Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education, Volume 3, Issue 1 by Center for Scholastic Inquiry

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Behavioral Sciences

Volume 1, Page 1

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry:

Education

Education Edition, Volume 3, Issue 1 Fall 2014

Published by: Center for Scholastic Inquiry, LLC ISSN: 2330-6564

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 2 ISSN: 2330-6564

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Fall 2014

Volume 3, Issue 1

www.csiresearch.com

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, 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

Web: www.csiresearch.com

Phone: 855-855-8764

Email: editor@csiresearch.com

Volume 3, Page 4

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

JOURNAL OF SCHOLASTIC INQUIRY: EDUCATION Fall 2014, Volume 3, Issue 1

Managing Editor Dr. Tanya McCoss-Yerigan

Editor-in-Chief Dr. Jamal Cooks

General Editor & APA Editor Jay Meiners

Volume 3, Page 5

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

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 Lucinda Woodward, Indiana University Southeast

Peer Reviewers Sherry Long

Diane Hamilton

Nick Bourke

Dyan Bayan

Sally Creasap Brooke Burks York Williams

Penelope Prenshaw Debra Vinci Minogue Gilbert Duenas

Brian Hoekstra Shirley Barnes Myrna Olson

Glenn Koonce Josephine Sarvis Sonja Harrington

Not all reviewers are utilized for each publication cycle.

Volume 3, Page 6

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

CALL FOR PAPERS

    



JOIN US Center for Scholastic Inquiry’s International Academic Research Conference October 28‐30, 2015

Charleston, South Carolina

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:

www.csiresearch.com

Volume 3, Page 7

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

9-118

Research Manuscripts

Theory and Practice of Teaching An Investigation into Quality Assurance in Internet-Based Education as Defined by Higher Education Organizations Sharon Lilly Fountain, University of North Carolina –Pembroke

Theory and Practice of Teaching Critical Thinking in a College of Business Joanne Reid, Corporate Development Associates Phyllis Anderson, Corporate Development Associates

What Pre-service Education Students Say about Critical Pedagogy and Content: American Indian Boarding Schools through a Critical Lens Gary W. Cheeseman, The University of South Dakota

Our Eyes on the Prize Jane Bean-Folkes, Rowan University

Cognitive Enhancement in an Elementary School Setting Kenneth J. Kohutek, St. Dominic Savio Catholic High School

Urban Charter Schools and Factors that Influence the Achievement of Students from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Backgrounds York Williams, West Chester University

107

Manuscript Submission Guide

119

Why Read Our Journals

121

Volume 3, Page 8

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 3, Page 9

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Theory and Practice of Teaching An Investigation into Quality Assurance in InternetBased Education as Defined by Higher Education Organizations Sharon Lilly Fountain University of North Carolina–Pembroke Abstract This mixed method study was completed in order to reassess the importance and presence of the 24 benchmarks for Internet-based education in higher education. This study was replicated from the Institute for Higher Education Policy study that was completed in 2000. The 24 benchmarks consisted of seven categories: institutional support, course development, teaching and learning, course structure, student support, faculty support, and evaluation/assessment. IHEP established these benchmarks as guides in order to have and maintain quality- driven online programs. This study focused on university administrators, faculty members, and student perspectives to see what is needed in order to ensure the quality of Internet-based education. The participants of this study felt that more interactions are needed between instructors and students. There is also a need for standard learning outcomes like proctored exams and counseling services. Video instructions were also another issue that was discussed by many of the participants, along with issues such as instructors’ technological skills and the provision of innovative lectures. Some benchmarks received lower scores noting their level of importance and presence because of participant’s unfamiliarity. This study revealed that these 24 benchmarks are important in establishing and maintaining quality online educational programs and they are being used in this environment; but more knowledge is needed concerning their existence and purposes. This study also revealed that more Internet-based education benchmarks might be needed in order to maintain the future success of quality online education. Keywords: Benchmarking, distance learning, distributed-mediated learning, technologymediated learning Introduction Technology could possibly have a dramatic effect on colleges and universities, producing one of the most challenging periods in higher education. One manifestation of this convergence of technology and education is distributed-mediated learning. The Internet is affecting how

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 10Â

students learn; it has altered the landscape in higher education and is considered a catalyst in the creation of new business models whose impact is being felt at the core of most institutions. In acknowledging what is meant by distance education, e-learning, or distributed mediated learning one might ask, does it occur at a distance? Is it synchronous or asynchronous? Is it an extension of the classroom or a replacement of it? Is it really location-independent learning (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001)? Institutions might be considering how they can make certain changes in their curriculum, instructional methods, and in the delivery of their courses. However, there is some reluctance among faculty and administrators in making significant commitments to developing and implementing fully distance courses and degree programs. This reluctance might be based on several factors: resistance by faculty and administration to change from the current paradigm of traditional instruction and services, marketing strategies are not well-defined, the competition of other similar universities, the types of students that the institution would attract, and whether distance educational courses would enable students to obtain the same course experiences and outcomes as traditional courses (Levine, 2003). Many faculty members have used constructivist and project-based instructional approaches that allow for students to interact with them and other students. The appropriate academic and social environments allow students to assume roles such as independent, autonomous, collaborative, and interdependent learners who work in groups. Many educators and students have come to recognize the benefits of these methods and use them for instruction. However, some educators and students could question how a distance education course can provide some of these same experiences and outcomes (Levine, 2003). Some educators feel that with the possible rapid growth in Internet-based education, certain guidelines and standards might need to be designed in order to ensure its quality. There could be a remarkable congruence among these newly created guidelines and standards. While most seem to include specifications regarding the evaluation of Internet-based education, none seem to provide the actual measurement tools needed to conduct quality assessment (American Council on Education, n.d; American Distance Education Consortium, n.d.; American Federation of Teachers, 2000; Council of Graduate Schools, 1998; Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2000; Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 2000; Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 1999; Twigg as cited in Scanlan, 2003, p. 1; Western Cooperative for Education Telecommunication, 1997). The Web-Based Education Commission focused on making high-quality online educational content one of its seven critical issues; in order for students or institutions to determine whether quality has been achieved, quality must first be defined. The challenges of quality assurance arise because quality assurance arrangements have been defined using traditional universitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; categories. These traditional categories consist of national systems of higher education, individual institutions, and higher education sectors. The emerging categories are associated with

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 11

borderless and virtual education, which suggest a need to redefine quality and quality assurance arrangements (Cavanaugh, 2002). Quality assurance issues for governments, national agencies, and institutions of borderless education have crossed several boundaries, giving rise to quality assurance issues and challenges. The quality assurance issues and challenges that was made possible by the developments in Informational Communication Technology (ICT) relate to the crossing of national borders in trans-national education, the crossing of organizational borders in consortiabased education, and the crossing of functional boundaries. Since virtual education can cross all these boundaries simultaneously, a variety of quality assurance issues need to be addressed (Middlehurst, 2000). Distance education and on-campus instruction are converging with online delivery systems. This convergence of “clicks and mortar” in the form of technology-mediated education is called distributed learning. Distributed learning might be seen as more than an online substitute for lectures; it might extend the opportunities for interactions between faculty and student. Distributed learning environments might also reinforce traditional instruction by providing the opportunity to explore a subject in greater depth, allowing learners to study the materials independently, or gain additional experience outside of the defined classroom (Oblinger et al., 2001). Institutions are concerned with quality due to a lack of experience with the Internet. Others worry that the ease of distribution might allow less reputable organizations to lure learners to a low-quality product. Distance or distributed learning has raised numerous questions about quality assurance. How do established distance learning institutions ensure quality? What more needs to be done by learning institutions to ensure quality? How do quality assurance agencies view the distinction between on- and off-campus teaching and learning (Twigg, 2001)? Literature Review The purpose of this study is to assess the importance and presence of the benchmarks for Internet-based education. Members of higher education approach the issue of quality assurance in distance learning as a problem that needs to be solved. The problem is expressed in addressing the following factors. Higher education organization and educators believe that distance learning is different from classroom-based education. They also believe that new and separate standards of quality are needed in distance educational programs. Higher education organizations raised the issue of quality in distance education by asking; how can teaching and learning that deviates from what has been practiced for hundreds of years embody quality education? The higher education community has developed several quality indicators that many institutional quality-assurance programs readily use and apply (Twigg, 2001). This study will add to the previous research to see if there are other benchmarks that could be included and why these benchmarks for Internet-based education should be taken

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 12

seriously. The primary rationale for this study is to bridge the gap of understanding between online universities and traditional universities when addressing the subject of quality Internetbased education. A study such as this will serve as a model for enhancing quality Internet-based education. This study will also provide valuable information that educational institutions and organizations use when implementing, investigating, and maintaining quality in their programs. This research is also significant because the quality of online environments is important to students, the community, the faculty, and the administrative staff (Twigg, 2001). Research Questions This study addressed the following research questions: R1. What is the perceived level of importance of the benchmarks for Internet- based education as reported by the Institute of Higher Education Policy? R2. Are the 24 benchmarks for Internet-based education incorporated into the programs, policies, and practices of online and traditional universities online programs? R3. What other benchmarks could online universities use to contribute to the quality of Internet-based education? Ensuring Quality–Driven Online Programs Oblinger et al. (2001) stated, “With the worldwide growth of distributed learning, attention is being paid to the quality of online higher education” (p. 39). When addressing the issue of distributed learning, quality can become a sensitive topic, because some educators do not have any experience in teaching online and others feel that learners will be lured into a potentially low-quality learning environment. Faculty members believed that web-based courses give students access to information, assist them in mastering the subject, and addresses different learning styles. However, the faculty members also feel that in the traditional environment, students are more effective at group solving, verbal skills, and oral presentations (Oblinger et al, 2001). The growth in technology-mediated distance learning in higher education has caused several organizations to develop principles, guidelines, and benchmarks, recording the importance of quality in distance education. The organizations responsible for this change are The American Council on Education, the National Education Association, and the Global Alliance for Transnational Education (GATE), the Southern Regional Electronic Campus, the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, and the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications. The quality assurance benchmarks promoted by these organizations can apply to many institutions. Virtually all of the strategies include such topics as course development, faculty

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 13

training, student services, learning resources, infrastructure, and outcomes assessment (Yeung, 2001). Quality Assurance and Accreditation Pond stated, “Accreditation is the process of external quality review used by higher education to scrutinize colleges, universities, and higher education programs for quality assurance and quality improvement” (p. 5). The United States Network for Education Information, a division of the United States Department of Education, defines accreditation as the process used in education to ensure that school, postsecondary institutions, and other education providers meet and maintain minimum standards of quality and integrity regarding academics, administration and related services (Pond, 2002). The best practices in distance learning enable regional accrediting agencies to isolate distinctive features in offerings of distance learning and examine their quality. These best practices focus on seven fundamental features of institutional operation important to maintaining quality in distance learning. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2002) found the following: The eight regional accrediting organizations have adopted a common platform for review of distance learning. The platform serves as a basis for common understanding among the regional accrediting agencies and of those elements that support quality in distance learning. The platform informs and supports distance learning policies and processes in each region. (p. 7) The nine national accrediting organizations independently developed certain standards, policies, and processes in order to evaluate distance learning programs. Some of these previously mentioned items take the form of new standards, while others add to additional criteria that can be applied to the existing standards. Eternal quality assurance organizations such as regional accrediting state, and specialized accrediting boards are the tertiary ones that ensure the quality of online programs (CHEA, 2002; Twigg, 2001). Distance Education Benchmarks The first developed benchmarks applied to all types of distance learning. The question that arises is whether they are applicable to Internet-based distance education and are they appropriate and necessary to ensure the quality of Internet-based distance education (IHEP, 2000). Carnevale (2000) stated, “The results make clear ‘that distance learning can be quality learning only if colleges and universities recognize the needs of the students,’ said Bob Chase, president of the NEA” (p. 1). The National Education Association (NEA), the nation’s largest professional association of higher education faculty, and Blackboard, a widely used platform provider for online education, are interested in exploiting these issues and their implications. Carnevale (2000) stated, “Matthew Pittinsky, the chairman and co-founder of Blackboard, said the study was a good first step in determining what makes a quality distance- education

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 14

program” (p. 2). The two organizations commissioned IHEP to examine the benchmarks by studying active distance learning programs at several institutions (IHEP, 2000). [IHEP] having created the first 45 benchmarks that were created for any distance education program, was approached by the two commissioning organizations because of their previous experience in analyzing issues related to quality in distance education. The Institute’s 1999 report, “What’s the Difference? A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education”, has provoked much dialogue throughout academia on what constitutes quality in distance learning. NEA and Blackboard wanted the Institute to validate those published benchmarks, placing emphasis on Internetbased distance education. The Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP] set out to complete a case study in order to make certain that the 45 benchmarks were actually being incorporated into the policies, procedures, and practices of colleges and universities that are distance education leaders. The previous case study was also completed in order to determine how important the benchmarks were to institutions, administrators, faculty, and students. With the growth of Internet-based distance education, the educational organizations wanted to know how realistic are these benchmarks? Do they make sense to practitioners of Internetbased distance education? Do higher education institutions take them seriously? To what extent are the benchmarks being incorporated into institutions’ distance learning operations? Are there additional benchmarks that are not found in the literature but are being used by practitioners that can contribute to the quality of distance education (IHEP, 2000)? Results of Case Study The case study consisted of three sequential phases. First, a comprehensive literature search was conducted to compile those benchmarks recommended by other organizations, resulting in 45 benchmarks. Secondly, institutions experienced in distance education that are providing leadership in Internet-based distance education were identified. Third, Institute staff visited these institutions noting what campuses incorporated the benchmarks into their Internetbased distance learning programs. Each research site visit included interviews with administrators, faculty, and students. These individuals were surveyed on the presence and importance of the original benchmarks, determining to what extent they were being followed and whether they were making a difference in terms of academic quality (IHEP, 2000). The study revealed that quality benchmarks for Internet-based distance education were considered important and institutions tried to incorporate them into their policies, practices, and procedures. However, several benchmarks did not rank in the consensus of administrators, faculty, and students at institutions and in some instances, were not considered mandatory to ensure quality in distance education. The case study also addressed the quality benchmarks for Internet-based distance education, including limitations noted in the “What’s the Difference?” report, bringing out the fact that the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 15

quality of distance education was inconclusively measured and much is still unknown about how, and in what ways, technology has enhanced the teaching and learning environment (IHEP, 2000). The case study focused on Internet-based distance education for three reasons. First, Internet-based distance education is becoming the predominant technology in distance education. Second, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports shows that not only is Internet-based distance education the most prevalent technology, it is also the fastest growing. At least 58% of the reporting institutions that offered distance education used Internet-based courses, compared with 54% who used two-way interactive video and 47% who used one-way prerecorded video. Of the institutions that offered Internet-based courses, three increased from 22% to 58% in 3 years. The use of all other technologies had actually declined since 1994-95 (Lewis as cited in IHEP, 2000, p. 12). Third, the report notes that Internet-based distance education will be a growing avenue for technology- mediated learning in the future (IHEP, 2000). The study was completed to validate the benchmarks for the higher education community. The discussions during the interviews represented a consensus of the majority of institutions in the case study. The information for the case study was quantitative, using a Likert scale and a qualitative study, yielding more than 100 in-depth interviews. The respondents were interviewed after completing the survey and many of their comments were directed towards specific items in the survey. The interviews produced the quantitative data and served to put a “human face” on the stark numbers (IHEP, 2000). Benchmarks Review Phipps and Merisotis (2000) stated, “Quality assurance benchmarks for distance education call for students to engage in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation activities as part of their course requirements” (p. 5). In reviewing the benchmarks published by the IHEP, several articles were examined, but a more effective understanding of this report was found in the resources used. A considerable amount of overlap existed among the benchmarks developed by the various sources, from which 45 specific benchmarks were identified. These benchmarks were grouped into the following seven categories: institutional support, course development, teaching and learning, course structure, student support, faculty support, and evaluation/assessment. Six institutions were identified for site visits. To qualify for selection, the institutions needed experience in distance education. They must be recognized as leaders in distance education and they must be regionally accredited, offering more than one-degree program in online distance learning. To ensure that broad spectrums of higher education institutions were represented, the case study included a community college, a comprehensive institution, a research institution and a virtual institution.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 16

Evaluating Benchmarks The Institute’s analysis of the data and information from interviews resulted in the elimination of 13 benchmarks and the addition of three new benchmarks. Several benchmarks were combined because they addressed the same issues. The final outcome consists of a list of 24 benchmarks grouped into seven categories that were deemed essential to ensure quality in higher education (IHEP, 2000). Oblinger et al. (2001) stated, “To formulate the benchmarks, the report identified first-hand, practical strategies being used by U.S. colleges and universities considered to be leaders in online distributed learning” (p. 39). The study that was completed by the IHEP presents itself as a useful guide for studying this issue in a local setting and could provide guidelines for exploring the contributing factors in the successful quality assurance model for Internet-based learning. This research also included the results of a study on Internet-based education in Hong Kong, because many questions were seen as not being addressed. The Hong Kong study that was completed on the benchmarks for Internet-based Education showed that at every campus, one administrator, faculty member, or (often) several students made the claim that the benchmarks were on target. Several respondents were undecided about whether Internet-based distance education was under such intense scrutiny as traditional classroom-based teaching. The 24 essential Internet-based education benchmarks were categorized into seven categories. The benchmarks were considered to be most essential to the success of an Internet-based distance education program at any institution and could be useful to government policymakers, institutional decision makers, faculty and students, as well as others with an interest in ensuring that the highest quality of higher education possible is being provided by way of Internet-based programs. The Hong Kong study also presented the benchmarks that were not essentials in ensuring quality Internet-based distance educations. The non-essential benchmarks are listed in four categories: Institutional Support, Course Development, Teaching and Learning, and Course Structure. When noting new benchmarks, there were three quality benchmarks not included in the original 45, but recommended by a large majority of faculty and administrators (IHEP, 2000). Quality Assurance Issues This study was confined to the college-level, credit-bearing teaching and learning experiences and excluded non-credit courses and programs in order to keep a focus on higher education’s primary domain. The study attempted not to redefine existing quality assurance systems. However, these quality assurance systems are not perfect and can be improved, they can work for many institutions, states, and the federal government. Twigg (2001) found the following:

