcomes than their female counterparts (Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999). Amanatullah et al (2010) found that women negotiating on their own behalf are less assertive, perhaps due to fear of backlash or negative implications. Consequently, women tend to employ fewer competitive tactics and thus realize lower outcomes; this is especially relevant for female business owners who negotiate on their own behalf (Guerrero & Richards, 2015).

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is at the center of social learning theory developed by Albert Bandura (Bandura, 1977), and has long been a construct used in numerous research studies to evaluate pedagogical effectiveness (Brady-Amoon & Fuertes, 2011; Celuch, Kozlenkova, & Black, 2010; Pollack & Lilly, 2008; Sargent, Borthick, & Lederberg, 2011). Bandura (1977) defines self-efficacy as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes (p. 79).

Social learning theory has been used widely in the study of adult learners” (Celuch et al., 2010; Pollack & Lilly, 2008). The theory provides a basis for predicting behavioral changes and is proven construct to study learning and change (Bandura, 2012).

Bandura (1986) explains, “Performances that call for ingenuity, resourcefulness, and adaptability depend more on adroit use of skills and specialized knowledge than on effort” (p. 371).

Further, the ambiguity and unpredictability of certain situations may have an impact on an individual’s predicted performance of a specific task or task domain. Sustained performance for

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 53

complex tasks, such as negotiations, that are challenging, that require great effort, and that are not easily replicated may not automatically strengthen an individual’s perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Individual self-efficacy depends on one’s belief that they are able to consistently perform at desired levels with shifting situational factors (Bandura, 2012). Due to the complex and ambiguous nature of negotiations, self-efficacy theory lends itself well to the evaluation of learning and skill development to predict an individual’s negotiation performance and belief in their ability to continually and proactively engage in negotiation opportunities (Lewicki, 1997).

Mastery of the set of skills and competencies associated with the task will determine the level of perceived efficacy an individual possesses. Personal mastery can be developed through a series of experiential activities, social modeling, and verbal persuasion (Bandura, 2012).

Researchers have explored the utilization of negotiation self-efficacy to improve sustained individual performance levels for this complex task domain (Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Miles & Maurer, 2012). The variety of elements and skills required of the negotiation process combined with interdependence of individuals involved in a negotiation situation makes learning and mastery of the task domain a fairly complex and lengthy process.

Miles and Maurer (2012) explored negotiation skill self-efficacy at the domain level with promising results. Their research concluded that domain level self-efficacy might be an effective measurement of negotiation self-efficacy due to the complex nature of the tasks involved and the dynamic, unpredictable nature of negotiation situations. Perceived self-efficacy may improve through mastery experiences, social modeling, social persuasion, and partly by one’s emotional and physical condition involving the range of tasks involved in a specific behavior being measured. The combination of these factors determine the level of effort one will put forth to achieve desired results across a range of tasks within a specified domain (Bandura, 2012).

Therefore, learning environments that provide opportunities for individuals to participate in simulated negotiation situations and receive constructive feedback on their performance can be useful to increasing individual self-efficacy for the negotiation task domain (Gist et al., 1991; Stevens & Gist, 1997). Further, activities which support the development of knowledge, skills and competencies in the specific tasks involved in negotiation (interpersonal communications, empathy, assertiveness, etc.) will support success in mastery level experiences (Miles & Maurer, 2012). This can be highly relevant for women entrepreneurs who struggle with confidence and efficacy in pursuing entrepreneurial endeavors (Terjesen & Elam, 2012). As such, educational pedagogies that

Volume 6, Page 54

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

engage and develop skills in negotiation could potentially support the self-efficacy of Kenyan women.

Methodology

California Lutheran University (CLU) in Thousand Oaks, CA, USA collaborated with Akili Dada, a nonprofit organization in Nairobi, Kenya, that agreed to participate in this research project.

Akili Dada is a leadership incubator investing in high-achieving young African women from underprivileged backgrounds who are passionate about social change. A half-day negotiation skills workshop was offered to participants on two separate occasions (June 22 and June 28, 2013) at the Akili Dada office.

Attendees from the first workshop consisted of 21aspiring professional women entrepreneurs and leaders at various stages of their professional careers. The fee to attend the session was approximately $5 (500 Kenya shillings). However, fees were waived for women unable to afford the session. The second workshop was comprised of 20 select female high school students and graduates. Again, participants coming from underprivileged backgrounds (about half of the attendees) were not required to pay. The other half of the attendees paid approximately $3 (300 Kenya shillings) for the workshop. In both cases, the women were charged the small fee in order to encourage a greater commitment to attending. A Faculty Mini-Grant of $470 was received from University research funding opportunities to host the workshops, which included a luncheon, a $2 fee to participate in the negotiation simulation and prizes for the best paper submission.

Research Methods and Research Designs

The sampling unit of participants at the workshops completed a paper-based pre-survey at the beginning of the workshop in addition to a post-survey at the end of the activities. Paper surveys were utilized since not all of the attendees had access to computers. Although an incentive was not offered, a 100% response rate was achieved on the post surveys. The responses were then manually added into the Qualtrics online survey database by Akili Dada’s interns.

The closed-ended questions included Likert-type scales while the open-ended questions were completely unstructured (Keller, 2012). The research questions were carefully formulated and

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 55

grouped in categories including education, demographics, career, confidence, negotiation styles, strategies, likelihood in achieving goals, plus workshop information. The design provided participants of the workshops with the opportunity to reflect on the learning experience. This method provided a structure to determine the effectiveness of the workshops in supporting negotiation self-efficacy.

The surveys in this research included a self-efficacy scale designed to measure the strength of the participants’ perceived degree of confidence on a 100-point scale of whether they would engage in performing negotiation tactics (Bandura, 2006). The descriptors utilized single unit intervals ranging from 0 to 100, with 0 equating to “cannot do at all”, 50 “moderately can do” and 90-100 signifying they are “highly certain they can do” (Bandura, 2006). The statements included in the self-efficacy scale identify negotiation tactics that are either distributive or integrative (Yiu & Cheung, 2012). Question numbers 1 through 5 are associated with distributive negotiating tactics, while questions 6 through 10 are associated with integrative negotiating tactics. Self-efficacy has been proven to powerfully influence negotiators’ behaviors concerning the different outcomes achieved when distributive or integrative strategies are employed (Sullivan, 2006).

Workshop attendees were provided with The Personal Bargaining Inventory Questionnaire as a personal resource (Lewicki, Saunders, & Minton, 2010). The original questionnaire was modified to include only 30 questions utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale (Keller, 2012).

Participants were encouraged to read through the resource on their own time and to utilize it to determine their negotiation style as well as establish important values that contribute to perceptions in the negotiation process.

The Negotiation Simulation

The workshop instructor employed train-the-trainer techniques to prepare Akili Dada’s Nairobi-based Director of Development to administer the negotiation simulation. Training primarily took place through Skype, FaceTime, and telephonic conference calls. In addition, videotaped facilitated simulation negotiations were provided to the Director as advanced training and reference.

The US-based workshop instructors opened the workshop via Skype with introductions and an online live lecture on negotiation best practices, followed by a live question and answer session.

Thereafter, attendees viewed a one-hour videotaped lecture of the CLU instructor on the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 56

fundamentals of negotiation that included strategies of distributive bargaining, the integrative negotiation process, closing the deal, goals, strategy, planning, plus creating and claiming value (Lewicki et al., 2011). Participants followed along with the lecture and recorded notes using a printed version of the slides that was provided to them as part of the workshop packet. Thereafter, participants randomly engaged in a drawing to determine their placement into one of three groups. They were asked to study the rules associated with a Coalition Bargaining negotiation exercise (Lewicki et al., 2010). The equivalent of approximately two American dollars (200 Kenya shillings) were distributed to each of the attendees and later collected as a lab fee to participate in the role-play. In order to provide a context relevant to Kenyan entrepreneurs, the instructor customized Lewicki’s (2010) Coalition Bargaining simulation by stipulating a specific partnership context.