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 17

On July 13-14, 2000, a group of sixteen higher education leaders gathered at the symposium. The topic was ‘Preserving Quality in Distributed Learning Environments.’ This symposium addressed the topic of quality assurance in distributed learning in order to provide answers on this subject. The participants in the symposium fell into two categories. The first were leaders from accrediting associations; the readers were campus practitioners who were actively engaged in developing and implementing online programs and were trying to work through the issue of constant quality assurance (p. 1). This study did not set out to solve practical problems for the accreditation process, or to conduct reviews in these new environments when teams did not have the necessary skills or experience. Rather than replicate the things that were wrong with accreditation, the issues were only raised when they were explicitly related to distribution of learning environments. Educators see the attention focused on distance learning as an opportunity to correct the inadequacies of the current quality assurance system (Twigg, 2001). Quality Assurance and Accountability The United States higher education institutions seem to be examined externally. Many symposium participants noted a trend toward greater demands for external certification as a way of ensuring quality. In some states, for example, students wanting to become teachers must take state tests, rather than institutional exams, in order to be certified. Their students’ scores on these state-licensing exams, then, rank institutions. These developments represent an extension of current practices in other professional fields like law, engineering, nursing, and accounting, which have some form of external validation. Many of the participants felt that there would soon be testing for all students. States such as Washington, Colorado, and Illinois, are talking about exit exams at every level of higher education. Even though many educators question whether these common exams are a good way to assess learning, most agree that these exams will probably happen more often, rather than less. All symposium participants agreed that these trends toward greater external certification indicated a lack of confidence about how well higher education was operating. Participants also felt that degree acquisition, graduation, and grades were no longer viewed as adequate indicators of competency. The pressure for external exams often reflected the frustration that many outside of their community felt about the enormous amount of money being spent for education in the United States (Twigg, 2001). The Web-based Education Commission made high-quality online educational content one of its critical aims. In order for students or institutions to determine whether quality has been achieved, quality must first be defined. Challenges of quality assurance arise because quality and quality assurance arrangements have been defined using traditional universities’ categories. These traditional categories consist of national systems of higher education, individual

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 18Â

institutions, and higher education sectors. The emerging categories are associated with borderless and virtual education, which suggest a need to redefine quality and quality assurance arrangements (Cavanaugh, 2002). Members of the higher education community approach the issue of quality assurance in distance learning not as a desired end, but as a problem that needs to be solved. The problem is expressed in addressing the following factors: higher education organizations and educators believe that distance learning is different from classroom-based education, and they also believe that new and separate standards of quality are needed when noting distance educational programs. A recent study on the issue of quality in distance education raised this question: How can a teaching and learning process that deviates so much from what has been practiced for hundreds of years embody quality education? The higher education community has developed several quality indicators that many institutional quality assurance programs readily use and apply. For example, quality equals (a) a tenured, full-time faculty member with a Ph.D; (b) courses and degree programs offered by and on a residential campus; and (c) students learning by sitting in the same room with a professor. However, when it comes to distance education, more research is needed (Twigg, 2001). Swalec (as cited in Yeung, 2001, p. 2) suggested that, rather than feeling threatened, faculty should embrace distance learning as a way for more students to access their courses, resulting in a greater intellectual audience and less of a chance for cancellation of a course due to low enrollment. Other educators believe that there is no consensus on what constitutes good practice in distance education. Regional accrediting bodies have varying levels of specificity when it comes to defining high-quality distance learning. Institutions and state systems are devising their own quality standards based on the guidelines of accrediting bodies. As distance learning reaches beyond local and regional boundaries, many educators feel that some accepted standards are needed to ensure adequate protection for student consumers. However, there must first be an understanding of the indicators of quality in a distributed learning environment. As consumers of distance learning become more experienced, and as distance education offerings become more plentiful, the demand for high quality in distance education will increase (Twigg, 2001). Description of Methods This study consisted of using a mixed method approach because it includes abduction: the uncovering and relying on the most effective set of explanations for understanding the research results (de Waal, as cited in Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2004, p. 375-387). This research design provided the guidelines for the collection, measurement, and analysis of the data. A mixed method was also used for this research because it consists of using induction; the discovery of patterns and deduction which includes testing theories and hypotheses, and because it legitimizes the use of multiple approaches in answering research questions rather than restricting, or constraining the researcher to choices. This is the most effective approach because

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 19

both quantitative and qualitative data was used in order to obtain a more realistic view of the questions being asked. The researcher used a larger number of participants in order to determine if any statistically significant differences exist when noting the means, average, standard deviation, count, and the mode from the previous study that was completed by the IHEP in 2000. This research will reinvestigate the 24 benchmarks that were used by IHEP in 2000: Institutional Support, Course Development, Teaching and Learning Process, Course Structure, Student Support, Faculty Support, Evaluation and Assessment in order to ensure that the quality of Internet-based education exists. The IHEP completed a pilot study on Internet-based education in 2000. The researcher intends to replicate that study in order to see if more information can be gathered on the subject of quality of Internet-based education. The researcher intends to see if benchmarks for Internetbased education are actually being incorporated into the policies, procedures, and practices of online universities. This study will determine the importance and presence of each benchmark to the institution and college specifically, as well as to administrators, faculty members, and students. The researcher will identify any existing additional benchmarks not found in the literature that practitioners are using to contribute to the quality of distance education. Based on the previous research an online survey will be designed in order to select benchmarking models for use in evaluating data results. Online university Presidents and Chancellors are being contacted for the approval and distribution of all online surveys. Information will be obtained on how the participants will rank each benchmark noting their importance and presence as it relates to Internet-based education. Population and Sample Cooper and Schindler (2003) stated, “The researcher explicitly defines the target population being studied and the sampling methods. If it will be a probability sample it might be simple random or complex random” (p. 663). This study is designed to meet the need of traditional and online administrative staff, faculty members, and the student population. Surveys were sent to 37 administrators with seven of them agreeing to participate in this study. Surveys were sent to 333 faculty members with 93 of them agreeing to participate and surveys were sent 6,330 students with 602 of them agreeing to participate in this study. However, more participants responded than agreed to certain benchmark questions and some participants chose not to respond to certain questions. The high rate of students that participated in this research made this study student centered. The age, gender category, or the ethnic background was not a factor of the participants in completing this research. There were no prerequisites for years of experience that the participating administrators, faculty, and students must have. However, all administrators and faculty members must have administrated or taught some online courses. All students regardless of their major or university status, meaning undergraduate or graduate, were able to participate in this research. All students must have taken some online courses. These participants were selected because they represented a population that has a background in

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 20Â

Internet-based education. These participants were also selected because they were familiar with, or can relate to, the benchmarks for Internet-based education and they know the importance of maintaining quality online programs. Participants were given a secured online survey to which they were able to respond. The university had to be accredited. All research data was consolidated; all and any names of the participants will remain anonymous. Instrumentation An online survey was designed to simplify the collection and analysis of the data. The survey questions were grouped into specific categories listing the benchmarks of Internet- based education. Quantitative data was gathered using a 5-point Likert scale survey. The survey also consisted of some qualitative data that was gathered from online in-depth interviews. The survey listed each of the 24 benchmarks that applied to Internet-based education courses or programs. The survey asked each participant to rank each benchmark based on three criteria. First, the participants was asked to rate the importance of each benchmark. Second, the participants were asked to what extent the benchmarks were present in their online courses or programs. Finally, there were some open-ended questions, of which the participants were asked to identify any other benchmarks that could further enhance the quality of Internet-based education. The pilot study that was completed by [IHEP] on the quality of Internet- based education was used to validate the purposes of this research. No statistical tests was computed to ascertain the degree of importance as it relates to each benchmark at the institution; the mean, average, standard deviation, count, and mode of each benchmark demonstrated the range of consensus for each item (IHEP, 2000). Data Collection Procedures Permission to use the 24 benchmarks for Internet-based education was obtained from the IHEP. Permission statements were sent by e-mail to all prospective participating online and traditional institutions, and approval was sought and obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The online survey included instructions on how it should be completed. The research questions took approximately 20 -25 minutes to complete. No personal information was requested from each participant or university as to maintain confidentiality. Data Analysis Procedures A 5-point Likert scale survey instrument was replicated from the benchmarks for Internet-based education that was created by IHEP in order to collect quantitative data. The survey instrument was also designed to ask open-ended questions in order to collect qualitative data from the participants. This 5-point Likert scale survey was sent to participating universities. All participants research departments assisted with the distribution of the online

Volume 3, Page 21

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

survey Uniform Resource Locator (URL). The survey participants consisted of administrators, faculty members, and students. All participants were asked to rate each benchmark for Internet-based education by checking for the importance, presence, and to see if other benchmarks not listed could be included. In analyzing research questions 1, the available choices of survey responses ranged from “very important” to “uncertain” as to how important the benchmarks were for Internet- based education. In analyzing research question 2, noting the presence of each benchmark at the university, the available count of survey responses ranged from how many respondents answered the question. In order not to just provide the numeric values for research questions 1 and 2, the survey was also designed to collect actual statements from the participants. The survey responses showed the level of importance of the benchmark and if in fact, the benchmarks were being used at the university. All quantitative statistics was computed for research questions 1 and 2 using the number of participants that responded to each part of the question, noting the importance and presence of each benchmark for Internet-based education. All quantitative data was further analyzed noting each benchmark’s mean, average, standard deviation, count, and mode. All collected qualitative data was used in addressing research question 3, concerning what other benchmarks that could be incorporated into the already existing benchmarks for Internet-based education. In order to give more relevance to this study, the participants were asked if other benchmarks for Internet-based education were sufficient in order to meet the need for the commonly accepted standards of good practice. A comparative analysis was completed, noting the quantitative and qualitative gathered data. A triangulation of the quantitative and qualitative survey questions was completed, checking to see if any differences and similarities exist between the benchmarks for Internet-based education. Findings Demographic Data The survey instrument that was used to gather data for this study consisted of the 24 essential benchmarks for Internet-based education. The survey was sent to university, administrators, faculty members, and students. Gender and ethnic background were not factors in completing this study. Surveys were sent to 37 administrators, with seven of them agreeing to participate in the study. Surveys were sent to 333 faculty members, with 93 of them agreeing to participate in this study. Of the 6,330 students that received the survey, 602 agreed to participate in this study. However, some of the participant’s did not respond to certain survey questions. Updated data was gathered and used in completing this manuscript because participants continued responding to this survey after the gathered data was collected and analyzed. In order to provide a qualitative approach to the study, the survey was designed with open-ended

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 22

questions so that each participant was able to respond in his or her own words and in order to put a face on the collected data. Administrators’ demographics. When online administrators were asked how many years they worked in higher education administration, seven reviewed this question with five responding. Four administrators said they had 1 to 5 years of experience and one administrator said they had 6 to 10 years of relevant experience. When online administrators were asked to list one or two things that were different about the online teaching environment in comparison with that of the traditional teaching environment, five administrators responded to this question by making the following statements: “You do not receive the in-class participation of conversation; If you have a participative classroom and teacher online you can have a great conversation but it is not the same as being in a classroom; When taking online classes you have the convenience to study at your own pace and at times which are convenient for you; There is a need for technology training of instructors and the online teaching environment is different because more email and phone contact is needed; The nuances of face-to-face meetings are not readily available for some staff/faculty and administrators; The biggest differences are in real-time interactions between the students and their classmates and between the students and their instructor.” Faculty members’ demographics. Faculty members were asked how long they have taught in the traditional environment. Noting the 63 that reviewed the question 57 responded with 12 faculty members saying they had 1 to 5 years of teaching experience, 17 faculty members said they had 6 to 10 years of experience, and 28 faculty members had over 11 years of experience. Faculty members were also asked about their experience teaching in the online environment. Of the 62 that reviewed this question, 59 responded with 40 saying they had 1 to 5 years of experience, 17 faculty members had 6 to 10 years of experience, and two said they had over 11 years of experience. When asking how many online courses the faculty members taught, of the 62 that reviewed this question, 58 responded with 17 faculty members saying they taught 1 to 5 courses, 12 said they taught 6 to 10 courses, and 29 taught more than 11 courses. Regarding faculty member’s educational level and teaching environment, of the 82 faculty members that reviewed this question, 46 of them responded saying they taught at the traditional level, 14 taught at the community college level in traditional and online environments, 18 taught at private colleges in both areas, and four taught only online courses. Faculty members were asked to list one or two things that were different about the online teaching environment in comparison with that of the traditional teaching environment. The 60 faculty members that responded to this question made the following statements: “Online courses required more self-discipline and motivation from students than traditional courses; Online students are much more highly motivated than traditional students and the online environment was much more conducive to being a ‘guide on the side’ rather than a ‘sage on the stage’.” Other statements that were made included: “lack of face-to-face contact in online course is more stringent individual study

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 23

requirements – students must be self –starters in order to meet course requirements online; Verbal communications were eliminated and classroom activities were modified to support the online environment, i.e. more detailed descriptions of activities and assignments were developed and more structure included; Learning outcomes remained the same; All students have to constantly respond; there’s no hiding in the crowd; It is extremely difficult to correct student errors via typed/email kinds of messages without coming across as harsh.” Student demographics. Students were asked how many online courses they had taken in the online environment. Of the 479 students that reviewed this question, 197 students responded saying that they had taken one to five online courses, 137 students said they had taken six to 10 courses, 142 students had taken over 11 courses, and three students said this was their first online course. The students were asked their age level when they began taking online courses and of the 449 students that reviewed this question, 108 of them began taking online courses at age 18 to 25 years. The survey revealed that 191 students were ages 26 to 35, 145 students were ages 36 to 45, and 32 students were over age 46 when they first enrolled in an online course. Students were also asked why they decided to take an online course and of the 477 that reviewed this question, 176 said “family obligations,” 35 students said “flexibility,” 283 students said “work schedule,” 23 students said “curiosity,” and 52 students stated other various reasons. Students were also asked to list one or two characteristics of online courses that were different from those of traditional courses. This question was reviewed by 477 participants, with the majority of statements relating to the following information: “Online courses demand timeliness more so than traditional classes; The professors are not there with you in class to remind you of what’s coming up (verbally) so online classes make the student more responsible in following the timeline for the class.” Other students stated, “I also read the books much more so I can get a definite understanding of the subject; There is more homework; No face-to-face interactions with other students and the feedback delayed; Lack of in class interaction; Yes, some classes have online chats but it still is not the same as face-to-face interaction; Need to self be disciplined; No one is standing over your shoulder to see if you are doing ok and one must be aware of when they need help in tutoring; In a traditional class setting you can sit down with a classmate, or join a study group if you are struggling with the course; On the Internet all you get is four hours with a tutoring service; It takes a day or two to get a response to your email; The time needed for online courses is a substantial difference than that of the traditional classroom; I average about 2 to 3 hours a week studying than I need for my traditional classes and communication is a big miss or hit in the online classes; The instructor has a lot to do with this; The online atmosphere was a surprise to me and the format is great; I feel that the online experience generated more student input and participation than the traditional class; Much of your grade is based on your class participation in the online atmosphere and requires a lot of selfmotivation; I honestly feel that you have to work harder in the online courses, so consequently you learn more.”