The effectiveness of negotiation training can be enhanced when an approach is taken in which participants engage in activities that require them to work effectively in teams while exercising analytical and communication skills (Plumly et al., 2008). The objective of the role-play was to have the participants experience the following: competition with unequal resources, the outcomes of winning or losing, planning and preparation, plus the usage of integrative and/or distributive strategies after negotiation training (Lewicki et al., 2010). A one-hour time constraint was imposed on the coalition bargaining exercise.

To assist the attendees in engaging in additional preparation to identify needs, priorities, resources, and constraints, a “Planning for Negotiations” tool was provided to them (Lewicki et al., 2010). There was only one issue to be negotiated, which consisted of forming an entrepreneurial partnership contract between two coalitions. Coalition ballot contracts were provided to each team and were collected at the end of the exercise. Teams were instructed to designate whether they believed a coalition had successfully been established as well as to identify the agreed-upon division of funds between the two teams in the coalition (Lewicki et al., 2010). The role-play simulation was videotaped. A debriefing session followed the end of the exercise.

The outcome from Workshop 1, which was held with young women ages 18 and older, was that a coalition formed between group C, representing sugar, and group B, representing tea. In Workshop 2, which was conducted with young women ages 18-25, a coalition was formed between group A, representing coffee, and group C, representing sugar. In both cases, the third team that did not end up joining a coalition had taken a hardball approach to the negotiation process. During the de-brief session

Volume 6, Page 57

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

after the bargaining exercise, the other teams commented that this was a primary factor in deciding not to form a coalition with those teams.

Data Analysis and Findings

After taking the workshop, 93% of the women indicated they either Agree or Strongly Agree with the statement “When engaging in negotiations, I could be described as confident.” There was a 47% increase from the pre to the post survey in the Strongly Agree category. Further, 86% of the participants either Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “When engaging in negotiations, I am likely to achieve my outcome goals” in the post-survey as opposed to 66% in the pre-survey.

These increases support a perceived increase in the efficacy development among the participants within the negotiation skill domain.

Prior to taking the workshop 48% of the attendees Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the statement “When engaging in negotiations, I could be described as competitive.” After, the workshop, 66% of the attendees Agreed or Strongly Agreed with this statement. In the pre-survey, 12% of the women indicated they Strongly Agree with the statement “When engaging in negotiations, I could be described as collaborative.” In the post survey, 49% of the women Strongly Agreed with the statement. Overall, 83% of the women Agreed or Strongly Agreed with this statement in the post-survey. Table 1 and Table 2 provide further detail to attendee responses to negotiation elements involving distributive (competitive) strategies and integrative (collaborative) strategies. Overall survey results show support for a greater understanding of how collaborative strategies can be used towards establishing a competitive stance in a negotiations situation.

Questions

Pre Average

Post Average

Pre Standard

Post Standard

Value (n=34)

Value (n=40)

Deviation

Deviation

69.94

85.38

20.99

12.62

76.18

82.7

20.91

15.6

1. I would object to an issue that was unfavorable to me (Churchman, 1993).

2. I would maximize the information received

Volume 6, Page 58Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

and minimize the information given (Churchman, 1993).

3. I would argue in support of my position

73.26

87.98

23.03

13.3

73.53

88

22.87

13.19

55.41

59.68

28.25

32.25

(Olekalns, 1996).

4. I would attempt to increase the time pressure by indicating the negotiation deadline (Olekalns, 1996).

5. I would try and hide my bottom line (Barry, 1998).

Table 1: Distributive Strategies

Questions

Pre Average

Post Average

Pre Standard

Post Standard

Value (n=34)

Value (n=40)

Deviation

Deviation

79.73

86.32

17.47

12.63

73.26

87.98

23.03

13.3

68.79

80.23

20.37

15.99

77.59

81.8

17.98

17.17

6. I would begin with easy issues on common ground (Bordone, 2005).

7. I would try to identify the core issue and clarify where each party stood (Bordone, 2005).

8. I would attempt to exchange concessions with my opponent (Churchman, 1993).

9. I would try to understand the situation Â

Volume 6, Page 59

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

from my opponent's point of view (Churchman, 1993).

10. I would appear patient during the negotiation (Churchman,

73.53

88

22.87

13.19

1993).

Table 2: Integrative Strategies

Although 53% would have preferred a face-to-face presentation, when asked about the effectiveness of the Skype portion of the course, 61% of the attendees indicated that Skype was an effective learning method used in the course. Generally, the women expressed appreciation for the opportunity to attend the workshop. Comments from the attendees included: •

“I have not done anything like this before. I can now say that I know what negotiation entails.”

•

“Great initiative, practical application in all relationships whether business or personal for effective goal achievement.”

•

“Follow-up with more training sessions and exercises.”

•

“It was very helpful, I now know what I do wrong in negotiations.”

•

“It was a wonderful experience and eye-opener too.”

•

“Thank you for the practical opportunity and for the extra learning material and references.”

The activities identified by the attendees from the workshop that were most helpful to development and improvement of their negotiation skills included: •

“The group negotiation activity as it translated the theory into practice.”

•

“The Skype sessions and group work.”

•

“Planning guide; preparing before a negotiation.”

•

“Cooperation with teammates in order to make the negotiations a success”

Respondents also identified highlights of their participation in the workshop. Some attendee comments included:

•

“The team role-play exercise.”

•

“Best practices and planning for negotiation.”

Volume 6, Page 60

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

•

“Closing a deal and coming to an agreement.”

•

“I enjoyed the video and felt part of a larger class.”

•

“I was enlightened on how to negotiate effectively.”

•

“Everything was awesome. I learned a new skill.”

•

“It was a perfect workshop, I loved it.”

•

“Thank you for the practical opportunity and for the extra learning material and references.”

Conclusions

After taking the negotiation course workshop, participants overall intended to be more confidant, likely to achieve their negotiation outcome goals, and competitive and collaborative in their future negotiations. As such, entrepreneurial women may be more inclined to employ both integrative (collaborative) and distributive (competitive) strategies to respectively create and to claim value after taking formalized training in negotiations, thereby improving overall outcomes.

Further, the results support previous studies involving entrepreneurship education and its impact on a participant’s propensity to learn (Kirby, 2006). Additionally, the results support previous studies which indicate negotiation self-efficacy is important to entrepreneurs and education can lead to improvements (Kuratko, 2005).

Training pertaining to negotiation self-efficacy can have a positive impact upon the learning of Kenyan women entrepreneurs. Specific educational pedagogies, i.e., experiential activities involving simulations and modeling, can build increased participant negotiation self-efficacy.

Educators may want to consider the inclusion of Negotiation training in designing curriculum for women entrepreneurial programs. Further, using a distance-learning platform can provide a means to provide women in developing countries access to formalized training and skill development.

Distance learning courses should consider incorporating train-the-trainer instructors, pre-recorded video lectures and live Skype interactions.

This study may be used by educators in designing curriculum for women entrepreneurs, especially involving specific educational pedagogies that are more effective for women in the area of negotiation skill development. This skill area is very masculine-based and can be intimidating for women. Research results that assist in uncovering effective educational methods to drive task specific negotiation behaviors among women can prove valuable for struggling female

Volume 6, Page 61

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

entrepreneurs who lack formal business education and career experience where negotiation experience can be most prevalent. Future study opportunities would be to utilize this methodology in other countries or offer the workshops again in Kenya.

Author Biographies

Veronica Guerrero has over 20 years of Marketing Communications experience in the technology industry. Her professional background in the private sector included developing and implementing marketing programs between both small and large organizations. She has worked for BBDO, 3Com, GRC International, and KPMG Consulting. As a Marketing Director for KPMG Consulting, Guerrero was responsible for strategic marketing initiatives. She has provided consulting to entrepreneurs regarding brand position and strategic marketing plans. At California Lutheran University, Guerrero teaches Marketing and Management courses plus serves as the Department Chair within the School of Management. Dr Guerrero has focused her doctoral research on women entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial education.