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 24

Benchmarks Results The information gathered from this study was quantitative and consisted of collecting data using a Likert scale. A statistical test was used in gauging the importance and presence of each benchmark by defining the means average and standard deviation for research questions one and two. This study was also qualitative consisting of collecting online responses from the participants. The 385 online interviews gathered from this study assisted in gauging the statistical data. The 24 benchmarks that were established by the Institute of Higher Education (IHEP) were used to collect and analyze data for this research. Benchmark 1. A documented technology plan that includes electronic security measures (e.g., password protection, encryption, back-up systems), that are in place and operational to ensure both quality standards and the integrity and validity of information. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.45. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis, is 1.101. Benchmark 2. A centralized system that provides support for building and maintaining a distance education infrastructure is in place. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.14, and the standard deviation is 1.347. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis, is 1.101. Benchmark 3. The institution should make certain that the reliability of the technology delivery system is as fail-safe as possible. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.48, and the standard deviation is 1.13. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis, is 1.101. Benchmark 4. Guidelines regarding minimum standards are used for course development, design, and delivery, while learning outcomes—not the availability of existing technology—determines the technology being used to deliver course content. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.75, and the standard deviation is 1.601. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis, is 1.101. Benchmark 5. Instructional materials are reviewed periodically to ensure they meet program standards. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.75, and the standard deviation is 1.601. The standard deviation shows the spread

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 25Â

of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is, 1.101. Benchmark 6. Courses are designed to require students to engage themselves in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as part of their course and program requirements. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.24. The standard deviation is 1.09. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis, is 1.101. Benchmark 7. Student interactions with faculty and other students is an essential characteristic and are facilitated through a variety of ways, including voicemail and e-mail. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.84; the standard deviation is 0.727. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 8. Feedback to student assignments and questions is constructive and provided in a timely manner. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.61; the standard deviation is 0.792. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 9. Students are instructed in the proper methods of effective research, including assessment of the validity of resources. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.28; the standard deviation is 1.043. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 10. Before starting an online program, students are advised about the program to determine whether they possess the self-motivation and commitment to learn at a distance and whether they have access to the minimal technology required by the course design. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.99. The standard deviation is 1.34. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 11. Students are provided with supplemental course information that outlines course objectives, concepts, and ideas; learning outcomes for each course are summarized in a clearly written, straightforward statement. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.41, and the standard deviation is 0.911.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 26Â

The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 12. Students have access to sufficient library resources that may include a virtual library accessible through the World Wide Web. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.45, and the standard deviation was 0.939. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 13. Faculty and students agree upon expectations regarding deadlines for student assignment completion and faculty response. The means average that separates the high scores from the low scores for this benchmark is 4.31; the standard deviation is 1.087. The standard deviation that shows the spread of responses to each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 14. Students receive information about programs, admission requirements, tuition, fees, books, supplies, technical issues, proctoring requirements and student support services. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.46; the standard deviation is 0.858. The standard deviation that shows the spread of responses to each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 15. Students are provided with hands-on training and information to aid them in securing materials through electronic databases, interlibrary loans, government archives, news services, and other sources. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.66; the standard deviation is 1.451. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 16. Throughout the duration of the course or program, students have access to technical assistance, including detailed instructions regarding the electronic media used, practice sessions prior to the beginning of the course, and convenient access to technical support staff. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 4.23, and the standard deviation is 1.085. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 17. Questions directed to student service personnel are answered accurately and quickly, with a structured system in place to address student complaints. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.87; the standard

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 27Â

deviation is 1.502. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 18. Technical assistance in course development is available to faculty, who are encouraged to use it. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.01; the standard deviation is 1.798. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 19. Faculty members are assisted in the transition from classroom teaching to online instructions and are assessed during the process. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 2.91; the standard deviation is 1.789. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 20. Instructor training and assistance, including peer mentoring, continues through the progression of the online course. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 2.92; the standard deviation is 1.768. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 21. Faculty members are provided with written resources to deal with issues arising from student use of electronically accessed data. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 2.76; the standard deviation is 1.754. The standard deviation shows the spread for responses to each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 22. The programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s educational effectiveness and teaching/learning process is assessed through an evaluation process that uses several methods and applies specific standards. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.52; the standard deviation is 1.652. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. Benchmark 23. Data on enrollment, costs, and the successful, innovative uses of technology are used to evaluate the program effectiveness. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 2.93; the standard deviation is 1.722. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 28

Benchmark 24. Intended learning outcomes are reviewed regularly to ensure clarity, utility, and appropriateness. The means average that separates the high score from the low score for this benchmark is 3.28; the standard deviation is 1.752. The standard deviation shows the spread of responses for each question and standardizes the disagreement so questions can be compared on a normalized basis is 1.101. (See Tables 1-3) In table one, administrator’s response to the 24 benchmarks as it relates to their level of importance; were consistent noting the response rates of the participants but benchmarks 21 and 24 did receive lower scores. The very important and the importance column did receive the highest scores in regards to the importance of the benchmarks. In noting the presence of each benchmark numbers 4, 15, 21, and 24 received lower scores but the other benchmarks in the presence column; scores gave credence to their presence at the university. However, some participants were not certain about their importance or presence. In table two, faculty members’ response to the 24 benchmarks noting their level of importance; all benchmarks with the exceptions of numbers16, 18, and 22 did receive highest scores. The importance and the very important columns did receive the highest scores noting the importance in having quality Internet-based education. As it relates to the presence of the benchmarks at the university, the majority of high scores were received except numbers 14, 15, 17, and 24. However, some participants were not certain about their importance or presence. In noting table three, student response to the level of importance of the benchmarks; all of the scores were consistent except, number 19. The important and very important columns received the highest scores. .However, some participants were not certain about the importance. As it relates to the presence of the benchmarks at the university some students rated benchmarks 3, 15, 18 – 24 with low scores but the rest of the benchmarks did receive high scores noting their presence. However, some participants were not certain about their importance or presence. The low ratings of certain benchmarks were based on the fact that some of the participants did not fully understand how their importance or presence would affect the quality of Internetbased education. Some low ratings were based on the fact that some of the participant’s chose not to respond to certain benchmarks and questions. However, some of the participants in this study were not initially aware of these benchmarks, but felt that they are needed in order to have a quality online educational program. However, with the majority of high scores when noting the 24 benchmarks in this study, revealed that, the benchmarks was essential in noting quality in Internet-based education. As noted in the [IHEP] 2000 study, these benchmarks prove to be useful guides to government policymakers, administrators, faculty members, and students in order to have and maintain quality Internet-based education. Analysis of Research Question 3 In research question 3, participants were asked what other benchmarks online universities could use to assess the quality of Internet-based education. The total number of participants that

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 29

responded to this question was 385. A statement that was made by one of three administrators consisted of; “Collaboration between faculty and administrators was very important in the online learning environment;” Of the 49 faculty members that responded to this question, several of them listed some notable statements; “Adequate training and instructional support for online faculty is critical to providing effective classroom learning experience for students. These areas need attention; “Teaching instructors (adjuncts) about assessment instruments at the various levels of learning (Bloom); Updated training modules need to be available; Some of the other questions and statements made by the participants consisted of “What is the role of an instructor who is teaching a course created by someone else and feels they have little chance to assess what is being used and what is happening?; “Should there be a role for all instructors in such positions to evaluate the course being taught?; “Can changes then be made from time to time; “Student - instructor interactivity benchmarks;” “Ethics and stress management training for teachers;” “A quality control program to ensure that all online courses meet minimum standards set by the university.” In noting the 333 students that responded to this question, several of them made the notable replies: “ I think an assessment should be given to instructors and students to determine their capabilities, learning and teaching styles before they began an Internet-based class; One of the most important aspects of a quality Internet-based education from a student perspective is the availability of a variety of course to choose from each term so that it isn’t hurry up and wait game for a degree-required course to become available; The professor need to ensure that each student feels the classroom experience is real as possible compared to a physical class. This includes interaction with students, teachers and administrators; I think that Internet-based education standards should be raised so that they can equal traditional institutions; Making sure course requirements are achievable given the text and instructional parameters; For Internet classes to be a viable alternative to a classroom environment there has to be a method developed that will allow instructors to tape their lectures so that students can view them online.” In analyzing the information obtained from question 3, most participants were concerned with the issues of instructors’ capabilities in effectively teaching in the online environment. Some of the participants felt that online instructors needed training in not just how to navigate the learning platform, but how to teach in actual online environment. Some instructors felt that since most courses are pre-developed, that this took away from making the course more inviting to the student, and stated that they wanted more control in the courses that they teach. Accreditation was an issue for some of the participants in this study; they felt that a benchmark should be designed to make it a requirement so that all online universities should be accredited such as in the traditional environment. There were also some concerns about making proctored exams a requirement for the online environment, because this will give more credibility to the degree that is received. Students wanted more ways to interact with their instructors and peers in the online environment. A way that was frequently mentioned by most students was video-conferencing. Some participants wanted the online environment to have an increased level of counseling between the

Volume 3, Page 30

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

administrators, instructors, and students. The participants felt that a quality control system should be in place when hiring quality instructors to teach online; they stated that it should be much like the face-to-face environment. Some of the participants also felt that administrators should have and keep an open door policy when it comes to instructor and student issues. In order to create more of a realistic view of this study, the participants was asked if there were other benchmarks sufficient to meet the need for commonly accepted standards of good practice. The two administrators that responded to this question made the following statements, “These benchmarks are quite good. They seem complete,” “Yes, in the spirit of continuous improvement, communication between administrator’s course developers, course instructors, and students is extremely valuable.” Some of the 46 faculty members that responded to this question made the following statements: “Yes, the benchmarks are comprehensive; No – they do not include essentials for the survival of a program, such as student retention benchmarks; “With these questions a program could be good, but not survive financially; Yes, less restriction is always better than more. As online education continues to evolve we will see that many of the old standards are no longer applicable to the process; No- student, faculty and organizational needs are addressed; however, relevance to today’s society is important as well; How about benchmarking relevance of instruction to the job market, for example; Yes, they give general guidelines for all the areas that should be regularly evaluated; No … the benchmarks will continue to change as online education adapts and grow; Yes, I really was not aware of these benchmarks; The benchmarks queried are adequate for ensuring a quality program. Ongoing evaluation of both course content and the performance of the instruction is also a critical element in quality control.” Some of the 271 students that responded to this question made the following statements, “Yes, I think a good Internet-based program allows the student access to everything a traditional based program has. It may not do it in exactly the same manner, but it should be available to the student; Yes, I think that if these are followed it will improve the standards of Internet-based education; No, they are a good baseline to follow, but there are many things that go on with a student that makes some of the Internet experience complicated; Yes, they are because without them we fail to meet the need of the student; No. As it stands, the only students who have a chance in online classrooms are those who never get discouraged and are bright enough to need little or no assistance from the instructor. The student with questions has to wait for an answer. Often long enough that the momentum generated from beginning a successful study situation dissipates; yes, if you meet these standards it will be sufficient enough to conduct quality education.” Discussion This study’s overall findings and conclusions relates to the analysis of the data for research questions one and two, they will be followed by research question 3. In addressing the first two research questions, the study revealed that all of the benchmarks were very important in establishing and maintaining a high-quality online educational program. The data also revealed

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 31

that the benchmarks was present and were being used at the university, but more knowledge was needed about their existence and purpose. The comments stated by the participants, were thought provoking regarding the topics of student and teacher interactions, quality control, academic freedom issues, administrative, and online support. The analysis of the data also revealed that more Internet- based education benchmarks are needed in order to have and maintain the future success of online education. In addressing the third and final research question concerning what other benchmarks online universities could use to assess the quality of Internet-based education, the comments made by participants were thought provoking. The majority of the statements related to more interactions needed between teachers and students. There was also a need for standard learning outcomes in the online environment, proctored exams, and counseling services. Video instruction was another issue that was discussed by many of the participants along with other issues such as instructors’ technological skills, and the provision of innovative lectures. The benchmarks for Internet-based education proved to be useful guides for higher education organizations, government policymakers, institutional decision-makers, online administrators, faculty members, and students. In addressing the need for commonly accepted standards of good practice as it relates to the 24 benchmarks established by IHEP, the study revealed that they can be used to increase the quality of online programs by incorporating the existing benchmarks in the online programs at traditional universities. The benchmarks that were also designed by IHEP can be used as guides for all Internet-based educational programs, adding to the integrity of online programs. Online students could use the benchmarks to evaluate online programs before making a decision to attend certain online schools. Online instructors could use the benchmarks to evaluate a program or course before deciding to teach a certain course. Students could use the benchmarks to evaluate certain programs and courses, making certain they are achievable with regard to text and instructional materials. Implications In order to improve the quality of Internet-based education, all online administrative staff needs to ensure course coherence between all types of instructions and provide an open forum, similar to a classroom discussion, with students and instructors. The educational arena needs to embrace Internet-based education not as an undesired means, but as a means that will allow many adults to obtain an education. Some participants felt that the entire educational system is in need of restructuring. Some participants felt that key components to successful online education were having (a) a well-constructed site; (b) a set of clear goals defining the expectations of the instructor, homework, projects, and deadlines; and (c) a way to evaluate the instructor. Participants felt that the benchmarks show the success rate of a system in place from student, faculty, and administrator viewpoints; they cover every important aspect of online programs—primarily course content, review, validity, and instructor competence—and provide

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 32

general guidelines for all areas that should be regularly evaluated. Other participants approved of the benchmarks because they enable and encourage future Internet-based programs to ensure that students and faculty members meet the standards set for accreditation. The benchmarks do provide a good framework for the future of all online systems. However, some participants were cautious about the value of the benchmarks and offered suggestions for online programs: “Education” is not achieved by just throwing words on a page and asking people to read them, comment on them, and then take a test on them; such a system pares down the educational system. Overall, some of the participants felt that the benchmarks are worthless if universities do not ensure that they are, meeting the high standards they set for themselves. Many students are reluctant to try non-traditional education. This study has definitely provided the similarities and differences in traditional and Internet-based education. The study also showed that regardless to the similarities or differences, they do take presence over the other. The participants have gained some knowledge of how the benchmarks for Internet-based education apply to maintaining and evaluating the quality of their online programs. This research will assist in bridging the gaps of understanding between traditional and online programs, and how they should work together in making certain that the student are getting an effective education regardless to the environment. This research has also provided information that online learning might not deviate so much from what has been practiced for hundreds of years and that online education is of quality content based on the rules and regulations of the same accrediting bodies as traditional programs. However, educational preferences will continue to exist. Recommendations for Practice and Future Research The results of this study can be used to increase the quality of online programs by incorporating the existing benchmarks for Internet-based education in the online programs at traditional universities. The benchmarks that were designed by the IHEP can be used as guides for all Internet-based educational programs, adding to the integrity of online programs. Online programs could incorporate the existing benchmarks into their policies and procedures. Online students could use the benchmarks to evaluate online programs before making a decision to attend certain online schools. Online instructors could use the benchmarks to evaluate a program or course before deciding to teach a certain course. Students could use the benchmarks to evaluate certain programs and courses, making certain they are achievable with regard to text and instructional parameters. This study focused on administrators, faculty members, and a student perspective concerning what is needed to ensure the quality of Internet-based education. Online universities could use the benchmarks for Internet-based education to test the quality of their programs. A collaborative study needs to be designed by online universities to review the present benchmarks and to include any new benchmarks that would enhance the future of quality online programs.

Volume 3, Page 33

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Online leaders could assemble yearly to present their schools evaluation, and make certain recommendations for changes as to update their existing online programs. A study needs to be completed in order to identify the role that traditional universities will perform in bridging the gap between themselves and Internet-based education. Research is also needed about what constitutes “good practice” in Internet-based education. A study should be completed that outlines the benchmarks and notes how they relate to the online curricula. Benchmarks of academic standards should include not only the depth and breadth of academic subject matter, but also the instructor’s creativity and success in conveying and truly teaching the information. Institutions should come to a consensus on what is considered “good practice.” The ability to look over, reread, and reassess every nuance of the class discussion allows better absorption and appreciation of materials covered. Some participants felt that it was not clear whether the benchmarks outlined in the survey conveyed the entire picture of online curricula. Benchmarks of academic standards should include not only the depth and breadth of academic subject matter, but also the instructor’s creativity and success in conveying and truly teaching the information. Another topic that could be addressed in the future research of Internet-based education is the measurement of student and faculty performance while also mastering the conveyance of course content. This was a concern of some participants in the study that stated that if this is not done effectively, then how could the benchmarks for Internet-based education be useful in the evaluation process? Author Biography Dr. Fountain, PhD is in Education/ Higher Education Administration from Capella University. She holds a M.A. in Public Administration and a M.A. in Management from Webster University. Her military background provided the importance in obtaining a quality online degree. She serves as an Adjunct Faculty Member for the University of North Carolina – Pembroke and a Chair and Committee Member for the School of Advanced Studies for the University of Phoenix. She has completed extensive research in traditional and quality online education. Her current research interest is in traditional and online education. She also is assisting students to research this area. References Alley, L. R., & Jansak, K. E. (2001). The ten keys to quality assurance and assessment in online learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 13(3), 3-18. American Council on Education. (n.d.). Guiding principles for distance learning in a learning society. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from http://www.acenet.edu/calec/Dis_learning/dl_principlesIntro.cfm

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 34Â

American Distance Education Consortium. (n.d.). ADEC guiding principles for distance teaching and learning. Retrieved December 18, 2004, from http://www.adec.edu/Admin/papers/distance-teaching_principles.html American Federation of Teachers. (2000). Distance education: Guidelines for good practice. Retrieved November 16, 2004, from http://www.aft.org/higher_ed/downloadable/distance.pdf Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. M. (1999). Faculty guide for moving teaching and learning to the Web. Los Angeles, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College. Carnevale, D. (2000). A study produces a list of 24 benchmarks for quality distance education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(31), A45. Carnevale, D. (2000). Assessing the quality of online courses remains a challenge, educators agree. Retrieved October 17,2004 from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v46/i24/24a05901.htm Cavanaugh, C. (2002). Distance education quality: Success factors for resources, practices and results. Jacksonville, FL: Ideal Group. Cooper, R. D., & Schindler, S. P. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw- Hill/Irwin. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2002). Accreditation and assuring quality in distance learning. Retrieved December 5, 2004 from www.chea@ chea.org Council of Graduate Schools, Task Force on Distance Graduate Education. (1998). Distance graduate education: Opportunities and challenges for the 21st century (policy statement). Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved June 12, 2004 from http://www.cgsnet.org/pdf/DistanceGraduateEducation.pdf Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions. (2000). Statement of the regional accrediting commissions on the evaluation of electronically offered degree and certificate programs and guidelines for the evaluation of electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Retrieved November 30, 2004 from http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/ Guidelines.htm Drazdowski, T. A., Holodick, N. A., & Scappaticci, F. T. (1998). Infusing technology into a teacher education program: Three different perspectives. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2/3), 141-149. Farrell, K., Persichitte, K., Lowell, N., & Roberts, S. (2001). The evolution of a distance delivery system that supports content, students, and pedagogy. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blind, 95(10), 597-609. Heterick, R. C., Mingle, J. R., & Twigg, C. A. (1997). The public policy implications of a global learning infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2004 from http://www.educause.edu/nlii/keydocs/policy.htm Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Retrieved November 5, 2004 from http://www.ihep.com/quality.pdf Levine, J. (2003). Quality distance education: Appropriate interdependent and collaborative environments. In R. Ham & J. Woosley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual International

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 35

Distance Education Conference (pp. 18-1-18-5). College Station, TX: Center for Distance Learning Research. McGregor, E. N., & Attinasi, L. C. (1998). The craft of benchmarking: Finding and utilizing district-level, campus-level, and program-level standards. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional Research Annual Meeting, Bozeman, MT. Middlehurst, R. (2000). Quality assurance and accreditation for virtual education: A discussion of models and needs. Guildford, UK: Center for Policy and Change in Higher Education, University of Surrey. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Distance education at postsecondary education institutions: 1997-98. NCES 2000-013. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 4, 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2000/2000013.pdf Oblinger, G. D., Barone, A. C., & Hawkins, L. B. (2001). Distributed education: Challenges, choices, and a new environment for the American Council on Education. Washington, DC. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Manuscript submitted for publication. Phipps, R. A., & Merisotis, J. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internetbased distance education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.com/ ubs/PDF/Quaility.pdf Phipps, R. A., Wellman, J. V., & Merisotis, J. P. (1998). Assuring quality in distance learning: A preliminary review. Washington, DC: Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Pond, W. K. (2002). Distributed education in the 21st century: Implications for quality assurance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, V(II), 5. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (1999). Guidelines on the quality assurance of distance learning. Gloucester, UK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/dlg/contents.htm Scanlan, C. L. (2003). Reliability and validity of a student scale for assessing the quality of Internet-based distance learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, VI(III), 1-10. Twigg, C. A. (2001). Quality assurance for whom? Providers and consumers in today’s distributed learning environment. Troy, NY: The PEW Learning and Technology Program, Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunication. (1997). Principles of good practice for electronically offered academic degree and certificate programs. Retrieved December 17, 2004 from http://www.wcet.info/projects/ balancing/principles.asp Yeung, D. (2001). Toward an effective quality assurance model of Web-based learning: The perspective of academic staff. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, IV(IV), 1-17.