Judith Richards has worked at California Lutheran University’s since 2008 in the School of Management, where as a lecturer she teaches Marketing courses. She is also the founding professor for the Negotiation and Conflict Management class offered in the MBA program. Richards enjoyed an exciting 20 plus year career working for Fortune 200 corporations as Vice President of Sales and Marketing. In addition, Richards and Guerrero’s papers pertaining to Higher Education, Negotiation Competence and Female Entrepreneurs have been published in the Journal of Entrepreneurship Education and the Journal of the World Universities Forum.

References

Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256.

Assie-Lumumba, N. D. T. (2004). Cyberspace, distance learning, and higher education : Old and emergent issues of access, pedagogy, and knowledge production. Leiden, NLD: Brill Academic Publishers.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 62Â

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of Self-Efficacy Theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2(1), 21-41.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.).

Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, (Vol. 5., pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9-44. doi:10.1177/0149206311410606 Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. Personality Social Psychology, 74(2), 345-359.

Bordone, R., & Todd, G. S. (2005). Have you negotiated how you'll negotiate? Harvard Business Publishing Newsletters.

Brady-Amoon, P., & Fuertes, J. N. (2011). Self-efficacy, self-rated abilities, adjustment, and academic performance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(4), 431-438.

Buckley, W., & Smith, A. (2007, Summer). Application of multimedia technologies to enhance distance learning. Re:view, 39, 57-65.

Celuch, K., Kozlenkova, I., & Black, G. (2010). An exploration of self-efficacy as a mediator of skill beliefs and student self-identity as a critical thinker. Marketing Education Review, 20(3), 70-80. doi:10.2753/mer1052-8008200306 Chao, L. R., Hsu, H.-H., Jin, Q., Shih, T. K., & Yen, N. Y. (2010). Trend of e-learning: The service mashup. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 8(1), 69-88.

Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295-316. doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(97)00029-3 Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.

Organizational Research Methods, 4(1).

Churchman, D. (1993). Negotiation tactics. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Discenza, R., Howard, C., & Schenk, K. (2002). The design and management of effective distance learning programs. Hershey, PA]: Idea Group Pub. Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 63Â

Ellis, A. e. a. (2007). Gender and economic growth in Kenya. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.

Gist, M. E., Stevens, C. K., & Bavetta, A. G. (1991). Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Personnel Psychology, 44(4), 837-861.

The Global Gender Gap Report 2013. (2013). Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland: The World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2013.pdf Guerrero, V., & Richards, J. (2015). Female entrepreneurs and negotiation self-efficacy: A study on negotiation skill building among women entrepreneurs. Journal of Entrepreneurial Education, 18(1).

Gunga, S. O., & Ricketts, I. W. (2007). Facing the challenges of e-learning initiatives in African universities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 896-906.

Hames, D. S. (2011). Negotiation: Closing deals, settling disputes, and making team decisions.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Keller, K. (2012). Marketing management (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

Kenya population situation analysis. (2013). National Council for Population and Development.

Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Population Fund. Retrieved from https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/admin-resource/FINALPSAREPORT_0.pdf Kirby, D. A. (2006). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge?

International Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and Newness, 35-54.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577-598.

Lewicki, R. (1997). Teaching negotiation and dispute resolution in colleges of business: The state of the practice. Negotiation Journal, 13(3), 253-269. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1997.tb00131.x Lewicki, R., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (2011). Essentials of negotiations. New York, NY: McGrawHill Publishing Co. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Minton, J. W. (2010). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Miles, E. W., & Maurer, T. J. (2012). Advancing validity of self-efficacy in negotiation through focusing at the domain level. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 85(1), 23-41. doi:10.1348/096317910x531744 Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 64Â

Muuro, M. E., Wagacha, W. P., Oboko, R., & Kihoro, J. (2014). Students' perceived challenges in an online collaborative learning environment: A case of higher learning institutions in Nairobi, Kenya. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 15(6), 132161. Retrieved from https://ezproxy.callutheran.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=eue&AN=99806488&site=ehost-live&scope=site Mwobobia, F. M. (2012). The challenges facing small-scale women entrepreneurs: A case of Kenya.

International Journal of Business Administration, 3(2), 112-121.

Nelson, R., & Johnson, S. (1997). Entrepreneurship education as a strategic approach to economic growth in Kenya. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 35(1), 7-21.

Nyerere, J. K. A., Gravenir, F. Q., & Mse, G. S. (2012). Delivery of open, distance, and e-learning in Kenya. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(3), 185-205.

Retrieved from https://ezproxy.callutheran.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=eft&AN=77482728&site=ehost-live&scope=site Olekalns, M., Smith, P. L., & Walsh, T. (1996). The process of negotiating: Strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes. Organizational Behavorial Hum, 68(1), 68-77.

Otuya, R., Peter, K. & Otuya, J. (2013). A Proposed approach for teaching entrepreneurship education in Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(8), 204-210.

Perraton, H. D. (2000). Open and distance learning in the developing world. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pityana, N. B. (2009). Open distance learning in the developing world: Trends, progress and challenges. Paper presented at the Keynote speech at ICDE World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education.

Plumly, L., Marshall, L. L., Eastman, J., Iyer, R., Stanley, K., & Boatright, J. (2008). Developing entrepreneurial competencies: A student business. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 11, 17-28.

Pollack, B. L., & Lilly, B. (2008). Gaining confidence and competence through experiential assignments: An exploration of student self-efficacy and spectrum of inquiry. Marketing Education Review, 18(2), 55-66. Retrieved from

Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 65Â

https://lib.pepperdine.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =buh&AN=34775966&login.asp?custid=s8480238&site=ehost-live&scope=site Sargent, C. S., Borthick, A. F., & Lederberg, A. R. (2011). Improving retention for principles of accounting students: Ultra-short online tutorials for motivating effort and improving performance. Issues in Accounting Education, 26(4), 657-679. doi:10.2308/iace-50001 Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal- orientation training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 955978. Retrieved from https://lib.pepperdine.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =buh&AN=23649&login.asp?custid=s8480238&site=ehost-live&scope=site Stevens, G. (2001). Distance learning for technical and vocational education in Sub-Sahara Africa: Challenges and opportunities. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLM/2145781103217503703/20295546/DistanceLearningVET.pdf Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 653-677.

Sullivan, B., O'Connor, K., & Burris, E. (2006). Negotiator confidence: The impact of self-efficacy on tactics and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(567-581).

Terjesen, S., & Elam, A. (2012). Women entrepreneurship: A force for growth. International Trade Forum(2), 16-17. Retrieved from https://lib.pepperdine.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =buh&AN=78395503&login.asp?custid=s8480238&site=ehost-live&scope=site Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education.

Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 31(3), 387-406. doi:10.1111/j.15406520.2007.00179.x Wilson, F., Kickul, J., Marlino, D., Barbosa, S. D., & Griffiths, M. D. (2009). An analysis of the role of gender and self-efficacy in developing female entrepreneurial interest and behavior.

Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 105-119. Retrieved from https://lib.pepperdine.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db =buh&AN=44071183&login.asp?custid=s8480238&site=ehost-live&scope=site Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 66Â

Wims, P., & Lawler, M. (2007). Investing in ICTs in educational institutions in developing countries: An evaluation of their impact in Kenya. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 3(1).

Yiu, T, Cheung, S., & Siu, L. (2012). Application of Bandura's Self-Efficacy Theory to examining.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(3).

Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 12651272. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265

Â

Volume 6, Page 67

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Using Student Conversation to Build Upon Prior Knowledge

Teresa Weaver Forest Avenue Academic Magnet School Shelly Hudson Bowden Auburn University at Montgomery Gilbert Dueñas Auburn University at Montgomery

Abstract

In the ever-changing cultural diversity of today’s public schools, the student body comes from a broad range of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. This diversity includes not only race, ethnicity, and language but diversity in their personal experiences and prior knowledge. In this qualitative study, the author and teacher explored ways to use classroom conversations to build prior knowledge. Findings from four weeks of classroom observations, analysis of conversation patterns, and literature review indicated teacher talk is best used as a tool to guide student conversations, creating communicative and collaborative classroom environments. Based on data collected in small and whole group instruction in a fourth grade class, the author found that an intentional decision to ‘loosen the reins’ of daily academic discourse allowed children to make choices of which conversational pathway to take and thus embrace their self-constructed knowledge. By incorporating multiple pockets of time in the school day, the author observed the transformation of ordinary dialogue from a teacher-led conversational paradigm to a mutual partnership shared by students and teacher. Through repeated application of this instructional strategy, students were empowered to readily express their own voices, prior knowledge and life experiences as the framework for knowledge construction.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 68

Keywords: Classroom conversation, prior knowledge, teacher talk

Introduction Teachers’ conversations with children help the children build the bridges between action and consequence that develop their sense of agency. They show children, by acting strategically, they accomplish things, and at the same time, that they are the kind of person who accomplishes things. (Johnston, 2004, p. 30) As a public school fourth grade language arts teacher, in an inner city public school, I searched daily for effective ways and methods to provide the best learning environment possible to help struggling students become successful readers and writers. Routman (2000) stated, “All learning involves conversation” (p. xxxvi). Classrooms should be filled with talk and conversations.

My students did not experience literary rich home environments and had very little exposure to the world outside of their apartment complex or school. With such limited prior knowledge, it was often difficult to have classroom conversations, and so I began to use my personal experiences and my own prior knowledge to help open their eyes and build bridges to the world around them.

Students learn and remember new information best when it is linked to relevant prior knowledge (Beyer, 1991). I felt it was important to use my classroom as the vehicle that took my students to places they had not and probably would not ever have a chance to visit. Using the photographs, videos, scrapbooks, diaries and personal experiences of my childhood traveling the world with a military family, I tried to bring the world outside into our classroom. Hopefully, by making connections for them, it would spark an interest leading them to inquire and search for more information.

Teachers’ conversations with children build bridges between teaching and learning. Teacher talk shapes how students think, act and learn in the classroom (Denton, 2008). I have always prided myself on my teacher talk abilities, until the day I overheard a student during a lesson, tell another student, “She talks too much!” Though this method of sharing personal experiences to spark connections had seemed both engaging and effective, I began to question the amount of time I actually spent speaking to my students rather than having conversations with them. Had I been building bridges through my teacher talk, or had my students been sitting and waiting for that glimpse of light at the end of a tunnel when I quit talking? It reminded me of a Peanuts cartoon I

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 69

had once read, where one character asked another if he thought their teacher ever got tired of saying, “Wha, wha, wha,” all day?

Did I talk too much? Had I missed a cue somewhere between that fine line of engaging my students and boring them in my attempts to activate and build their prior knowledge? Was I missing valuable classroom conversational opportunities for student talk? I was aware that components of teaching could be impeded by lack of student prior knowledge. The more prior knowledge a student possess, the quicker they are able to process new information. How was I going to help students with limited prior knowledge, build on that knowledge through conversation if I limited my teacher talk?

According to Short and Burke (1996), “Inquiry and change for us often begin with a vague feeling of tension that we may not be able to articulate. Something isn’t right, and we get a sense of what is bothering us, and that leads us to take some kind of action” (p. 97). Based on this insight, I decided I needed to make some changes in aspects of my teaching, and began looking for ways that I could use my teacher talk to bridge the gap by using conversation to help students activate and build their own prior knowledge.

Recently, I accepted a position at an academically accelerated instructional school within the same school district. While the student body is advanced, they come from a broad range of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. The population of students in public schools today is more diverse than ever before (National Center for Education, 2010). This diversity includes not only race, ethnicity, and language but diversity in their personal experiences and prior knowledge.

Marshall (1996) reminded us, “Learning is controlled as much by experiences students bring to the learning situation as it is by the way the information is presented” (p. 81). I found with the differences in my students’ cultural backgrounds and prior knowledge, I was once again dominating the classroom discussions in my attempts to build bridges and fill in the students’ prior knowledge gaps. But, I was filling my students with my knowledge, rather than allowing them to use their prior knowledge as a bridge to build their own knowledge.

Research continues to validate that the teacher is the one of the most influential resources to student achievement in the classroom. However, to allow for effective teacher talk, and meaningful instructional conversations, teachers must strive to find that middle ground between dominating the conversation and guiding the conversation. So, I set out to find that middle ground. I needed to find a way to build bridges by releasing the responsibility of learning to my students and in doing so,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 70

listening and allowing their voices to guide our conversations. For my students to move forward, I needed to be an influential resource, not the only resource. No more sitting and waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel.

My initial thinking on instructional conversations was to reduce the amount of teacher talk in the hope of allowing my students to become active participants in conversations--leading to more student-centered classroom conversations in their efforts to build new knowledge. Linking new information to prior knowledge requires effective communication between teachers and students (Goldenberg, 1992, December/1993, January). It was therefore the goal of this study to collect data from my teacher talk to see how I could help my children develop their skills in activating and building upon prior knowledge through conversation.

Literature Review

I began my study by first acknowledging that to reduce a problem, is to become aware of it. I needed to understand what was happening in my classroom and identify changes that would improve my teaching and student learning. Hansen (1996) stipulated, “It is important for us to try to understand why some things are not successful in our classrooms” (p. 6). By conducting research in our own classrooms, we can better examine our teaching strategies and make adjustments to improve instruction. I completed a comprehensive review of research literature on classroom conversations and the importance of prior knowledge, to discover ways to use classroom conversation as a bridge to building prior knowledge.

Britton (1970) stated, “Reading and writing float on a sea of talk” (p. 164). Routman (2000) confirmed, “All learning involves conversation. The ongoing dialogue, internal and external, that occurs as we read, write, listen, compose, observe, refine, interpret, and analyze is how we learn” (p. xxxvi). Language is how we think, how we process and remember information, and how we extend our thoughts and ideas (Vygotsky, 1978).

Robertson, Ford, Conner, and Paratore (2014) indicated, “In literacy instruction, effective teacher talk has been linked to improved reading comprehension and reasoning among students” (p.

417). Teacher talk is the kind of language teachers use for instruction in the classroom. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards 1992), defined it as, “That variety of language used by teachers when they are in the process of teaching” (p. 471). To support

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 71

student academic development, teachers need to find a balance between teacher talk and student talk during classroom conversations. Fisher, Frey, and Rothenberg (2008) found that, “Altering the ratio of teacher to student talk doesn’t just happen, but occurs through both believing in the importance of student talk and planning with a clear purpose and expectation” (p. 13). Similarly, Fisher and Frey (2014) asserted, “It matters who’s talking in class, because the amount of talk that students do is correlated with their achievement” (p. 18).

All learning does involve conversation, yet generally, teachers in our nation dominate classroom conversations (Cazden, 1988). Researchers have been telling us for years that dialogue offers important elements to build literacy skills for children, but teachers have a hard time letting go (Alexander, 2005). Routman (2000) added, “When we teachers do most of the talking, we silence the voices of our students” (p. 172). My literature review revealed that most classrooms spend less than two minutes per hour on classroom conversation or discussion, and that it usually does not go beyond comprehension checks or short question and answer segments. Teachers typically dominate 95% of the classroom conversation time. Wassermann (2010) offered, “When teachers talk too much, give too much information, express their personal opinions too frequently, or tell students what to think, all these seemingly innocuous responses seriously curtail opportunities for students to exercise their own brain power” (p. 3).