Volume 3, Page 36

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education TABLE 1: - ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSE TO BENCHMARKS: (BM) BM

RQ 1

RQ 2

Not

Somewhat

Important

Very

Not

# OF

Not

# of

important

Important

Certain

Respondents

Presence

Certain

Respondents

4 of 7

2 of 7

7 of 7

3 of 7

4 of 7

3 of 7

4 of 7

1 0f 7

4 of 7

3 of 7

4 of 6

2 of 6

4 of 6

2 of 6

4 of 6

2 of 6

5 of 5

2 of 5

4 of 6

2 of 6

4 of 7

3 of 7

4 of 7

3 of 7

4 of 7

3 of 7

3 of 5

2 of 5

5 of 5

1 of 5

5 of 5

2 of 5

5 of 5

2 of 5

3 of 5

2 of 5

3 of 5

2 of 5

3 of 5

2 of 5

3 of 4

1 of 4

3 of 5

2 of 5

4 of 4

3 of 4

1 of 4

Total

Volume 3, Page 37

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education TABLE: 2 - FACULTY MEMBERS RESPONSE TO BENCHMARKS: (BM) BM

RQ 1

RQ 2

Not

Somewhat

Important

Very

Not

# OF

Not

# OF

important

Important

Certain

Respondents

Presence

Certain

Respondents

50 of 92

40 of 92

51 of 90

39 of 92

51 of 89

38 of 89

52 of 88

36 of 88

51 of 82

37 of 82

51 of 89

38 of 89

49 of 88

37 of 88

50 of 89

39 of 89

55 of 82

39 of 82

56 of 80

24 of 80

50 of 86

33 of 86

50 of 88

38 of 88

51 of 82

31 of 88

48 of 80

32 of 88

51 of 73

22 of 73

47 of 86

39 of 86

48 of 81

33 of 81

47 of 85

38 of 85

49 of 83

34 of 83

49 of 80

31 of 75

50 of 75

25 of 75

46 of 80

34 of 80

55 of 66

11 of 66

53 of 79

26 of 79

Total

992

719

112

1,210

685

112

794

Volume 3, Page 38

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education TABLE 3: - STUDENTS RESPONSE TO BENCHMARKS:(BM) BM

RQ 1

RQ 2

Not

Somewhat

Important

Very

Not

# OF

Not

# OF

important

Important

Certain

Respondents

Presence

Certain

Respondents

325

426 of 653

184

194 of 653

115

261

459 of 632

164

173 of 632

347

469 of 633

152

164 of 633

116

228

120

482 of 591

109 of 591

150

196

469 of 609

132

140 of 609

147

233

452 of 628

168

176 of 628

329

410 of 592

164

182 of 592

299

409 of 591

148

182 of 591

135

230

412 of 582

148

162 of 582

118

211

426 of 578

136

152 of 578

134

231

404 of 584

165

180 of 584

105

262

407 of 585

162

178 of 585

120

244

413 of 575

137

162 of 575

120

227

375 of 544

160

169 of 544

130

149

399 of 512

113 of 512

123

196

386 of 538

136

152 of 538

117

221

442 of 514

103

123 of 514

114

184

387 of 455

68 of 455

108

290 of 445

55 of 445

107

192

395 of 449

54 of 449

203

396 of 443

47 of 443

102

142

117

380 of 465

85 of 465

105

157

390 of 446

56 of 446

135

144

386 of 447

61 of 447

Total

132

527

2,778

4,439

1,759

9,468

2,726

382

3,137

Volume 3, Page 39

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Theory and Practice of Teaching Critical Thinking in a College of Business Joanne Reid Corporate Development Associates

Phyllis Anderson Corporate Development Associates

Abstract In two sequential studies, the authors demonstrated that (a) critical thinking could be taught, learned and transferred; (b) that graduates employ the critical thinking skills, knowledge and strategies learned in the classroom in their subsequent personal, academic and professional endeavors; and (c) discovered that graduates are extremely pleased with the critical thinking course of study and benefits that resulted from it. This report discloses the theory and content of this eminently successful course. Keywords: Critical thinking Critical thinking has been defined as, “… the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome” (Halpern, 1998, p. 450). Reid (2009, October, p. 2) defined it as, “The conjunction of knowledge, skills and strategies that promotes improved problem solving, rational decision making and enhanced creativity.” Critical thinking is recognized as an essential part of education and a valuable life skill (Case, 2005; Giancarlo, Blohm, & Urdan, 2004). However, there is little evidence that critical thinking is being taught or that critical thinking skills are being learned. Federal studies have equated American’s poor reading skills, mathematics skills, and understanding of scientific principles with inadequate critical thinking skills (Board, 2004; Flawn, 2008; Grigg, Donahue, & Dion, 2007; Shettle et al., 2007). Winn (2004) emphasized these failures, enumerating the high costs of the ineffective teaching of critical thinking. Case (2005, p. 45) stated that he is disheartened by the failures to teach critical thinking. Can critical thinking be taught? This question has been debated for many years and by numerous authors. Many authors are convinced that it cannot be taught. Some attempt to prove that critical thinking cannot be taught (Rotherham & Willingham, 2010). Some cite the necessity of domain knowledge (Case, 2005; Senechal, 2010). Rosaen suggests the problem is the relegation of the teaching of critical thinking skills to so-called lower-order skills (1988).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 40

Willington suggests the problem is the lack of teacher’s critical thinking skills (2007), while McKee cites teachers’ refusal to incorporate critical thinking into their classroom instruction (1988). Bloom and Weisberg assert the problem lies in conflicts between sophisticated explanations provided by critical thinking as opposed to intuitive explanations developed in childhood (2007). In a personal, verbal communication, Dr. Ken Silber of Northern Illinois University declared that nobody who had tried to demonstrate that critical thinking can be taught and learned had succeeded (Silber, 2008). In his words, they “… hadn’t moved the needle.” However, other authors suggested that, if the proper methods are employed, then critical thinking skills could be learned. Facione, Facione, and Giancarlo reasoned that, “… given the empirical results, an effective approach to teaching for and about thinking must include strategies for building intellectual character” (2000, p. 1). Facione discussed the needs for training in critical thinking skills and also for developing the disposition for critical thinking (2007). Diane Halpern has written extensively regarding the teaching of critical thinking and its acquisition by students (Halpern, 1989, 1993, 1997, 1998, 1999; Halpern & Nummedal, 1995; Halpern & Riggio, 2003). Leppard opined that 30 years of research and scholarship supported the view that critical and creative thinking can be taught if appropriate instructional strategies were used (1993). Vermunt asserted “…the results indicate that in order to bring about constructive and independent learning behavior, instruction should be mainly aimed at developing self-regulated control strategies and mental learning models in students in which the construction and use of knowledge are central” (1996, p. 48). In 2009, Reid developed a pedagogical treatment in critical thinking, based on the Teaching for Critical Thinking (TCT) model of Diane Halpern (1998). This treatment was modified and expanded by the authors for inclusion in the curriculum of a college of business administration. This course of study was taught to two experimental sections in consecutive semesters. A third section was used as the experimental control group. The acquisition of critical thinking skills was determined using two assessment tools. The major tool was the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST), administered as a pretest/post-test at the beginning and end of the semester. A secondary series of quizzes measured the acquisition of critical thinking skills on a chapter-by-chapter basis of the Halpern text. Analysis of the CCTST results showed that the students’ skills had increased significantly in six of the seven measures of critical thinking. The analysis of the chapter-by-chapter quizzes showed that the students’ skills had increased significantly in every chapter. The results of this study were widely reported (Anderson & Reid, 2010, 2011; Reid, 2009; Reid & Anderson, 2011, 2012a, 2012c). In a subsequent study, students who had taken the course and had since graduated were surveyed to determine if the skills, knowledge, and strategies taught in the critical thinking course had been transferred and were being used. These graduates overwhelmingly reported that the critical thinking course had changed their lives. They reported that they used the skills they

Volume 3, Page 41

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

had learned in their academic, professional and personal lives, providing examples to validate their responses. These graduates reported they were highly satisfied to extremely satisfied with the course of study and the applicability of what they had learned. This study was also widely reported (Anderson & Reid, 2012, October, 2012, September, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c, 2014; Reid & Anderson, 2012b, 2012d, 2013a, 2013b). The authors have not provided a detailed understanding of the theory and practice of the course of study that they developed. Without such an understanding, it would be difficult for others to reproduce these findings, to teach their students to think critically, or to prepare graduates for the demands that will be placed upon them in their careers or in their personal lives. Therefore, the authors take this opportunity to explain what they did and why they did it. Methods Teaching for Critical Thinking Model To determine if critical thinking could be taught and learned, the authors started with a valid theoretical model, namely Halpern’s Teaching for Critical Thinking (TCT) model (1999) . Dr. Diane Halpern, past president of the American Psychological Association, is internationally recognized for her expertise in the domain of critical thinking. This model was the foundation of the course of study. Halpern’s cognitive / behavioral model consists of four elements: a. Dispositional/motivational element b. Instructional and practice element c. Structure training element d. Metacognitive training element (1999) Dispositional element. There are many models that could be used to create or affect the motivation or disposition of learners. The authors’ model resulted from their choice of instructional design models. The authors selected the Cognitive Training Model (CTM) proposed by Foshay, Silber and Stelnicki, (2003) a cognitive behavioral model that is congruent with Halpern’s cognitive pedagogical methods. The first step of the CTM five-step procedure was directing the attention of the learner to the new material to be presented. One significant part of this step of the process was the motivation of the learner. The CTM specified two approaches, both of which were used in every lesson in the course of study. The first was “What’s In It For Me? (WIIFM)”, and the second was “You Can Do It (YCDI)”. The WIIFM approach appealed to the learner’s self-interest. If learners perceived the benefit of the instruction, then they would be likely to work toward mastery of the subject matter and to the development of their personal expertise. The second approach, YCDI, was, fundamentally, a pep-talk delivered by a ‘coach’ telling the learner that others had taken this course and had

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 42

succeeded. The coach recognized that the course of study was difficult, but also recognized that the learner was both skilled and capable, and that the learner would complete the course if s/he applied themselves to the task at hand. This was combination of approaches that was the dispositional element in this course of study. Instructional and practice element. The textbook for this course of study was Critical Thinking Across the Curriculum, a brief edition of Halpern’s previous work, Thought and Knowledge (1997). Halpern and Riggio also published a companion book, Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking (2003). This second book was published to provide assessments for each chapter in the textbook. The first set of assessments was questions on the content of corresponding chapters. Halpern and Riggio designed and developed these questions to be used for examinations for each chapter. The second set was a 10-question, True/False quiz for each chapter. The authors used these quizzes in two ways to improve learning. The authors began each unit of instruction with a multi-media assisted lecture on the chapter. Reid created PowerPoint slides closely following the structure of the chapter. These slides and lectures not only outlined the chapter content, but specifically addressed problem areas along with methods and stratagems that would aid the students in addressing the questions on the examination. Additionally, Reid instituted her personal philosophy that education should not be punitive, introducing the “Redo”. Other studies have shown that students learn from their mistakes (Kornell, Hays, & Bjork, 2009). These authors reported that learners should be permitted to make mistakes, not be penalized for them. Students should learn from their errors of ignorance, not being afraid of making a mistake. In the implementation for this study, students could submit their examinations prior to the specified deadline. The authors reviewed the submissions, provided feedback, specifying incorrect answers, and suggested more profitable approaches to answering the questions. This approach not only enhanced the instruction, but provided additional elements of instructor-led practice. Structure training element: case study. Structure training is in-depth practice to recognize and use critical thinking skills in multiple contexts. The authors implemented the Structure Training element in several ways. Since this course of study was implemented in a college of business administration, the authors recognized the importance of relating critical thinking instruction to business administration. Fortunately, the textbook in business administration contained large numbers of interesting case studies. The authors selected case studies that were applicable to the content of each chapter. The authors worked together to develop a Strengths / Weaknesses / Opportunities / Threats (SWOT) analysis for the business case. The authors used their critical thinking skills to analyze and evaluate the SWOT findings. The authors used their critical thinking skills to infer sources of the business’ problems, potentials, and future.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 43

The authors then assigned these same case studies to the students. As attendees in a college of business administration, these students had analyzed case studies, using the SWOT method. Typically, business students identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, but that is where their process ends. The authors, however, needed to expand the procedure to provide a platform for developing the CT skills of analysis, evaluation, and inference. Analysis means to break down, examine, or otherwise explore the issues, available information, arguments, etc. With analysis, students manipulate, process, or otherwise make active changes to the inputs to make better sense of them. Analysis corresponded with the standard SWOT procedure, a process that the authors’ students already understood. In this stage of the process, the students developed lists identifying each of the four components of the SWOT procedure. Evaluation means to determine the merit, value, efficacy, advantages, worth, authenticity, validity, effect, or significance, of something (e.g., the evidence, claims, assumptions, biases, perspectives, etc.). The students approached this element by performing advanced manipulations of the identified components. In the first evaluation, students combined all the company’s strengths and weaknesses to determine if the company could take advantage of its opportunities to achieve them as goals. In the second, they again combined all the strengths and weaknesses to determine the extent of damage the threats could have on the company. Finally, the students combined the strengths and opportunities, and similarly combined the weaknesses and threats to determine the overall effect all the positives, as opposed by all the negatives, could have on the company. Inference covers reasoning coupled with the use of evidence and standards that together are necessary for synthesizing, coming to a conclusion, making decisions, identifying alternatives, generalizing, planning, predicting, etc. In this step, the students inferred the fate of the company if the status quo was maintained. In a second part of this inference section, the students assumed complete control of the company. They used their analyses and evaluations to infer courses of action, and to predict one, three, and five year statuses of the company. Structure training element: research studies. In the graduate and professional studies courses, the authors added a second structure training element. Neither graduate students nor professionals are necessarily aware of research or published studies in professional journals. They are not aware that the textbooks they studied were the result of research performed. Therefore, the authors introduced them to a series of research papers published in peer-reviewed journals on the subjects of cognition, thinking, memory, and human behavior. For instance, one study explores why people do not recognize their own incompetence (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003). Others explore how people actually make decisions (Duncan, Sadanand, & Davachi, 2012; Galdi, Arcuri, & Gawronski, 2008). Other studies explored the workings of the human mind to understand how people think and how they react (Bloom & Weisberg, 2007; Leutgeb, 2008). In these studies, the students were asked to identify and discuss the major parts of a research paper. Students were graded on the completeness of their responses. These included: a) name of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 44

the paper, b) authors, c) type: synthesis, review, research, d) purpose, e) method, f) results, g) conclusions and h) future studies. These analyses accomplished the authors’ educational goals, and they incorporated them into their regular and undergraduate courses. However, the combination of the chapter examination, the case study, and the research paper was too much for the undergraduate students. Therefore, the authors alternated research papers and case studies. In the first week and other odd weeks, the authors assigned a research paper. In the second and succeeding even weeks, the authors assigned a case study. Metacognitive element. The metacognitive element involved the knowledge and training to develop the learner’s recognition of the need to activate critical thinking skills and processes. The authors’ first approach employed the 10-question, T/F quiz as a scaffold for learning. The authors began every class with the 10-question quiz. This also fulfilled the first step in the CTM, namely to focus the learners’ attention on the new knowledge that would be presented. This quiz required the students to consider the topics and, thereby, initiate the process of retrieving their knowledge of the subject. Later in the class, the authors presented the multimedia assisted lecture to initiate their organizing of the new knowledge and linking it to the student’s extant knowledge. The students also received a second copy of the 10-question quiz. They were instructed to use this as a “cheat sheet”. That is, they were to have it alongside of their textbook as they read the chapter. As they progressed, they would find or would be able to deduce or infer, and then indicate, the correct answer. In this way, the 10-question quiz became a study guide that also acted as a scaffold to enhance understanding and learning of the content of the chapter. The authors’ second approach to enhancing the student’s metacognitive abilities was their inclass discussions of the chapter examination, the case study, or the research papers. Each student participated in the open discussion. If they did not participate voluntarily, the authors called upon them, requiring their input. The authors asked each of them about the responses of their fellow students and encouraged them to discuss their responses. At first, it was difficult to get the students to interact. However, after a couple of weeks, the students discovered that such discussions were interesting, and provided insights and alternative solutions to the problems presented. In this way, the authors encouraged the students to consider how they responded, how others responded, and to determine choices they could, or perhaps should, have made. The authors’ third approach was a logogram picturing the process of critical thinking as a nine-step, multi-colored pyramid of skills. In each class session, the pyramid was shown prominently and discussed at length in the lecture. In each lecture, the steps corresponding to the chapters and topics that had not been covered by that time were blanked, leaving only the steps already accomplished and the step currently being studied. This was an important part of the learners’ understanding that critical thinking is a process, not a thing that can be purchased or obtained. Further, by remembering those steps, each learner could remember the process which

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 45

they must undertake to solve problems, make decisions, or find creative solutions to intransigent problems. Assessments California Critical Thinking Skills Test. The authors chose the California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) (Facione, 1990a) as the principle measure of the acquisition of critical thinking skills. This test was unique in that it was a development through the use of the Delphi method, in which an interactive panel of 46 experts convened to determine the cognitive skill dimension of CT, the dispositional dimension of CT, and specific recommendations on CT instruction and assessment, including development of a CT curriculum (Facione, 1990b). This was the extraordinary foundation of the CCTST. A second important consideration was that it was one of the tests recommended by Diane Halpern, whose Teaching for Critical Thinking model was the pedagogical foundation of the authors’ class (1993). Third, it was readily available at a reasonable cost, and did not require a computer to record the student’s responses. In the two experimental groups, the authors administered the test immediately in the first session even before introducing themselves. The authors felt it was extremely important to determine the baseline of each student’s CT skills, which meant no preparation of any kind. The authors then administered the test again on the last day of the class, after having concluded all the activities of the course. In this way, the authors tweaked out the last bit of critical thinking acquired by the students. In the one control group, the authors tested volunteers who had not taken the same course of study, but that excluded the critical thinking component. The CCTST reported seven parameters: Total score, Percentile vs peers, Analysis, Evaluation, Inference, Deductive Reasoning, and Inductive Reasoning. Since the authors knew the historical mean and standard deviation of the Total Score of the CCTST, the authors performed a Z-test to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the student’s pre-test and post-test scores. The authors reported those results to each of the students individually. The authors also performed t-tests to determine the difference between the overall scores of the class for each of the seven parameters. 10-question, T/F quiz. The second test was the 10-question, T/F quiz previously mentioned. Although the quiz was only a True/False, 50-50 proposition, with a large enough sample the difference between the pre-test and the post-test could be significant. As previously reported, the students filled out the questionnaire immediately upon entering the classroom. The students then used the same questionnaire as a study guide and scaffold for learning. The authors performed t-tests of the students’ responses to the pre-test, as compared with the responses to their post-tests for each chapter. The authors also calculated Cohen’s d as a measure of the confidence in the value. Finally, the authors calculated the r-squared coefficient of determination to determine the extent to which the scores were related to the instruction.

Volume 3, Page 46

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Results Chapter-by-Chapter t-Tests The results of the t-Tests for the 10-question, T/F quizzes are shown in the Table 1. As can be seen, the results of the t-tests demonstrated statistically significant improvement of the posttest scores compared with the pre-test scores. The Cohen’s d calculation showed medium to large confidence that the values obtained were valid. Finally, the coefficients of determination confirmed that the pedagogical treatment was strongly, to very strongly responsible for the learning achieved. California Critical Thinking Skills Test Experimental vs control groups CCTST. The CCTST results of the control group vs the experimental group are shown in Table 2. The authors only performed a post-test for the control group. This class of students had taken the identical course of study with the same instructor, as had the two experimental classes. If the course of study itself were responsible for the gain in the critical thinking scores, then the control group would have achieved similar results to the experimental group after the pedagogical treatment. Their scores were identical to the scores of the pre-test experimental group. However, the experimental group scored higher in the post-test of all seven parameters of the CCTST. Statistical Analysis of Experimental Group CCTST The statistical summary of the Pre-test/Post-test of the experimental group is shown in the Table 3. The experimental group showed statistically significant improvements in six of the seven parameters of the CCTST. The Cohen’s d verifies a medium to large level of confidence in these six statistically significant parameters. The coefficients of determination show that results are statistically correlated with the pedagogical treatment. Finally, since the mean and standard deviation of the Total Scores of the population of college seniors who had taken the CCTST was known, the authors could calculate z-scores for the pre-test and post-test samples. The z-score for the Total Score pre-test/post-test was z=2.474, p=.0068. This statistic confirmed the validity of the t-tests already calculated for the CCTST. Conclusions Overview Based on the results of the CCTST pre-tests/post-tests, the authors concluded that the students had acquired critical thinking skills. When the authors considered the quizzes, the

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 47

conclusion was that the students had acquired the knowledge and critical thinking skills within each chapter of the text. The learner’s skills in the case studies and in the research paper analysis demonstrated a higher level of performance than the authors had come to expect from either undergraduate or graduate students, indicating a transfer of CT skills had been accomplished. Further, the results of the CCTST demonstrated that the knowledge, skills, and strategies acquired had been transferred into this assessment. The authors must also consider the follow up studies to which were referred earlier. In those studies, the authors found that graduates were using the knowledge, skills, and strategies they had learned in the class up to five years after graduating. When asked the question, “Since the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking, have you used critical thinking skills and techniques in other classes or courses of study?” the graduates’ answers were strongly positive (z=3.78, p=.00007). Similarly, when asked, “Since the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking, have you used critical thinking skills and techniques at work?” the graduates were even more positive (z=4.30, p<.00003). When asked about the effects of the critical thinking course of study on their personal lives, graduates were even more affirmative. When asked, “Since the time you took the unit of instruction in critical thinking at the University, have you used critical thinking skills and techniques in your daily life?” the positive score was an extraordinary z=8.24, p<<.00001. When asked, “Has the unit of instruction in critical thinking you took while at the University affected the way you interact with others?” the z-score was z=4.13, p<.00003. Further, when asked, “Has taking a unit of instruction in critical thinking you took while at the University affected your perceptions of the world around you?” the z-score was z=5.20, p<.00003. Each of these responses was extremely positive. Therefore, based on this evidence, the authors conclude the following: 1. Critical thinking was taught using the implementation of Halpern’s Teaching for Critical Thinking as described. 2. Undergraduate students acquired critical thinking knowledge, skills, and strategies as taught in this course of study based on the TCT model. 3. Critical thinking knowledge, skills, and strategies taught in this implementation of Halpern’s Teaching for Critical Thinking were transferred into the personal, academic, and business lives of the students. Pedagogical Elements

The authors must ask why they had such success. Which aspect of the pedagogical approach was responsible for the success? The best answer is that each played an important part in the success of the treatment.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 48

10-question quizzes. The 10-question quizzes were the easiest and simplest element of the pedagogical treatment, and appeared to be extremely effective. These quizzes were not graded, but they had to be turned in. They only accounted for 10% of the student’s grade, but that was enough to merit the students’ attention. And, the pre-test was only given in the first 10 minutes of each class. Therefore, students arrived on time rather than straggling. The quizzes did do a reasonable job, but not as expected or as specified. The authors told the students to use the post-tests as study and learning guides. Had they done so, their performance on the post-tests would have been uniformly high. They were not. The authors discovered that almost all the students ignored the quizzes as they read the book and only answered the quiz questions after they had read the chapter as though it were an examination. Yet, this was a positive for the authors. The authors performed statistical analyses on the change in their pre-test performance vs their post-test performance, which helped determine the extent of their learning in each chapter. The authors strongly recommend this simple set of quizzes to all instructors. It is easy to skim through each chapter finding reasonable questions. Be sure not to make the quizzes predictable. Only rarely have equal numbers of true and false questions. Typically, each quiz should have six to eight responses that are either true or false. Chapter examination. As educators, the authors understand that they have to grade their students on their performance. Part of that performance must be reading and understanding the text. The best approach is not much different than the approach to developing the 10question quizzes. By skimming the chapter, it is easy to develop questions to be answered by the student. Typically, the answers should be short … from a word or two to a paragraph. The authors must provide a reasonable opportunity for the student to express their understanding of the question and the answer. The authors often found that there was more than one ‘answer’ to questions that had appeared to be obvious. Since these chapter exams represented one-third to one-half of the overall grade, the authors believed it was important to attempt to understand the student’s perspective, and how they derived their answers, rather than assume the authors’ were the only correct responses. Case studies. Case studies have been used in business classes for many decades with great success. They provide a useful insight into the “real world”, providing an example of a situation that did exist and how it was handled or mishandled at the time. The case study gives the instructor and the student opportunities to discuss the problem and how it should have been approached. For the authors, the case study provided an example of how critical thinking affects real world business decisions. When the authors surveyed them, the graduates were extremely positive regarding how the critical thinking case studies had prepared them for real world, decision-making processes. Since case studies exist in every domain, the authors strongly suggest that educators find and use

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 49

case studies to demonstrate to the students that critical thinking applies to them, their professions and their careers. Research studies. Initially, the authors’ students believe they had great skills in thinking, analyzing, and deducing. The authors are responsible for disabusing them of these ludicrous beliefs. Students arrive in the classroom either seeking an ‘authority’ who knows all and will impart wisdom directly into their brains, or rejecting any philosophy foreign to their own. Educators must avoid the ‘we say, you say’ confrontation with the students. The best way to avoid this dilemma is to remove themselves from the conflict, presenting the students not with “authority”, but with evidence from the literature. Such peer-reviewed literature is compelling. Research reports provide the reasoning, process, and verifiable results that cannot be questioned. They exist, thus they are facts. They are not a matter of opinion, authority, or conjecture. The students are also exposed to conclusions based upon evidence. This is the student’s opportunity to derive alternate explanations, which explain the evidence of the experiment or to question the experimental method. Regardless, the students must appreciate the processes involved and the tedious exactitude of the scientific process. The authors intentionally introduce the students to studies of the human mind, cognition, and emotions. The authors study the students’ biases as expressed in their words, their thought processes, their opinions, and their approach to the acquisition of knowledge. The authors demonstrate to them that they are completely controlled by their biases, their actions can be predicted, and that they are easily manipulated. Their belief in their abilities is imaginary, and they must learn to be objective, using evidence to determine reality. Of all the things the authors teach, this is the most important. Therefore, the authors highly recommend the literature to our colleagues. It may sound trite, but many educators are akin to the citizens who have never visited the sights that make their cities famous. College educators are the ones who are most familiar with the literature of their professional domains of knowledge. Yet teaching professionals seldom use this invaluable resource to enlighten college students or to introduce these students to this vast treasure house of knowledge. Future Studies The authors acknowledge that their only approach to the teaching and learning of critical thinking skills was Halpern’s Teaching for Critical Thinking (TCT) model. These studies in no way suggest that this model is the only one that would be effective in teaching critical thinking. Further, the choice of Halpern’s books as textbooks does not mean that other texts by other authors would not be equally effective. The authors selected this combination, in large part, because it was a package deal. Halpern had supplied a single package that could be used ‘right

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 50

out of the box’ with no need to validate them. The authors suggest that others should be able to use this same package, using the aforementioned pedagogical treatments and obtain similar results. The authors look forward to cooperating with other researchers who wish to implement such an educational course of study. The authors further recognize that their studies were very limited. Theirs was just one college of one university in one state. The studies need to be duplicated in other universities, in other colleges, and in other cities and states. The authors need a broader and more comprehensive statistical sample to ensure that their methods are more universally applicable. The authors also encourage teachers in K-12 school systems to develop critical thinking studies in their classes. For more than 70 years, educators have associated the learning of critical thinking skills with K-12 education. As early as 1943, Russell stated that “… everyone agrees that education for critical thinking is necessary…” (1943, p. 744). He then asked, “But, what does such education involve?” (Russell, p. 744) Educators are still awaiting the answer to that question. The authors assert that their long-term studies are compelling evidence of a successful pedagogical treatment in critical thinking. The results of the studies must be considered by curriculum committees at colleges and universities. Critical thinking can be taught, can be learned, and can be transferred from the classroom into other domains. Critical thinking changes the way graduates perceive the world, perform their jobs, and interact with others. The reasons that critical thinking is not taught in colleges and universities are unidentified. However, the continued intransigence of institutions of higher education towards teaching critical thinking and applying it throughout the curriculum is as incomprehensible as it is inexplicable. Author Biographies Dr. Joanne R. Reid earned her bachelors in chemistry. After twenty years in the laboratory and in sales of scientific instrumentation, Dr. Reid co-founded Corporate Development Associates, a computer and engineering consulting firm, specializing in ComputerAided Drafting and Drawing systems. Dr. Reid obtained her master of science degree in education and her doctorate in education specializing in educational technology and collegiate administration. She collaborated with Dr. Anderson to develop the first course of study in which critical thinking skills were demonstrated to be taught, to be learned and to be transferred between domains of learning. Dr. Reid is widely published in the field of the teaching, learning and transfer of critical thinking from the classroom to other domains. Phyllis R. Anderson graduated from the Colorado School of Mines with the degree of Metallurgical Engineer (Met.E.) leading to a career in metallography, steel production and heavy industry. After earning her MBA, she worked in corporate planning, corporate turn-around projects and institutional research. She co-founder of Corporate Development Associates, Inc. (CDA), a major provider of computer aided design systems and software in the Chicago region. She then returned to school and earned her Ph.D. in Management, and began teaching at

Volume 3, Page 51Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Governors State University (GSU). She has been teaching at GSU since 1998. She currently is a Senior University Lecturer in the College of Business and Public Administration. Dr. Anderson collaborated with Dr Reid in a program to develop and evaluate a course in Critical Thinking, which was taught at GSU for four years. References Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2010). An application of Halpern's Teaching for Critical Thinking in the business school classroom. In J. Teahan (Ed.), Proceedings of the North American Management Society 2010 Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL: North American Management Society. Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2011). Collaboration of research and teaching produces a new course of study in critical thinking. In N. Callaos, H.-W. Chu, J. Horne & F. Welsch (Eds.), International Symposium on Integrating Research, Education, and Problem Solving. Winter Haven, FL: International Institute of Informatics and Systematics. Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2012, October). Critical Thinking: Gateway to the new economy. Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Academy of Management, Itasca, IL. Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2012, September). Critical thinking promotes graduate satisfaction. Paper presented at the 2012 Business and Leadership Conference, Ft. Hays, KS. Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2013a). Critical thinking advances the theory and practice of business management. Journal of the North American Management Society, 7(1), 15. from https://www.baker.edu/nams/new/jnams6summer2013.pdf Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2013b). Critical thinking in a college of business administration. Southern Business Review, Fall 2013, 12. Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2013c). The effect of critical thinking instruction on graduates of a college of business administration. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 13(3/4), 18. Anderson, P., & Reid, J. (2014). Critical thinking: The missing link in business management education. Journal of Business and Economics, 5(7), 25. Bloom, P., & Weisberg, D. S. (2007). Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science, 316(5827), 996-997. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996. Board, N. S. (2004). Science and Engineering Indicators 2004. (NSB Publication No. NSB 021). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation. Case, R. (2005). Bringing critical thinking to the main stage. Education Canada, 45(2), 45-46. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://partneraccess.oclc.org/wcpa/servlet/OUFrame?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffirstsearch.oc lc.org%2FWebZ%2FDARead%3Fsessionid%3D0%3Akey%3D00131253%2528*%252945%253A2%253C*%253E*%25260%25263b5cd96dd8192d797d80