Research does support the idea that teacher talk is most effective when it serves to facilitate rather than dictate (Dickson, 2005; Hansen, 2004). What I discovered through my research is learning happens when teachers use teacher talk to open up and guide conversations that allow students to participate. Nichols (2014) stated, “To engage students in real talk, we must be thoughtful and responsive, trust in students’ abilities, and support them in problem solving instead of controlling the process ourselves” (p. 76). Student conversations allow students to ask the questions, connecting and building on one another’s ideas, and taking responsibility for their role in the conversation. Robertson, Ford-Conners, and Paratore (2014) noted, “Across grade levels and content areas, teacher talk provides a critical resource that facilitates students’ literacy learning as it frames and guides instructional interactions between students and their academic tasks and texts” (p.

416). Key words here are frames and guides instruction, not dominates.

Dalton suggested (1989), “When teaching through conversation occurs, classrooms and schools are transformed into “the community of learners” that they can become “when teachers reduce the distance between themselves and their students by constructing lessons from common

Volume 6, Page 72

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

understandings of each other’s experience and ideas” and make teaching a “warm interpersonal and collaborative activity” (p. 57). Increased awareness of teacher-student communication patterns will improve the quality of teaching and learning taking place in the classroom (Nakamura, 2008).

When educators are aware of and reflect on their classroom conversational patterns, they are able to make adjustments improving the quality of the interactions taking place. O’Bryan (1999) explained, “Instructional conversations, as one form of classroom talk, help students use their knowledge and experiences to explore important ideas as they develop a deeper understanding of issues” (p. 259).

Prior knowledge is developed through our interactions with people, places, experiences, texts, and content that we are formally taught (Marshall, 1996). Children learn by building on their prior knowledge and abilities. As retrieved from Your Dictionary.com, prior knowledge is defined as, “The knowledge that stems from previous experience.” Prior knowledge refers to all of the experiences students have had and the information they have previously learned. Studies have shown that prior knowledge is the single most important factor in learning (Bodner, 1986; Bransford & Johnson, 1972; Levine, Resnick, & Higgins, 1983). For students to learn, they need to be able to connect new learning to what they already know (Vygotsky, 1978). Continuous learning is about confirming and extending ones’ prior knowledge. By starting with what students already know, effective teachers are able to be more precise in supporting these connections of a students’ prior knowledge to new learning, thus creating bridges to make learning easier and more meaningful.

Billmeyer and Barton (1998) reported, “Learning increases when students collaborate in the learning process” (p. 14). Learning is a social undertaking that entails conversations which help students to extend their understanding of a topic in a significant way. Conversations with peers and others help students to focus on and explore a topic. Effective teachers realize that students are greatly influenced by their peers, and they plan experiences that are collaborative and supportive of social interaction (McEwin, Dickinson, & Anfara, 2005). These experiences encourage conversational opportunities for students to share their thinking and respond to the thinking of their classmates, while activating and building upon their prior knowledge.

Methodology

I gathered qualitative data for this research study through a series of scheduled and unscheduled conversations in both whole and small groups, during classroom lessons while

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 73

observing and recording my students’ responses and attitudes in field notes on my personal computer. I also examined students’ artifacts such as work samples, graphic organizers, drawings and journal responses.

My study took place during the 2015-2016 academic school year, in one of six fourth grade classrooms at Lakeside Advanced Academic Elementary School (pseudonym), a part of a public school district in a southern state. Annually, the school has on average 750 students in grades K – 5 in attendance with 45 full-time teachers and specialists. Students attending the school are selected based on an application process and their high grade point average. Classes are assigned randomly at the beginning of each school year by the school administration. Students work at an accelerated pace, one grade level ahead in the subject areas of reading, English, spelling and math. Science and social studies areas are enriched with field trips, lab experiences and site visits. The program also includes regular instruction in Spanish, computer technology, science lab, music, two outdoor nature labs, and physical education.

The 23 members of my fourth grade homeroom class were purposely selected as the participants for this study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006). The class consisted of both male and female students ranging in age from 9 to 11 years old from multiple cultural backgrounds. While all students are proficient in the English language; for many, it is not the dominant language spoken in their home. Over a period of four weeks, observations for the purpose of collecting field notes occurred in the participants’ fourth grade homeroom classroom during the English Language Arts instructional block of the school day. Class observations and field notes were used to record students’ participation as well as their attitudes and responses during whole group and small group classroom conversations (Bogdan & Biklen, 2006).

Qualitative methods take into account the natural, social setting of the participants. In using this research paradigm, I sought to gain my students’ own perspectives about classroom discourse in order to better understand its role during the process of students making sense of ideas and concepts discussed in the classroom. Through the collection of field notes and continuous reflection, I was able to find problem areas in my typical pedagogical practices regarding classroom conversations.

I began by tracking and noting the amount of time I was talking and the students were talking in the classroom, and recorded written observational field notes of what I saw and heard during literacy lessons to examine conversational patterns. Our literacy lessons covered activities such as interactive read-alouds, guided reading, close reading, small and whole group literature discussions,

Volume 6, Page 74

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

literature circles, language arts instruction and assignments, and student collaborative projects. A variety of student work samples such as graphic organizers, journal samples, coded text, drawings, and completed projects were collected throughout this study.

Findings

By collecting and analyzing data on my classroom teacher talk in comparison to student talk, I became aware of several factors in my teacher-student communication patterns that I needed to address and change. Through the analysis of students’ conversations, I searched for emergent patterns and themes to learn from.

It was the week before Halloween, and we had been reading informational passages, researching and gathering information on spiders. Each group had a poster size concept map that they were to organize and present information on their chosen spider. Earlier in the week, using the information students had recorded on their personal KWL chart about what they had learned about spiders, we had compiled a large class KWL chart and identified a list of possible themes such as habitat, prey, and appearance. In an effort to “let go,” I stepped back and let the groups work. As I walked around the room, I could hear them working through their design, questions and problems as they came up. From time to time, someone would go to one of the classroom computers for additional information. There was one brief outbreak of tears, when one group member told another the spider she drew looked like a bird…they are only nine years old. When the concept maps were finished and posted, I asked each group how they had organized the design of the posters and received articulate and impressive answers. One group voted on a captain, co-captain, and designer. Another talked about their weaknesses and strengths in deciding who would be responsible for what chore. One group brainstormed a list of everything that needed to be done, then identified categories as we had done with the themes, choosing which category of jobs they wanted.

One group divided up the work by who had the best handwriting, had done the best research and possessed the best drawing ability, while another wrote jobs on slips of paper and drew from a basket then listing credits on their poster. (Field Notes, October 2015) One of the best ways I found to assess my teacher talk time, was just observing the children as I talked. The more I talked, the more restless they became. Observing my class, I noted that

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 75

when the students were actively involved in asking and answering question, making connections or sharing they were more attentive, engaged in the lessons and excited about figuring things out.

A reading passage on spiders stated that spiders were arachnids, the same family as ticks and scorpions. A collective mumble started happening throughout the classroom, as the children began to challenge this idea asking how these all could be in the same family, as they were nothing alike. This is the point I would have usually stepped in and given an answer or we would have stopped, taken out the iPad and I would have looked it up. I took a deep breath and explained that was an excellent question that would need to be investigated and we continued reading the passage.

The following day, we were summarizing and reviewing what we had learned the previous day and previewing objectives for that day. When asked if there were any questions or concerns, many hands went up. They each wanted to share that arachnids had eight and that was why spiders, ticks and scorpions were so different, but in the same family. Given time, on their own, they had further investigated the question finding the answer. Independent learning! (Field Notes, October 2015) My data analysis reflected that at an average of 25 minute per hour, my classroom discussion time was much higher than the two minutes per hour average I discovered through my research.

While my teacher to student talk ratio was also higher than the teacher dominated 95% average, I was indeed, controlling the conversations in my classroom 70% of the time. Organizing and analyzing my observational field notes provided me with a glimpse into several problems in the way I was utilizing and dominating this conversation in an attempt to maximize my instructional time.

When the bell rang, I stood greeting my class as they came up the stairs into the classroom with their rolling backpacks. One child came bouncing around the corner with a huge grin, busting with excitement and stated all in one breath, “Mrs. Jackson, Mrs. Jackson! I have exciting news!!! I need to talk first today! You know how we were talking about spiders?

Well, someone just found a new species of spider in Alabama! It’s called the Green Ink Spider and shoots out venom! I think that is so cool! I just have to talk first today!” (Field Notes, November 2015) With many standards to cover, required numbers of grades, and limited instructional time in the day, I found I was often telling my children what I needed them to know to save time. I was even guilty at times of quickly teaching a concept or skill, not fully taking the time to find out what

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 76

my students actually already knew about the subject, or accurately informally assessing what they had or had not learned on the subject during the lesson.

Returning from a field trip to a Frontier Day Festival, rather than write the obligatory journal response about the field trip we pushed the desks back, and sat in a circle on the carpet to talk about their experiences. It was a large area, and the class had been divided up in groups of three with parents, so I wasn’t able to be with everyone during the trip. I predicted that I would be hearing much about the loud cannons, marching soldiers, and Native American dancers. What I did hear was about “spiders!” The conversation began with, “Mrs. Jackson, I saw an orb weaver spiders spinning a web!” Apparently, the moss-dripped trees along the river bank had provided the kids with an opportunity to see several different kinds of spiders.

With all that was going on at the festival, they were intrigued with watching the spiders they had been learning about. (While at the festival, I had two unsolicited encounters with large spiders myself and was not so intrigued…just glad the kids did not see my reaction to them.)

(Field Notes, November 2015) When running short on time, I was ‘force feeding’ them my prior knowledge as a means to activate theirs in an attempt to make sure we completed a particular lesson before a required assessment. I became conscious of just how many times I actually provided answers to questions and even the follow-up questions, or quickly summarized lessons so that we could move on to the next subject. When students responded, rather than allowing another student to build on the response, I found that I often added information to their responses.

Each of these infractions, seemingly well intended, were a lost opportunity for student learning through conversation. Through the data analysis, I found, rather than saving time, I was actually wasting time! By observing and reflecting on student conversations and responses in field notes and collecting student work samples, I was able to pinpoint effective strategies to adjust my classroom practices and support student learning.

Wanting to provide an independent strategy for students to use in activating and building their prior knowledge, I had each child set up a, “My Schema Folder,” I found on Pinterest, then modeling how to use the method with a group activity. On the top section of the open file folder was the label, “What I Already Know.” The bottom section was labeled, “What I’m Curious About,” and the back of the folder had a section for “My New Learning,” and “Corrected Misconceptions.”

Volume 6, Page 77

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Writing the word “schema” on the board, the children quickly identified it as having something to do with the word “scheme” or a plan. We discussed in kid terms, how schema was like having a plan for learning with a personal file cabinet inside your brain. Folders in the file cabinet stored information on things you had learned and experienced in your lifetime. We talked about how you can forget about files until you have a conversation or read something that makes a connection or activates your prior knowledge and then you remember what you already knew about a topic or event. Using this folder of information as a foundation, you can learn, build, and add new information to the folder to use later.

In groups of four, each child was given a different color Post-It note pad to use in their folder. Before beginning a series of reading passages and research activity on bats, I asked the children to write on Post-It notes what they already knew about bats and stick them to the top portion of their schema folder. We shared folders and discussed how each folder had different numbers of Post-It notes, based on different levels of prior knowledge about bats.

For dramatic effect, I had everyone in the group put all their Post-It notes into one group folder. It worked, there were gasps at how much information the groups collectively knew, but it didn’t take long for someone to point out there was duplicate notes. So I encouraged them to come up with a way to solve the problem. Each group got busy clarifying the content and organizing their folders until facts were only represented one time.

I then asked them as a group, based on what they collectively knew and had discussed about bats, to write questions for the “What I’m Curious About,” section of the folders. This was a little more time-consuming for them; but, after much group discussion they had created a page of questions to guide their group’s research inquiry activity about bats. (Field Notes, November 2015)

Discussion

Sample-Specific Findings

In the public school setting, there is often a great emphasis placed on being in front of the classroom actively teaching. Somewhere along the way, I had apparently come to believe, active

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 78

teaching meant being large and in charge! As a teacher, I feel a sense of responsibility to both standards and my students; but, I need to make time for what is valuable, and that is to support my students’ ability to grow as readers and writers. Good, active teaching has one goal and that is to guide children through the learning process, not drag them.

By recording notes, tracking and analyzing teacher talk in my classroom, I was able to construct the changes necessary to make learning through conversation more effective by engaging my students’ voices. The focus should be on the quality of teacher talk rather than the quantity.

Teacher talk is most effectively used to guide student conversations, not dominate them. While telling students what we want them to know may be a faster way of addressing academic standards, it does not correlate to learning. Time students spend engaged in academic conversations with their classmates is time well spent.

Rather than bombard them with teacher talk, I began using my teacher talk to encourage students to ask the questions and also the follow up questions, rather than asking them myself. I provided time and space for them to summarize or paraphrase their learning, and refrained from adding additional information to my student responses. I had to work on becoming a good listener myself, allowing wait time for students to make their own predictions, process new information, and learn to formulate questions and answers on their own.

Once I stepped back, stopped talking, and began to listen during discussions, my students stepped up and began talking. At first, it was a learning process with everyone wanting to speak at one time; but, the more they had time to talk, the more they began to listen to each other. Time became the essential element in changing our conversational patterns.

In order to facilitate meaningful conversations it was necessary for me to set up a communicative, collaborative classroom environment. My students needed time to practice conversations while learning that good communication skills are important to the inquiry process.

Collaborative conversations allowed the classroom to become a place where the students were able to elaborate and clarify their ideas, share supporting ideas and evidence, build on or challenge each other’s ideas, while gaining and synthesizing new learning. Through collaborative conversations, students were processing new information, making predictions, formulating questions, and drawing up their own arguments based on evidence.

Collaborative classroom activities enabled my students to make connections and share their knowledge with classmates, build on each another’s ideas, and learn from their peers. Thus, they

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 79

were taking the responsibility for the direction of the conversation and their learning. Involving students in collaborative classroom conversations and activities, teaches students how to engage in meaningful conversations about text. As Shuell (1986) stated, “Learning is cumulative in nature; nothing is learned in isolation” (p. 416).

Examining the conversational patterns, I found that although I did encourage students to respond and share, it was in preplanned, limited chunks of time. Often, so many students wanted to speak and share during a discussion, and I found myself cutting off the discussion part of the conversation after just a few responses. Before this study, I was unaware of how many times during lessons I said, “Ok, we’ll take one more”… response, share, or question. Letting go of the control and releasing the responsibility to the students, we adjusted our classroom discussion format.

Students began by discussing and exploring new issues and topics with partners or in small groups first, allowing everyone to have a voice and be able to share and participate in the discussion.

Students were able to practice conversational skills, allowing them to become more effective in asking questions and expressing themselves verbally. Students lacking prior knowledge on a skill or topic were able to benefit from the knowledge of their group partners as they explored ideas.

This small group discussion time provided me with the opportunity to visit each group, guiding the learning process rather than dominating it. I was able to listen and engage in dialogue with a smaller number of children, allowing me the ability to provide individual feedback, and truly assessing where the students were. Then, together during whole class discussions, each group would summarize and share their discussion points or findings and questions. This method may sound more time-consuming; but, our class discussions became more focused, student led and time effective because the children had already activated and shared their prior knowledge with each other during small group, and worked out many of their questions, and misconceptions.