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 52Â

faab70f718a00bfba6d124a2eecf1c4c5e1a235ccdd5%26isFromResolver%3Dtrue%26reso lverLinkApi%3Ddaa&title=%26OpenUrl.FullText%3B&sessionid=CE3AB506671AF87 A0354D1FDB653B7B4.one Duncan, K., Sadanand, A., & Davachi, L. (2012). Memory's penumbra: Episodic memory decisions induce lingering mnemonic biases. Science, 337(6093), 485-487. Retrieved July 27, 2012, from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6093/485.abstract Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 6. Retrieved November 8, 2013, from http://gsuproxy.govst.edu:2539/content/12/3/83.full.pdf+html Facione, P. (1990a). The California Critical Thinking Skills Test and Manual. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press. Facione, P. (1990b). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction. Research findings and recommendations. Newark, Delaware: American Philosophical Association. Facione, P. (2007). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. In Insight Assessment: California Academic Press. Facione, P., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (2000). The disposition toward critical thinking: Its character, measurement, and relationship to critical thinking skill. Informal Logic, 20(1), 61 - 84. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/J_Infrml_Ppr%20_2000%20%20Disp%20&%20Skls.PDF Flawn, T. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education. Foshay, W., Silber, K., & Stelnicki, M. (2003). Writing training materials that work: How to train anyone to do anything. New York, NY: John Wiley. Galdi, S., Arcuri, L., & Gawronski, B. (2008). Automatic Mental Associations Predict Future Choices of Undecided Decision-Makers. Science, 321(5892), 1100-1102. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/5892/1100 Giancarlo, C. A., Blohm, S. W., & Urdan, T. (2004). Assessing secondary students' disposition toward critical thinking: Development of the California Measure of Mental Motivation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(2), 347-364. Retrieved October 13, 2000, from http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/64/2/347 Grigg, W., Donahue, P., & Dion, G. (2007). The Nation's Report Card: 12th-grade reading and mathematics 2005. (National Center for Educational Statistics Document no. NCES 007468). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office. Halpern, D. (1989). Thought and knowledge - An introduction to critical thinking (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Halpern, D. (1993). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. Journal of General Education, 42(4), 239-254. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from http://131.156.159.10/clioedeliv/41178834.pdf

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 53Â

Halpern, D. (1997). Critical thinking across the curriculum: A brief edition of thought and knowledge. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Halpern, D. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53, 449-455. Halpern, D. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999(8), 69-74. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/101523939/PDFSTART Halpern, D., & Nummedal, S. (1995). Closing thoughts about helping students improve how they think. Teaching of Psychology, 22(1), 82. October 13, 2007, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&AN=9504201004&site=eho st-live Halpern, D., & Riggio, H. (2003). Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kornell, N., Hays, M. J., & Bjork, R. A. (2009). Unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance subsequent learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 989-998. http://ft.csa.com/ids70/resolver.php?sessid=0lgdfbfm17a913kvnud5l9hun4&server=csaw eb109v.csa.com&check=d4e030ea192e59bc14a37f31b1e666e9&db=psycarticles-setc&key=XLM%2F35%2Fxlm_35_4_989&mode=pdf Leppard, L. J. (1993). Classrooms: The confluence of essential social streams. Social Education, 57(2), 80-82. Leutgeb, S. (2008). Detailed Differences. Science, 319(5870), 1623-1624. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.sciencemag.org McKee, S. (1988). Impediments to implementing critical thinking. Social Education, 52(6), 444446. Reid, J. (2009). A quantitative assessment of an application of Halpern's Teaching for Critical Thinking in a business class. DeKalb, IL: Proquest Publication No: 340486 Reid, J. (2009, October). Can critical thinking be learned? Paper presented at the Mid-West Regional Educational Research Association, St. Louis, MO. Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2011). Critical thinking instruction in interesting times. In M. Abdelsama (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2011 International Business Conference of the Society for the Advancement of Management. Orlando, FL: Society for the Advancement of Management. Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2012a). Critical thinking in the business classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 87(1), 52-59. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08832323.2011.557103 Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2012b). Critical thinking, transfer, and student satisfaction. In N. Callaos, H.-W. Chu & F. Welsch (Eds.), Second International Conference on Education,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 54

Informatics and Cybernetics. Winter Haven, FL: International Institute of Informatics and Systematics. Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2012c). Critical Thinking: The Foundation of Education in a Technological World. In A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.), Education in a technological world: Communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts (Vol. 1, pp. 120-126). Badajoz, Spain: Formatex Research Center. Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2012d). Invited Keynote Address: The development, implementation, and effects of a course in critical thinking within a college of business administration. In N. Callaos, H.-W. Chu & F. Welsch (Eds.), 2nd International Conference on Education, Informatics and Cybernetics. Winter Garden, Fl: International Institute of Informatics and Systematics. Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2013a). Critical thinking, transfer, and student satisfaction. International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 11(2), 6. Reid, J., & Anderson, P. (2013b). The development, implementation and effectiveness of a pedagogical treatment for the teaching and learning of critical thinking. International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 11(5), 59. Rosaen, C. (1988). Interventions to teach thinking skills: Investigating the question of transfer Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. Rotherham, A., & Willingham, D. (2010). 21st-Century skills: Not new, but a worthy challenge. American Educator, 34(1), 17-20. Russell, D. (1943). Critical thinking in childhood and youth. The School, 31(9), 744-750. Senechal, D. (2010). The most daring education reform of all. American Educator, 34(1), 4 - 16. Shettle, C., Roey, S., Mordica, J., Perkins, R., Nord, C., Teodorovic, J., Brown, J., Lyons, M., Averett, C., & Kastberg, D. (2007). The Nation's Report Card: America's High School Graduates. (National Center for Education Statistics Document No. NCES 2007-467). Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office. Silber, K. (2008). Moving the Needle. In J. Reid (Ed.) (pp. Moving the Needle). DeKalb, IL. Vermunt, J. (1996). Metacognitive, cognitive and affective aspects of learning styles and strategies: A phenomenographic analysis. Higher Education, 31(1), 25 - 50. Retrieved November 9, 2007, from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00181560%28199601%2931%3A1%3C25%3AMCAAAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7 Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, Summer, 8 - 19. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/american_educator/issues/summer07/Crit_Thinking.pdf. Winn, I. J. (2004). The high cost of uncritical teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(7), 496. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://partneraccess.oclc.org/wcpa/servlet/OUFrame?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffirstsearch.oc lc.org%2FWebZ%2FDARead%3Fsessionid%3D0%3Akey%3D00317217%2528*%252985%253A7%253C*%253E*%25260%25261209a861d3eb68af9f5ce 24bcd28e67436d7d5e5a3f18c53e7dd7072961c8a13%26isFromResolver%3Dtrue%26res

Volume 3, Page 55

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

olverLinkApi%3Ddaa&title=%26OpenUrl.FullText%3B&sessionid=57634972B8D80EB D319D0C68F8805FD8.one Table 1

Summary of Chapter Pre-Test/Post-Test Statistics Module 1 –Introduction 2 – Memory & Knowledge 3 – Thought & Language 4 – Deductive Reasoning 5 – Analyzing Arguments 6 – Thinking as Hypothesis Testing 7 – Likelihood and Uncertainty 8 – Problem Solving 9 – Decision Making Overall Score

t-Test

Cohen’s d

T(38)=2.72, Significant, α<.005 T(30)=1.807 Significant, α<.05 T(38) = 2.673 Significant, α<.005 T(36) = 5.03 Significant, α<.005 T(37) = 3.224 Significant, α<.005 T(36) = 3.526 Significant, α<.005 T(32) = 3.736 Significant, α<.005 T(30) = 4.403 Significant, α<.005 T(27) = 1.996 Significant, α<.05

.435 Medium .324 Small .428 Medium .827 Large .523 Medium .580 Medium .650 Medium .790 Large .3772 Medium

16.25% Strong 9.81% Medium 15.82% Strong 41.30% Very Strong 21.93% Strong 25.67% Strong 30.37% Strong 39.25% Very Strong 12.86% Medium

T(312) = 9.360 Significant, α<.005

.535 Medium

22.28% Strong

Volume 3, Page 56

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Table 2 Control vs Experimental Groups Control (n=21)

CCTST

Experimental (n=34)

Pre-test

Post-Test

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Percentile

36.2

36.3

50.7

Total Score

14.5

14.6

16.9

Analysis

3.8

4.0

4.4

Inference

6.9

6.8

8.3

Evaluation

3.8

3.6

4.3

Inductive

8.2

8.1

9.4

Deductive

6.3

6.1

7.5

Table 3 Statistical Summary of CCTST Scores Parameter

T-Test

Cohen’s d

Total Score

T(33)=3.057, Significant, α=.005

.534 Medium

22.07% Strong

Percentile Score

T(33)=4.600, Significant, α=.005

.789 Large

39.07% Very Strong

Analysis

T(33)=1.521, Not Significant

.26 Small

6.55% Medium

Inference

T(33)=3.48, Significant, α=.005

.598 Medium

25.85% Strong

Evaluation

T(33)=2.490, Significant, α=.01

.427 Medium

15.82% Medium

Inductive

T(33)=3.730, Significant, α=.005

.640 Medium

29.66% Strong

Deductive

T(33)=2.860, Significant, α=.005

.491 Medium

19.87% Strong

Volume 3, Page 57

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

What Pre-service Education Students Say about Critical Pedagogy and Content: American Indian Boarding Schools through a Critical Lens Gary W. Cheeseman The University of South Dakota Professors often avoid critical pedagogy because it tends to generate cognitive dissonance within students. This study tested the presumption that pre-service teachers become dissonant and then resistant when the epistemology of the classroom challenged their perception of truth. This study was designed to gather data that would measure the emotional reaction of pre-service teachers who were exposed to critical content—the history and repressive policies of American Indian boarding schools operated by the U.S. federal government—using critical pedagogical techniques. Keywords: pre-service teachers, boarding schools, American indians Introduction Professors are often fearful of using critical pedagogical techniques because they tend to generate cognitive dissonance and make students feel uncomfortable. Although some students adjust their attitudes and behaviors, others may demean the curriculum, or deny their involvement in perpetuating educational problems (Gosling, Denizeau, & Oberle, 2006). Purpose of the Study This phenomenological study sought to describe the presumption that pre-service teachers become dissonant and then resistant when the epistemology of the classroom challenged their perception of truth. This study was designed to qualitatively gather data that would measure the emotional reaction of pre-service teachers who were exposed to critical content—the history and repressive policies of American Indian boarding schools operated by the U.S. federal government—using critical pedagogical techniques. Phenomenological methods are especially effective at illuminating the understandings and opinions of individuals and consequently, challenging many solidified assumptions.

Volume 3, Page 58

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Literature Review Educational Crisis American education is in crisis, and to profess the existence of curriculum that perpetuates equality and free will for all (Loewen, 2007), to ignore the proprietorship of privilege (Deloria, 1969; Horsman, 1997), and to continually deny the existence of racial supremacy in American education is disingenuous and deprives students, especially those from diverse cultures, of a vital socially and intellectually just education (Darder, 1991; Lipman, 2007). Educating for a Just Society The success of any society is directly tied to that society being just (Freire, 1994; Giroux, 2011; Shannon, 2007). John Dewey, the father of progressive education, understood that education was about creating a “just” society by providing critical thought that exemplifies human value, freedom, equality, and equal access (Apple, 1996). Dewey understood that these simple principles elevate an entire society (Apple, 1996; Giroux, 2001; Torres, 1995-1996). A just society fosters values and begins instilling these beliefs at an early age (Banks, 1989). Many scholars, including Bowles and Gintis (1976) and Kanpol (1996), argue the path for a value-rich, just society is contingent on a critically synthesized education. As Michalos (2008) stated, “influence of education” is everywhere. “So, if ‘happiness’ is understood in the robust eudaemonist sense of overall wellbeing, then education evidently has an enormous impact” (p. 358). Research suggests that using critical pedagogical techniques that objectively reflect the experiences of all people is one way to prepare educators to work with increasingly diverse student populations. Unfortunately, many schools of education across the United States are reluctant to utilize dissonance to challenge students to think critically about the education system. Cognitive Dissonance Leon Festingers’s theory of cognitive dissonance is based on the notion that people prefer to exist in a state of rationality between their convictions and attitudes (Gosling et al., 2006). When experiencing internal inconsistencies between what they learn and what they believe, people are likely to experience discomfort and intellectually shield themselves from or completely shun the new information (Festinger, 1957). If people begin to challenge their current beliefs they might misinterpret their actions as problematic. Critical thinking. For the purposes of this study, critical thinking pedagogy will be defined as the inclination to reflectively participate in an intellectual activity with skepticism that pragmatically inspires (Freire, 1994). Critical thinking encourages students to challenge that which is socially

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 59

engrained; leading students to develop dissonant feelings, resentment, or even opposition to the concepts (Shor & Freire, 1987). Critical pedagogy. Critical pedagogy fundamentally questions many students’ realities by reexamining the legitimacy of the dominant cultures, routines, rituals, praxes, and systems. Critical pedagogy helps students think critically and challenge social and economic injustice, inspiring students to question their internal associations with institutions that subjugate people (McLaren, 1998). A fundamental aspect of critical pedagogy is truth; consequently, truth must be fundamental to this study no matter how painful it may be. Truth leads to social cognizance. Social cognizance. Social cognizance provides opportunities for students to contemplate their personal perspectives. Critical pedagogues propose that social cognizance is created when students deepen their levels of thought and reflection through an epistemology that features curricular classroom dissonance (Taylor, 2007). Socially cognizant agenda. There are certain essentials associated with a socially cognizant educational system. Critical thinkers champion the necessity to keep the teaching profession from becoming a vocation, the need to replace outdated curriculum that solidifies the status quo, and the dangers of limiting intellectual expression (Johnson, 2005). They also support the importance of solidifying the principles of academic freedom, the need to enhance the practice of critical pedagogy, and the need to strengthen the university as a socially cognizant, intellectually autonomous institution of impartial and objective thought (Dale, 1989; Giroux, 2006). In general, higher education still adheres, for the most part, to the belief in academic freedom and reform (Giroux, 2006; Said, 2004). Students who think critically however, understand the richness of including the truths that are systemically missing from our educational curriculum. In addition, critical thought exposes the many regressive political decisions made in the name of education. Educational Reform Diverse education. Philosophically education has evolved through history consistently focusing on the epistemological relationship between the student and curriculums. Shyman (2011) argues that multiple perspectives of similar objectives lead to a “true democratic education” (p. 1036). Obtaining these objectives requires discussions that analyze the very principles of education. Only then can education address the issues that divide the country. Diverse perspectives. Some scholars’ ague that educational reform should enhance social mobility (Shkaratan, 2012; Winch, 2004); others argue for greater citizenship and civility (Giroux, 1988); the pragmatists, supported by Labor, argue for the advancement of the labor force and business for economic opportunity (Winch, 2004). Merry (2009) summarizes the critical theory perspective, arguing educational reform should “enable a proficient understanding of political institutions, its

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 60

competing social and political interests, and the procedures necessary for advancing a particular agenda or mobilizing for change;” especially toward a more just society (p. 380). Scholars Dewey (1934), Elias (1994), Freire (1994), Giroux (2011), Hooks (1990), and Apple (1996), and others argue that education should perform as a mechanism of liberation. Critical Pedagogical Perspective Giroux (1988) argues that education is imperative for intellectual expansion and educators should act as catalysts that exceed traditional expectations while providing students with a conscience that inspires change. Moreover, critical pedagogy is “invested in the practice of self-criticism about the values that inform teaching and a critical self-consciousness regarding what it means to equip students with analytical skills and be self-reflective about the knowledge and values they confront in the classroom” (Giroux, 2006, p. 31). Kanpol (1996) describes the critical theorist view of the current American education system as institutions of inequality that subjugate and separate people by race, class, and gender. Zinn (2005) describes how, Schools prepare young people to live with contradictions and to accept them and to think they’re OK. An example would be teaching that the 'Declaration of Independence' emphasizes the principles of the 'founding fathers' but not mentioning those principles fall short and that there is no 'equality and justice for all. (p. 121) The concepts of critical pedagogy allow students to critically investigate what Zinn calls the difference between the “ideal” and the “reality” of our society, emphasizing that to fix a problem one must first identify the problem. Critical Analysis and Critical Pedagogy Critical analysis reveals the truisms of a “jaundiced educational curriculum” (Winch, 2004, p. 474). It is imperative to reintroduce the concepts of rational inquiry to education and study the patterns of oppression that lead to educational injustice. In short, critical thinking within education encourages critical rationality and enhances the prospect of educational reform (Branch, 2003; Deloria, 1997; Freire, 1970; Ladson-Billings, 1995b; Rains, 2006). The rationale of constructivist critical thinking challenges society’s power relationships through enhanced pedagogical experiences (Freire, 1997; Giroux, 2011; McLaren, 1995; Winch, 2004). Critical pedagogy allows for “critical engagement, dialogue, research, and debate” (Giroux, 2006, p. 31) that fosters intellect and provides the aptitude necessary for building positive human relationships across cultures. To address the social injustices that still exist in this country and worldwide, it seems imperative to investigate the types of experiences that will increase the awareness and appreciation for customs, values, and beliefs that differ from one’s own. The ability to think critically, view an issue from multiple perspectives, and challenge one’s own core beliefs is one way to develop this type of awareness