Population-Generalized Conclusions

Talk is important for learning. One of the keys to effective classroom conversation is the creation of a communicative classroom environment, where students are responsible for creating their own knowledge by engaging in authentic, meaningful conversations. Through my study, I found that I was able to create a classroom environment that was conducive to authentic classroom conversations in various ways, such as rearranging seating to allow for conversations with partners

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 80

and groups. Also, I allowed students to choose their own conversational topics and incorporate their own interests and choices into lessons. Last, I encouraged conversations by asking open-ended questions and walking away; in turn, I allowed them the discretion to determine the answers or how to go about finding the answers.

Nichols (2014) stated, “To engage students in real talk, we must be thoughtful and responsive, trust in students’ abilities, and support them in problem solving instead of controlling the process ourselves” (p. 76). One essential component in the process is increasing the opportunities for students to speak in class. I looked for ‘pockets of time’ to effectively incorporate more student talk into instructional time. During my data collection, I found that I was always the first and last person to speak to the class each day. By nature, I am a chatty person and I enjoy talking to my class; yet, I wanted to change this practice, focusing on a more student-centered approach and began allowing my students to be the first and last to speak each day.

Conversations can only occur in our classrooms if we as teachers purposely involve our students in talk, providing the time and opportunity for them to talk for multiple purposes. To allow more student talk time, the children began taking turns opening and closing class time by announcing the day’s lesson objectives and activities, summarizing what had been covered during lessons, leading the class in homework reviews and question-answer sessions, sharing journal responses or story connections, reading or explaining instructions, and acting as time keepers.

During this transition time, I often found myself having to bite my tongue and resist the urge to jump in and take the reins; but, slowly I began to notice when the students were opening and closing the instructional day, class members were actually more attentive to other students’ responses, and taking less time to begin or end an activity. Once again, we had gained more time.

Recommendations for Practice

Ultimately, we need to strike a balance between teacher talk and students’ talk by increasing student talk and decreasing teacher talk as a way of providing more meaningful learning opportunities (Fisher, Frey, & Rothenberg, 2008). As teachers, we often see ourselves as dispensers of knowledge rather than partners in learning; so, at times it can be difficult to relinquish the responsibility to the students to facilitate their own knowledge through conversation. Yet, through conversation, students can experience the ongoing activation and expansion of prior knowledge,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 81

increased comprehension, meaningful peer interaction, and a greater enjoyment of collaborative learning. By teaching multiple lessons on the same topic, teaching them in different ways, and reteaching, we are providing time for children to effectively practice using conversation and taking ownership for expanding upon their personal knowledge.

So, had I been building bridges for my student’s through my “teacher talk,” or had my students been waiting for that glimpse of light at the end of a tunnel when I quit talking? I discovered learning happens when teachers open up conversations allowing students a voice, while releasing the responsibility of learning to the students in a more student-centered class environment.

Learners construct knowledge by connecting new concepts and information with prior knowledge.

Teachers can effectively help students activate and build upon prior knowledge by allowing them the time to talk, share, and build on each other’s knowledge and connections. For my students to move forward, I needed to be an influential resource, but not the only resource allowing them to actively ask questions and investigate the answers on their own, or with each other. I needed to use my teacher talk to guide the learning process, rather than control it. No more sitting and waiting for the light at the end of the tunnel.

Yes, I have always prided myself on my teacher talk abilities; but, my pride should be placed in my ability to solicit meaningful student talk! Through this research study, I have come to realize that in order to help students become more responsible for their learning; I need to allow more time and silent space in my teaching in which my students’ voices can flourish. The one doing the talking is the one thinking and learning. By simply noting and tracking my own teacher talk habits, I was able to reduce the amount of time I talked, find pockets of time for more student-centered talk, while offering my students ample opportunities to be active participants in classroom conversations, solving problems and even expanding their own prior knowledge through investigation, inquiry, and conversations with classmates.

Using effective teacher talk as guidance and a little silence, I was able to build the foundation for high quality, engaging conversations with my students allowing them to activate and further their own prior knowledge, ask and answer questions, search for evidence, make connections, and summarize lessons. Vygotsky (1978) said, “By giving our students practice in talking with others, we give them frames for thinking on their own” (p. 19). Student participation will eventually lead to student independence.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 82

As a part of an inquiry unit on bats, each group was designing a large page using informational text features to present information on a specific bat that they had chosen to research. The pages would then be put together to make a collective class book on bats.

One group called me over with a problem.

G1: “We chose brown bats. Then we found out there are large brown bats and small brown bats. Do we have to do two different pages?” A group member from a nearby group interjected.

G2: “We chose Myotis bats and then found out they are really just small brown bats, so we’re already doing a page on small brown bats.”

G1: “Wait, does that mean we can’t do small brown bats? We have lots of research on them!”

Me: (Guide them…don’t dominate the decision!) “Well, how could you incorporate your information about both bats onto your page while possibly focusing on the large brown bat?”

(Wait, wait…give them time) G1: “A Venn-diagram!!!” “We can put a Venn-diagram on the page about large brown bats and compare and contrast the stuff about both of them.”

(Field Notes, November 2015) Roller (2013) explained, “Storytelling is the ultimate goal of all research” (p. 1).

Storytelling seeks to find and understand the why behind human thoughts, actions and emotions.

We all learn lessons from the themes of stories. Collecting and sharing my classroom experiences in order to derive meaning and understanding was much like storytelling. I became the storyteller as I re-created a series of events and mental images through my own voice as I learned to increase the voices of my students.

Implications

What does my study have to offer to other educators? Give students the valuable gift of time. Time to process, time to collaborate, time to talk, time to learn communication skills, time to enjoy the learning process, and most of all “your” time. All of our students come to us with different backgrounds, cultural and household knowledge, academic knowledge, and prior life experiences. As classroom teachers, now is the right time to nurture our students as agents of social

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 83

change and as responsible, informed citizens of our great nation. Within our respective classrooms, we must take the time to find out where our students are, what they know, address misconceptions, and provide them with the inner resolve to work alongside others in addressing the tough questions.

Recommendations for Future Research

This study was limited to a single teacher, classroom, grade and community. Further exploratory research should examine how classroom discourse that invites the exchange of divergent points of view could be a viable lens for understanding and valuing the cultural perspectives of the classroom community.

Author Biographies

Teresa Weaver is a fourth grade language arts teacher at a magnet school within the public school system in Alabama. Prior to her magnet school position, she taught reading at an inner city, Title I school and in the private school sector. Teresa received her Bachelor of Science Degree in Childhood Education from Auburn University at Montgomery. After years of focusing her teaching efforts on supporting struggling readers, Teresa received her Master of Education Degree as a Reading Specialist, and her Educational Specialist Degree in Language Arts also from Auburn University at Montgomery. Teresa’s teaching interests include reflective teaching practices, literacy motivation, collaborative student learning, and experimental writing. Her primary research interests are in the field of reading motivation and theory. Specifically, she is interested in reading comprehension strategy instruction, and the role of discussion in teaching and learning. E-mail: tweaver2@aum.edu Dr. Gilbert Dueñas is an Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum, Instruction and Technology, College of Education, Auburn University at Montgomery. He teaches both undergraduate and graduate courses, facilitates online courses, and supervises field experiences, practicum and internship. Prior to his professorship, he worked as a third grade teacher at an inner city public school in central Alabama and proudly served a 30-year military career in the United States Air Force. E-mail: gduenas@aum.edu Dr. Shelly Hudson Bowden is a Professor at Auburn University at Montgomery in Early

Volume 6, Page 84Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Childhood Education. Her research interests include mentoring and creating naturalistic classroom environments. E-mail: shudsonb@aum.edu

References Alexander, R. J. (2005). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy.

International Association for cognitive Education and Psychology, Keynote Address.

University of Durham, UK, July 2005.

Beyer, B. K. (1991). Teaching thinking skills: A handbook for elementary teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Billmeyer, R. & Barton, M. L. (1998). Teaching reading in the content areas: If not me, then who? (2nd ed.). Aurora, CO: McREL (Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning).

Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873-878.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717-726.

Britton, J. N., (1970). Language and learning. London, England: Allen Lane.

Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd ed.).

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dalton, S. (1989). Teachers as assessors and assistors: Institutional constraints on interpersonal relationships. Paper delivered at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Denton, P. (2008). The power of our words. The Positive Classroom, 66(1), 28-31.

Dickson, V. (2005). The nature of student and teacher discourse in an elementary classroom.

Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 7, 109-122. Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 85

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Speaking volumes. Educational Leadership, 72(3), 18-23.

Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Rothenberg, C. (2008). Content-area conversations: How to plan discussion-based lessons for diverse language learners. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Goldenberg, C. (1992/December, 1993/January). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 316-326.

Goldenberg, C. (1992/December, 1993/January). Instructional conversations: Promoting comprehension through discussion. The Reading Teacher, 46(4), 316-326.

Hansen, C. (2004). Teacher talk: Promoting literacy development through response to story. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19, 115-128.

Hansen, J. (1996). Researcher in our own classroom: What propels teacher researcher?

[Presidential address]. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice (p.1-14). Chicago, IL: The National Reading Conference.

Johnston, P. (2004). Choice words. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., Higgins, E. T. (1983). Social foundations of cognition. Annual review Of Psychology, 44, 585-612 Marshall, N. (1996). The students: Who are they and how do I reach them? In D. Lapp, J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning: Instructional strategies (2nd ed.), 79-93.

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn Bacon.

McEwin, C. K., Dickinson, T. S., & Anfara, Jr., V. A. (2005). The professional preparation of middle level teachers and principals. In V. A. Anfara, Jr., G. Andrews, & S. B. Mertens (Eds.), Encyclopedia of middle grades education (pp. 59 -67). Greenwich, CT & Westerville, OH: Information Age & National Middle School Association.

Nakamura, I. (2008). Understanding how teacher and student talk with each other: An exploration of how “repair” displays the co-management of talk-in-action. Language Teaching Research 12(2), 265-283.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). Retrieved from

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6, Page 86

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section1/indicator04.asp Nichols, M. (2014). Real talk, real teaching. Educational Leadership, 72(3), 73-77.

O’Bryan, B. (1999). The development of one teacher's skills at instructional conversation.

Reading Horizons, 22(4), 257-278.

Richards, J. C. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. New York, NY: Routledge.

Robertson, D. A., Ford-Conners, E., & Paratore, J. R. (2014). Coaching teachers’ talk. Language Arts, 91(6), 416-428.

Roller, M. (2013). Tell me what happened and other stories. http://researchdesignreview.com/2013/06/16/tell-me-what-happened-other-stories/ Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching, learning, and evaluating. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Short, K. G., & Burke, C. L. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Canada: Pearson Education.

Short, K. G., & Burke, C. L. (1996) Examining our beliefs and practices through inquiry.

Shuell, T. J. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 65(4), 411436.

Tinzamann, M. B., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T. F., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What is the collaborative classroom? Language Arts, 73(2), 97-104. Proceedings of NCREL. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wassermann, S. (2010). Effective classroom discussions. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 1-4.

YourDictionary. www.yourdictionary.com

Volume 1, Page 87

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Behavioral Sciences

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDE

GENERAL FORMATTING           

American Psychological Association (APA) Sixth Edition Publication Guidelines Microsoft-Word or compatible format (Do not send your manuscript as a PDF or it will be declined) Letter-size (8.5 x 11 inches) format 1.50 spaced text Times New Roman, 12-point font One-inch margins Two spaces following end punctuation Left justification Single column Portrait orientation First-person

MANUSCRIPT ORDER (Please Note: Do not add a running head or page numbers.)

Cover Page: (This page will be removed prior to peer review.)  Manuscript Title o The first letter of each major word should be capitalized. o The title should be in font size 20 and bold.  Author(s) Name o First Name, Middle initial(s), and Last name (omit titles and degrees) o The names should be font size 12. No bold  Institutional Affiliation o Education affiliation – if no institutional affiliation, list city and state of author’s residence o This educational affiliation should be on the line directly under the author’s name. o If there are multiple authors, please place a space between them each set of information (name and affiliation).  Author Biography o If there are multiple authors, please label this section Author Biographies o Please be sure to indent the paragraph before the biography begins. If there are multiple authors, please begin a new paragraph for each author.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 6 Page 88

Manuscript: (From this point forward, please be sure your manuscript is FREE of any identifying information.) 











Abstract o The abstract (150-word maximum) should effectively summarize your completed research and findings. o The word “abstract” should be bold.

Keywords o This line should be indented. The word “Keywords” should be italicized and followed by a colon and two spaces. o Following the two spaces, list 3 or 4 keywords or key phrases that you would use if you were searching for your article online. o Only the first key word should be capitalized. The actual keywords are not italicized.

Body of Paper (sections) ALL of the following sections MUST be present or your manuscript WILL be rejected. o Introduction o Literature Review o Methodology o Results/Findings o Discussion References –this heading is NOT bolded within the manuscript o Manuscripts should be thoroughly cited and referenced using valid sources. o References should be arranged alphabetically and strictly follow American Psychological Association (APA) sixth edition formatting rules. o Only references cited in the manuscript are to be included.

Tables and Figures o If tables and figures are deemed necessary for inclusion, they should be properly placed at the end of the text following the reference section. o All tables and figures should be numbered sequentially using Arabic numerals, titled, acknowledged, and cited according to APA guidelines. o If graphs or tables are too wide for portrait orientation, they must be resized or reoriented to be included.

Appendices (if applicable) o Must be labeled alphabetically as they appear in the manuscript. o Title centered at the top.

Volume 6 Page 89

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

WHY READ OUR JOURNALS?

Continuing Education: Each of the CSI's peer-reviewed journals focuses on contemporary issues, scholarly research, discovery, and evidence-based practices that will elevate readers' professional development.

Germane Reference: The CSI's journals are a vital resource for students, practitioners, and professionals in the fields of education, business, and behavioral sciences interested in relevant, leading-edge, academic research.

Diversity: The CSI’s peer-reviewed journals highlight a variety of study designs, scientific approaches, experimental strategies, methodologies, and analytical processes representing diverse philosophical frameworks and global perspectives Broad Applicability: The CSI's journals provide research in the fields of education, business and behavioral sciences specialties and dozens of related sub-specialties.

Academic Advantage: The CSI's academically and scientifically meritorious journal content significantly benefits faculty and students.

Scholarship: Subscribing to the CSI's journals provides a forum for and promotes faculty research, writing, and manuscript submission.

Choice of Format: Institutions can choose to subscribe to our journals in digital or print format.

Volume 6 Page 90

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Assessment and Grading Practices: Consideration of Academic and Non-Academic Factors Diana M. Yesbeck, Randolph-Macon College Exploring the Relationship between Socioeconomic Status and Ethnic Identity Matthew Kaplan, California State University-Northridge Jodi Constantine Brown, California State University-Northridge Que-Lam Huynh, California State University-Northridge Virginia Huynh, California State University-Northridge Kenyan Female Entrepreneurs and Negotiation Education: Exploring Efficacy Development Utilizing Distance Learning Judith Richards, California Lutheran University Veronica Guerrero, California Lutheran University Allison Domicone, University of California Berkley (student)

Using Student Conversation to Build Upon Prior Knowledge Teresa Weaver, Forest Avenue Academic Magnet School Shelly Hudson Bowden, Auburn University at Montgomery Gilbert Dueñas, Auburn University at Montgomery

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC 4857 Hwy 67, Suite #2 Granite Falls, MN 56241 855‐855‐8764

ISSN: 2330-6564 (online) ISSN: 2330-6556 (print)