Volume 3, Page 61

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

and appreciation. Educational reform often calls for teachers to incorporate higher order thinking skills, including the ability to think critically. Critical thinking has value in creating just societies. This study investigated the reaction of undergraduate university students, in particular preservice teachers, when asked to critically analyze a historical event rooted in a social injustice, the assimilationist practices of American Indian boarding schools. Methodology Assumptions The researcher’s assumptions were that participants may feel challenged by the dynamics of critical inquiry, may not be receptive to a more inclusive educational concept that breaks from the dominant Eurocentric educational traditions, or may encounter personal issues with racial preconceptions. Qualitative Method Qualitative phenomenological research challenges the moral and ethical relationships between researchers and researched (Creswell, 1998) by analyzing the prejudicial status of each. This study qualitatively articulated student thought, critical pedagogy and content, Western epistemology, and Indigenous perspective. Phenomenological Theory A Phenomenological approach was selected for this study because once factors start to recur with numerous participants the reliability of inference is enhanced. The researcher identified the phenomenon as the participant reaction to viewing a lecture that attempted to create levels of cognitive dissonance and use participant responses to open-ended questions to describe individual responses. The researcher then determined the collective common experiences in their responses to describe the phenomenon (Hays & Wood, 2011). The researcher’s biases were set aside to focus on the phenomenon as the primary instrument of inquiry (Creswell, 1998). The researcher collected data through focus group interviews with participants, analyzed the data for meaning, and then wrote an amalgamated description that illustrates the spirit of the collective participant experience (Creswell, 1998). The constructivist theoretical perspective and the phenomenological methodology led to the research question guiding this study: Do pre-service secondary education students experience dissonance and become resistant after watching a lecture that features critical pedagogical techniques and critical content.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 62

Focus groups. Although focus groups are an isolated perspective at a particular place and time, data can be analyzed for that place and time to better understand student perspectives. Educators are obligated to help students understand their personal epistemology so they can make sense of and find meaning in the learning process. Focus groups worked well in this study because they give voice to marginalized communities (Maynard & Purvis, 1994) by capturing the subjective nature of complex issues. Focus groups allow participants to shape and control the micro expressions within the data and provide intimate access through story, which is the traditional pedagogy of American Indian cultures. Procedures There are numerous aspects of a qualitative study that shape a phenomenological framework. The following describe the meticulous efforts taken in this research study. Data Collection Pilot group. This study utilized two large focus groups to enhance reliability and the possibility of diverse opinions (Wilkinson, 2008). The first group served as the pilot and consisted of six male and six female participants (Wilkinson, 2008). The data collection and analysis process and procedures between the two groups were identical. The researcher acted as if both groups were primary groups but no data from the pilot group was used in the study. Pilot group findings. A review of the data revealed four minor grammatical changes to enhance the clarity of the questions. Those changes were made prior to the primary focus group discussion. Primary Focus Group Demographics. The primary focus group convened 48 hours after the pilot group met. The group’s demographics and procedures were consistent with the pilot group. The primary focus group consisted of 12 undergraduate pre-service teachers enrolled in a Midwestern liberal arts university. There were seven females and five males; of the females one was a sophomore, Female Sophomore 1 (FS 1), two were juniors, Female Junior 1 and 2 (FJs’1 & 2), and four seniors, Female Senior 1, 2, 3 and 4 (FSR1, 2, 3, and 4). Of the males there were two were juniors, Male Junior 1 and 2 (MJs’ 1 & 2), and three seniors Male Seniors’ 1, 2 and 3 (MSR 1, 2 & 3). Of the 12 participants, three were earning degrees in history, three in mathematics, two in English, two in music, one in art, and one in science. Focus group procedures. The facilitator greeted the focus group participants, offered refreshments and time to socialize before convening the group to review all rights and responsibilities and ask any final questions. Participants viewed a 45-minute prerecorded lecture delivered by an American Indian male who is a prominent American Indian expert and scholar. The lecturer used

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 63

critical pedagogical techniques to describe American Indian boarding schools and the experiences of some American Indian boarding school children. At the conclusion of the lecture, participants reconvened and began the focus group discussion. Interview questions. The questions were open-ended and designed to solicit discussion around the participants' opinions and feelings of critical pedagogy and critical content that featured an American Indian theme. Some questions were foundational and asked early in the process. The facilitator kept the conversation on task (Creswell, 1998). Question 1 was broad and designed to initiate opportunities for more detailed discussion: “What was your impression of the lecture?” Question 2 was designed to provide participants with an opportunity to elaborate on question 1: “What surprised you most about the lecture?” Question 3 asked participants if they felt challenged and, if they did, what challenged them: “Did anything about the lecture challenge your personal feelings or perceptions?” Question 4 asked about being challenged: “Did you feel any dissonance while watching the lecture?" At the end of the focus group the facilitator asked, “Do you feel that your personal perceptions have been altered as a result of seeing the lecture?” Lecture The lecturer spoke about the “Indian boarding school movement that began in the early 1870s” in an “attempt to civilize American Indian people.” The lecturer spoke about how “Reformers” alleged that with “rigorous education and assimilation American Indian people could acculturate and become like other citizens.” The lecturer spoke about how “In 1879 Captain Richard Henry Pratt,” who subscribed to the principle "kill the Indian and save the man," established the “Carlisle Indian School in Pennsylvania” where young “Indian girls and boys were subjected to cultural transformation.” The lecturer spoke about how “Christian missionaries operated schools that combined religion and sub standard academic education.” He also spoke about how “American Indian children were punished for practicing their traditional spiritual and cultural beliefs” and how “Christian dogmas and symbols were used to indoctrinate the children.” The Lecturer spoke about how the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) distributed directives to all Indian boarding schools. Collective characteristics included: a strict military procedure, strict obedience, loyalty to learning the English language, teaching the children to farm, and vocational training. The lecturer spoke about how “students desiring their families and their freedom often ran away only to get caught.” He went on to speak about how “many children were tied up and whipped” and how others were starved sometimes to death.” The lecturer spoke about “over-crowding with little medical care that contributed to the outbreak of serious diseases” such as “measles and tuberculosis.” The lecturer also spoke about “wide spread sexual abuse” and “torture” and the “United States government’s attempt at cultural genocide.” (P. Kinew, personal communication, January 6, 2007).

Volume 3, Page 64Â

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Â

Data Analysis The facilitator reiterated that all discussions will be audio recorded, transcripts developed, and then the audio recordings deleted. Transcription. In holding with the traditions of phenomenological research the process was tedious. The data were transcribed twice and compared; deviations were researched and corrected to create a final transcript. The final transcript was then compared to the original recordings a final time for accuracy and reliability. Coding. The researcher began open coding by correlating the data with the focus group questions. The data was then analyzed to identify key words and phrases (determinants) relevant to the study. The data were reexamined to ascertain any missed determinants. Determinants were analyzed to ascertain their absolute meaning. The meanings were examined and coded to identify emerging trends that were then categorized and labeled. Categories were defined and correlated with the opinions of the participants. Axial coding was then used to reanalyze the themes within the gathered categories. Creswell (1998) describe axial coding as the process of renewing data that may have been defused during the process of open coding. Selective coding was then used to specify the meaning behind the coding process and formulate the larger theoretical outline. The researcher focused on what the participants said during the focus groups and allowed the data to tell the story (Morgan, 1998). Data Data indicated that participants felt challenged on four levels: race and the institutionalization of race, personal educational convictions as they pertain to United States educational policy, the passion of the lecturer, and their own pedagogical and curricular confidence. Race and the Institutionalization of Race Most participants were ignorant of the American Indian boarding schools and assimilationist American policy. However, they quickly correlated the concept with oppressive colonialist traits. Dissonance emerged around three racially oriented subcategories: ethnocentrism, politically inspired racism, and religiously supported racism. Ethnocentric policy. FSR2, when learning of the American Indian boarding schools, conveyed the feelings of five others,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 65

If this would have happened to a bunch of white kids, we would have known about it and been outraged. There seems to be a cover up because it happened to people in our society that people look down upon. MSR1 explained his opinion of ethnocentrism, I believe that it is part of the reason we (American society) do what we do; it gives us a reason to keep looking down on the Natives. It gives our society a reason to think we are better than other people still, I think it's all part of racism. FJ1’s dissonance steered her to reflect on the deception she feels from the ethnocentric rhetoric she heard throughout her life, “We are brought up thinking that we are the best country in the world. And in some ways when you uncover these atrocities, we did things that make me feel as if we are not.” MSR1 explained his view of ethnocentric behavior and that recognizing the dissonance within him is causing him to make some internal changes. I think we should meet halfway, and I think it may be my stubborn self, but I think it is everybody’s tendency to want everyone else to be like you; everything from your thoughts, your race, your religion, your language, just everything about what you stand for; you want other people to be on the same page as you. For me that’s a challenge because I am realizing that my way is not the only way to go and that is an internal struggle in everybody. MJ1’s feelings of dissonance caused him to ask some profound questions about ethnocentrism, One thing that challenges me is why do we think that white is the only way to go? Why is it always the dominant culture? Why should I make them be more like me? I am feeling like I should be more like them. This participant added a valuable observation, “When groups outside the dominant culture try to contribute, the dominant society seems to retreat.” FS1’s feelings seemed to have left her frustrated, “We just don’t think that others have any value.” Politically inspired racism. Nearly every participant was shocked by the American Indian boarding school policy. The dissonance inspired several participants to question the morals behind government policy, MSR2, “I can’t believe that this country produced a policy that allowed innocent people to starve.” MSR2’s, dissonance seemed to have manifested because of the universal nature of the event, “One of the things that surprised me was how systematic it (boarding school policy) was and how planned everything was. They (US government) knew what they were doing when they did it.” Other participants, such as MJ1, felt disgusted; “If you want to eat and stuff; if you want those things you are going to give your children to us. It is just brutal; it’s inhumane; it is just disgusting.”

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 66

The dissonance of two participants MJ1 and FJ1, suggested that the motives behind the policy were more sinister than they appear, “The speaker was talking about how they (boarding school administrators) inflicted military punishment on adults suggesting deviance, but to do it to children would suggest something much worse.” Four participants revealed that they felt dissonance when they learned that these events happened within their own political boundaries. MS3’s dissonance evolved into anger because he felt as if something was being kept from him, “The lecturer mentioned that this stuff happened right at our back door, and we are just hearing about what happened?" FSR1’s dissonance made her grow ill, “I have been on the reservations, and you don’t know what happened at all; it’s weird. It is just a bad feeling to know that this had gone down so close to your home. It’s kind of sickening.” Six participants indicated that they were angered after realizing they had been denied intellectual ownership of their own history and the paternalistic attitudes that allow political agendas to dictate what we learn and what we know. FS1, summed up the feelings of others, It is as if we are hiding things that don’t go our way. I think we are taught to think that the United States is this perfect place that does everything right and tries to do the best for everyone, but it seems like a lot of lies, and I wonder what else has been lied about or hidden from us, kept from the text books. MJ1, expressed feelings of frustration, “There seems to be a fear of knowledge in this state, and people are fine with ignorance.” Religiously supported racism. The dissonance was especially palpable when participants began to discuss religion. Four participants were distressed with the religious involvement in the boarding schools. FJ2 was one of many whose dissonance proceeded to feelings of disappointed, “We will make them better people for you…of course that was not going to happen…that is just stupid.” FS1 and MSR1 were confused about their understanding of mixing church and state. MSR2 added, “I always thought that church and state should be kept apart.” MSR1’s dissonance caused him to question his personal beliefs about what he thought he knew, “Religious entities are supposed to care for people. You would think that if they are trying to do good for people beyond the reservations they would care for them rather than pushing their religion down their throat.” Personal Educational Convictions and United States Educational Policy There were two subthemes that emerged to formulate the second category, educational betrayal and educational hypocrisy. Nearly every participant emphasized that a successful education system, like all organizations, depends on reciprocated trust between the educators and the students.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 67

Betrayed by education. Having never heard of American Indian boarding schools caused nearly every participant to speak about feeling betrayed. FSR3 seemed to question whom she is and how she fits based on what she knows, “It seems as if our history is a bunch of lies.” She goes on, “It is kind of scary because it shakes your whole base of what you learned through your life.” MJ1 indicated that he was feeling frustrated about being uninformed and uneducated, “I have never heard any of this (lecture content) before. As a teacher I can’t really do anything about it until I know something about it.” MSR1 did not seem to be feeling a whole lot of dissonance. It seemed as if he was confirming what he already suspected, “It makes me think of the word patriotism; everything we have done is relative to who is doing it no matter what people do. It seems like the defining factor is who is doing it.” Three participants were disillusioned with only learning about American Indian boarding schools by chance. FSR2 explained, “The fact that we are only learning about it (boarding school experience) because we are here; that is just crazy to me.” FJ1 added, “We are probably the only ones on the entire campus that will know about what happened…right here.” MSR1 summed up the feelings of many participants. He feels as if he were lied to throughout his education, I feel as if I was lied to. I don’t know if anyone can remember back but it is like the first lesson you had in school was not right. I mean it is like growing up and what you learned in high school isn’t true. The truth is like 180 degrees different. Why were we not told about this in high school? FJ1 expressed her feelings of being uncomfortable, “This just makes me uncomfortable thinking that this whole time history was completely different.” Educational hypocrisy. Participants spoke about educational hypocrisy. FSR2 expressed her feelings, “Education isn’t education when you aren’t learning objectively about more than one perspective; that’s propaganda.” Five participants, like MSR1, asked why a school’s curriculum would not include certain subject matter. “Why haven’t we learned about it (boarding school experience)? Like, why is it sheltered, and why don’t we learn about it?” Most participants indicated that they did not think that previous teachers knew about the boarding schools; SFR4 explained, “If we never found out about the boarding schools why would we think other teachers would.” The notion did prompt participant conversation. FSR2 added, “Yah like we know about the holocaust; we learn about terrible things that other countries have done to other people but we don’t learn about ourselves.” FSR3 asked an insightful question of the others in the group, “As a would-be teacher, do you think if you tried to educate somebody about this they would believe it?” FSR2 explained what she thought her experience would be if she approached her peers,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 68

No, that’s the thing I know that even if I tried to talk to my roommates it would be like ‘look this is what has happened.’ They would be like ‘No it’s not. I have a test to study for.’ Several participants agreed. “They are not going to do anything about it; you are right they don’t even care about it.” What MJ2 is attempting to articulate is that students will avoid feelings of dissonance when necessary. They do not want to be put into an uncomfortable situation. MSR2 summed up what many of the participants were attempting say, We are soft as a nation, and we all have these comfortable truths that, like, we would rather have comfortable lies than uncomfortable truths. We would rather hear what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear. People would not want to have that dissonance that would make them feel uncomfortable. They would rather feel good and move on with their life. Passion of the Lecturer The facilitator asked participants about their impression of the lecture. Interestingly, the discussion was not about content, but the lecturer’s tone and emotional state. FJ2 said what six others spoke about, “He (lecturer) was very passionate about what he was talking about.” FJ1 added, “I think you could tell just as much from his voice and tone and the way he acted, you could learn as much from that as from what he was saying.” FS1 declared, “As he was starting to tell his story you kind of get drawn into it more; his honest technique drew me in.” FSR1 saw a much different emotion, “I think he was very saddened, too.” Participants FJ2 and FSR3 addressed what they perceived as “abrasiveness and slightly offensive” aspects of the lecture; but nearly all participants responded like MSR2, “I understand the necessity of saying it in a way that would make the audience remember.” MJ1 defended the lecturer’s demeanor echoing what others said, “If the lecturer is to give an intellectually honest presentation, then the content must be presented even if it makes the audience uncomfortable.” FS1 added, I kind of agree with you, I thought at first…I couldn’t tell how he was feeling and it was hard for me to get on the same boat, but as he got going I began to understand his point of view. The data suggested that the lecturer had established a high level of validity among participants.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 69

Students' Pedagogical and Curricular Confidence Teachers around the country are taught that they must be culturally receptive and possess a culturally diverse knowledge base (Gay, 2002). A socially conscious, critically thinking teacher must understand how people think and the social, intellectual, and cognitive factors that influence the thought process. It is a daunting task to holistically teach an inclusive version of any subject while considering the context of all students. Uncertainty. Participants seemed uncertain about their ability to affectively teach by critically challenging their students. FS1 felt frustration with her confidence levels, I don’t feel like I have the power or the authority; I don’t know. I am not a politician; I am not a professor; I’m just one person; and I would need a heck of a lot of people backing me. I would need a lot of people behind me and instead of making the effort to make the change I would just withdraw. I may make change in myself, but what good does that really do within the country or anybody else? Other participants were more confident, offering words of optimism. MSR3 summed up her feelings. I think you have to be confident with the knowledge you have and the techniques you learn in Indian education classes. I think you rely on what you learned in school, I mean the classes you take and the experiences you have. You save all the stuff and the books and the handouts and you use them as proof in you classroom. Much of the participant’s dissonance was met with a pragmatic response; FSR2 asked of the other participants, “I want to know how you teachers are going to teach about American Indians; I mean are you willing to go against the grain and teach the truth or are you going to teach the same old stuff?” MSR2 added, “Are you going to teach about the same old stuff like Thanksgiving being a great big picnic, and the cornucopia, and all that stuff like the pilgrims? How are you going to do that, because for my second grade teacher it wasn’t easy?” FJ1 asked an important question of the group, “How do you do that without the parents getting upset and the principals, and other faculty, especially when you go to states that do not require a course on American Indian education.” The conversation then turned to the resistance teacher’s face when they teach beyond the knowledge base of the community. FSR4, speaking from past experience with parents added, “I know that there are parents out there that will never accept the concepts of critical thinking. You could tell them the sky is blue and they will not believe it because their views are very narrow.” FJ1 expressed frustration, “It just makes me mad, and I want to be able to teach the truth. It is really upsetting that they want me to lie.”

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 70

FS1 created dissonance when she challenged the other participants to think about teaching, “How do you teach second graders this kind of stuff?” It became clear that participants were moving in a positive direction and trying to think about the practical application of a critical curriculum. FSR4 and MJ2 spoke about the ethical implications of teaching the truth. FS1 summed it up when she asked, If I went to another state, how would I convince people that this stuff (critical curriculum) should be taught? Everybody is going to have a problem with it. How are you going to teach and do the ethical thing knowing that you will be taking a lot of heat? MJ1 offered a suggestion, “In second grade you always want to take things slow, and like was mentioned earlier, ‘spoon-feed’ the kids a little information at a time.” FSR3 asked, “How can you spoon-feed something that is so brutal? That’s what I am saying, that’s a whole other problem. You can’t start teaching the nice parts and leave some parts blank.” FS1 responded, “We may start with things like Thanksgiving and prepare them for the tough issues that are yet to come; if we don’t teach them they will not know.” MJ2 offered an encouraging footnote to the conversation, “You may have parents that say, ‘Hey I am glad that you taught my kids that Indians are good people.’” Altered Personal Perceptions FSR2 spoke about the personal perceptions and negative stereotypes that she has carried through her life. She started by declaring that she was taught something different than the truth and finished by acknowledging that there are many sides to every story. I think… before this lecture it was kind of like, I thought Indians were evil; what we are taught is that the Natives attacked us, but by far the aggression was perpetrated on the Natives. It sounds like we were in fact the evil ones. We have always been viewing it from our eyes not from theirs. I mean it's not evil. They were not the bad guys; it’s not like, cowboys and Indians anymore. We have to admit that we were the ones who were the oppressors. MSR1, like five others, voiced his frustration with his own ignorance. We just don’t want to deal with the realization that this happened. I live in my own cozy little world in my cozy little house soaking up what the media says we need to know; why get to the facts, focus on something different, and why talk about the bad, right? FJ1 recognized that she had obtained a heightened sense of empathy. “I think I need to stick up for Native Americans more. Like if someone said something you wouldn’t just go along with it.” Others, like FS1, agreed and further defined the point,

Volume 3, Page 71

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

I think I am more apt to inform against those things that are said. You know people come up and say, ‘There is a bunch of dirty drunks,’ you could say, ‘You are going to listen to me talk for 15 minutes. I can tell you what you are missing.’ FJ1 talked about the importance of recognizing historical connections and having empathy for people who have been put through a great deal. After seeing the presentation, I don’t think of them (American Indians) as lazy or not wanting to improve their lives; but when you put them through what we put them through, they are going to have problems. No person can come out of that and expect to be perfect. MJ1 and others framed the argument idealistically, “If people could see this presentation it would not only alter the stereotypes, but it could erase them completely.” Most of the participants however were much more practical about their perceptions. FS1 summarized what nearly all of the participants had said, “I think coming into this we all have these negative thoughts, and then our thoughts became reversed in terms of how we think of them compared to what we previously thought.” Contextual Overview Focus group discussion is an indispensable method for collecting and understanding data that pertain to the personal, educational, and professional experiences within education. When participants understand and expound upon the contextual factors within focus groups, the research process becomes transparent and grounded in contextual data. There are three important contextual variables within the study: critical content, critical pedagogy, and racism. Every participant’s story enhances the reliability of the study, by assisting in the transferability of the study’s discoveries to similar settings. Focus groups are a snapshot in time, but provide information to further the arguments that make a society a better place to live. Discussion The decades' old goal of institutions of higher education is reform via inclusive relevant curriculum. However, few professors choose to utilize the concepts of critical pedagogy and inclusive content. Many scholars recognize that critical pedagogy, when executed correctly, challenges the dynamics of traditional Western academia, but they fear that students may not be receptive to an inclusive educational concept that breaks from the dominant Eurocentric educational traditions. Critical scholars however, call attention to the high levels of cognitive dissonance that could be generated by critical pedagogy, pointing out that the disjunction between attitudes and behaviors may lead students to a state of stability when they either adjust or completely transforming their behavior, belittling the information, or entering into a state of denial (Gosling et al., 2006). Many professors

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 72Â

explain that they fear the possibility of retaliation that could negatively influence their career, so they play it safe and continue to teach within the Western educational paradigm. While research has explored many aspects of critical pedagogy and critical content, few studies have focused on what the students think. This study produced focus group data gathered from student insight as they reflected on personal experience and the pre-focus-group activity, a lecture that featured critical content on the history and policies of American Indian boarding schools using critical pedagogical techniques. A few participants indicated that they experienced some dissonance while listening to the lecture but did not feel as if the dissonance led to resistance. Most participants however, indicated that the feelings of dissonance were encouraging them to want to learn more. Data indicated that most participants were distressed with the sanitized ethnocentric perspectives of Western education; many felt deceived with being denied access to critical epistemologies. Furthermore, data revealed that participants appreciated the opportunity to enhance intellectual growth by embracing the challenges of critical pedagogy. The data revealed that participants respected the equivocality of the presentation and that the lecturerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s authenticity assisted in synthesizing critical content and pedagogy. The data revealed that dissonance from critical pedagogy often provided opportunities for self-exploration of beliefs and prejudices, as well as enhancing the personal lives of the participants by improving relationships with diverse people. Conclusion Based on the data gathered in this study more educators might consider establishing and advancing the use of critical pedagogy that would ultimately create conversations about important issues relevant to a just education for every student. Participants were favorable to having access to pedagogy and content that challenged the status quo and enhanced intellectual growth. Critical pedagogy induced dissonance that participants were willing to face if it meant they were exposed to knowledge that they would otherwise have been denied. Author Biography Dr. Gary W. Cheeseman is an Assistant Professor of Education at the University of South Dakota and has been involved in the teaching and training of teachers, the practice of culturally relevant pedagogical methodologies and content, the understanding social justice issues in education, and American Indian intellectual thought for over 20 years. Professionally Dr. Cheeseman has three research lines: culturally relevant pedagogy, storytelling, and critical pedagogy/critical thought. He teaches courses in American Indian Education, and he is the curator of the American Indian Critical Thinking and Storytelling Repository.

Volume 3, Page 73

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

References Apple, M. (1982). Education and power. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. (1996). Cultural politics and education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. A. (1989). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 3-28). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Branch, A. (2003). A look at race in the national standards for the social studies: Another bad check. In G. Ladson-Billings (Ed.), Critical race theory perspectives on social studies: The profession, policies, and curriculum (pp. 99- 122). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Bohman, J. (2001). Participants, observers, and critics: Practical knowledge, social perspectives, and critical pluralism. In W. Rehg and J. Bohman (Eds.), Pluralism and the pragmatic turn: The transformation of critical theory (pp. 87 – 114). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books/Harper. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dale, R. (1989). The state and education policy. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Deloria, V. (1969). Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Deloria, V. (1997). Red earth: white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact. Golden, CO: Fulcrum. Dewey, J. (1934). The need for a philosophy of education. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education: Selected writings. New York, NY: The Modern library. Elias, J. (1994). Paulo Freire: Pedagogue of liberation. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Co. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving the pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the heart. New York, NY: Continuum. Gay, G. (2002). Preparing teachers for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106-116. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Giroux, H. A. (2001). Public spaces, private lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Giroux, H. A. (2006). America on the edge: Henry Giroux on politics, culture, and education. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 74

Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Continuum. Gosling, P., Denizeau, M., & Oberle, D. (2006). Denial of responsibility: A new mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 90(5), 722-733. Hooks, B. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston, MA: South End Press. Horsman, R. (1997). Race and manifest destiny: The origins of American racial AngloSaxonism. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror (pp. 139-144). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Johnson, D. (2005). Who’s behind the attack on liberal professors? History News Network. 10 February. Retrieved from hnn.us/articles/1244. Kanpol, B. (1996). Critical pedagogy and liberation theology: Borders for a Transformative Agenda. Educational Theory. Winter, 46 (1), 105-117. Kincheloe, J. (2008). Critical Pedagogy. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47-68. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Retrieved from the JSTOR database. Lipman, P. (2007). From accountability to privatization and African American exclusion: Chicago’s "renaissance 2010". Education Policy, 21(3), 471-502. Loewen, J. W. (2007). Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong. New York, NY: The New Press. Maynard, M., & Purvis, J. (1994). Doing feminist research. In M. Maynard. & J. Purvis, (Eds.), Researching women’s lives from a feminist perspective. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. McLaren, P. (1994). Critical pedagogy, political agency, and the pragmatics of justice: The case of Lyotard. Educational Theory, 44(3), 319-340. McLaren, P. (1998). Revolutionary pedagogy in post-revolutionary times: Rethinking the political economy of critical education. Educational Theory, 48(4), 431–462. Merry, M. (2009) Patriotism, history and the legitimate aims of American education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(4), 378-398. Michalos, A. C. (2008). Education, happiness and wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 87(3), 347-366. Morgan, D. L. (1998). The focus group guide-book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Oleson, V. (1994). Feminisms and models of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 158-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rains, F. (2006). The color of the social studies: A post social studies reality check. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The Social Studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (pp. 137-156). New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Said, E. (2004). Humanism and democratic criticism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 75

Shannon, P. (2007). Reading against democracy: The broken promises of reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). What is the “dialogical method" of teaching? Journal of Education, 169(3), 11-31. Shkaratan, O. I. (2012). Expectations and reality: Social mobility in the context of equal opportunities. Russian Social Science Review, 53(5), 21-53. Shyman, E. (2011). A comparison of the concepts of democracy and experience in a sample of major works by Dewey and Freire. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(10), 10351046. Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999-2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26, 173191. Torres, C. A. (1995-1996). State of education revisited: Why educational researchers should think politically about education. Review of Research in Education, 21, 255-331. Wilkinson, S. (2008). Focus groups. In J. Smith (Ed.), A practical guide to research methods. London, UK: Sage. Winch, C. (2004). Developing critical rationality as a pedagogical aim. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(3), 467-484. Zinn, H. (2005). A people’s history of the United States: 1942 – present. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Volume 3, Page 76

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Our Eyes on the Prize Jane Bean-Folkes Rowan University

Abstract Learning written academic language when it differs from the language of home is daunting for some African American students. This research study explored how an elementary aged student and her teacher journeyed toward developing linguistic flexibility, which is the ability to use both the language of home and the written academic language. This study examined the challenges students encounter in learning written academic English and the influences that affect the teacher’s instructional decisions and took place over one year in New York City at a public elementary school (K–5) with a large African American student population. Both action research and case study methods were used to capture the experiences of teachers and students. The methods for collecting data consisted of participant observation, semi-structured interviews, student-produced artifacts, and field notes. The data were collected in a five-phase recursive collaborative inquiry process (Bean-Folkes, 2009) and are part of a larger study that looked at three teachers and their students. These teachers, like many today, struggle with finding the best practices to support nondominant language speakers, who continue to increase in numbers in classrooms. The need to address approaches to language instruction that allow students to develop linguistic flexibility is a key outcome of this study. Keywords: writing, multilingual, culturally sustaining pedagogy, urban education Hold on, (hold on), hold on, (hold on) Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on! -American Negro Folk Song For some nondominant language speakers, such as some African Americans, learning to write can present a tension that extends far beyond childhood and well into adulthood. The societal norm regards formal English as the standard for academic discourse (Common Core State Standards, 2010), but we should not require an individual to stop using their primary language or home language. This research study examines how an elementary student and her teacher journeyed toward developing linguistic flexibility, which is the ability to use both the language of home and written academic language.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 77

This paper highlights a teacher, Ms. Figueroa, and a student, Deshawna, across a 10-month time period. Their experiences serve as examples for some of the challenges teachers and students experience in an upper elementary classroom regarding written academic English instruction for speakers of African American Vernacular English (AAVE). The research study has the title “Our Eyes on the Prize” as its anchor because language instruction is a struggle that tends to pull teachers in many different directions. The acquisition of linguistic flexibility is a prize to be sought. The Civil Rights era song about Paul and Silas, who were “bound in jail” but kept their “eyes on the prize,” is a reminder that focus and determination can lead individuals through struggles to freedom. This research study examined Deshawna’s language learning processes and her attempts to produce written academic English as well as what Ms. Figueroa did, and could have done, to keep her eyes on the prize—i.e., developing Deshawna’s language development. In this context, this research study aims to answer this question: What are the challenges faced by teachers of students who speak nondominant language varieties? It is hoped that the examination of these challenges will help teachers learn how to keep their eyes on the prize when working with African American students who speak varieties of AAVE. Theoretical Framework This research uses the sociocultural nature of learning in culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) (Ladson-Billings, 1994) and culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) (Paris, 2012) to examine the nature of learning about writing and language. This approach has its roots in the foundational work of Vygotsky, who provided a window into language development and described language as socially constructed (Vygotsky, 1978). More recently, it has been written that learning to write is a sociocultural process rooted in a person’s sociocultural background and the sociocultural context in which a person writes (Behizadeh, 2014). Behizadeh (2014) argues that the understanding of literacy is a social practice and, as such, is the foundation for all sociocultural literacy. Prior (2006) documented how sociocultural theories represent the dominant paradigm for writing research today (p. 54). Simply stated, sociocultural theory, which consists of various contexts in literacy, looks at various contexts and it examines writing as a contextual process. The context in which a literacy event occurs is shaped by the intended audience (whether the text is created in collaboration with others or not), and the writer's use of conventions for the event’s intended purpose. In Perry's (2012) overview of sociocultural perspectives in literacy, she presents three areas: literacy as a social practice, multiliteracies, and critical literacy. The above factors influence the outcomes of literacy events. The use of sociocultural theory indicates the importance of cultural and linguistic variation in writing. Furthermore, there is an intertwining of the relationship between the learner and teacher in the language learning process. This realization has led a variety of scholars, such as LadsonBillings (1994) and Paris (2012), to propose and implement specific theories using sociocultural

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 78

perspectives on language learning. The use of this theoretical framework aims to make teaching and learning relevant, responsive, and valuable to the languages, literacies, and cultural practices of students who speak nondominant languages (Paris, 2012, p. 93). CRP consists of three domains: academic success, cultural competence, and sociopolitical consciousness, which is described by Ladson-Billings (2014). Academic success is the intellectual growth that students experience as a result of classroom instruction and learning experiences. Cultural competence is the ability to help students appreciate and celebrate their cultures of origin while gaining knowledge of and fluency in another culture. Sociopolitical consciousness is the ability to take learning beyond the confines of the classroom by using school knowledge and skills to identify, analyze, and solve real-world problems (p. 75). To examine instructional methods, this study relies on the breakdown of these pedagogical domains by scholars such as Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011). They created a conceptual framework based on five themes of teaching behaviors for CRP that are based on Gay’s (1994, 2000), Ladson-Billings’ (1994), and Nieto’s (1999) principles of culturally relevant teaching: identity and achievement, equity and excellence, developmental appropriateness, teaching the whole child, and student-teacher relationships. The above principles of CRP are used to better understand teaching practices. The CRP focus on identity and achievement aligns with the principles related to identity development, cultural heritage, affirmation of diversity, and public validation of home-community cultures. In this research study, both teacher and student identities are examined. Identity is defined as a cultural construct. Culture resides in the individual (Goodenough, 1980). Therefore, culture is a lens that people use for self-perception. The principles of equity and excellence focus on dispositions, the incorporation of multicultural content, equal access, and high expectations for all students. It focuses on ensuring that students get what they need, which is not the same as equal opportunity. Developmental appropriateness aims to focus on learning styles, teaching styles, and cultural variation in psychological needs such as motivation, morale, engagement, and collaboration. With this principle, teachers are expected to know where children are in their cognitive development and what is culturally appropriate or relevant for culturally diverse students. Ladson-Billings (1994) contends that knowledge that students bring with them to school must be acknowledged, explored, and utilized. Teaching the whole child takes into account the socioemotional context of teaching and learning, which emphasizes funds of knowledge (Moll, 1992) and cultural capital (Gordon, 1999; Bourdieu, as cited in Lareau, 2001). Student-teacher relationships, the final principle, focus on caring, relationships, interaction, and classroom atmosphere. Students need to know that their teachers care. It is also important that teachers recognize and respect their students for who they are as individuals and as members of cultural groups. In order to use a theoretical framework that is more meaningful to teaching, as well as the language and literacies of traditionally marginalized groups, such a framework needs to be expanded to include Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP). CSP embodies, as Paris (2012) states, “the best past and present research and practice in the resource pedagogy tradition” (p.95).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 79

It seeks to not only perpetuate and foster but also sustain linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the schooling. CSP explicitly supports multilingual and multicultural practices for students and teachers. Significant to the underpinnings of this research, moreover, are the roles that language and identity play in learning for African Americans as well as the implications that such factors play in literacy development (Lee, 2000). Sociocultural theory, CRP, and more recently CSP situate the argument in the social nature of learning for African American students. Lastly, the term African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is used to describe the many varieties of African American Language (AAL) that students bring to school. AAVE is one of many terms used among linguists (Labov, 1972; Smitherman, 1977; Wolfram, 1998) to acknowledge the linguistic features found in the AAL. Greene and Abt-Perkins (2003) and Labov (1972) make the point that Black English is a term used to describe the language used by Black Americans, and as such, there are many varieties of vernacular Black English that are spoken by African Americans. Black slaves were forbidden from congregating in order to prevent them from spreading potentially “dangerous” ideas. This isolation from an exchange of ideas that might have kept up the use of their languages of origin constituted a denial of a common “native” language for Blacks slaves in America, a fact that contributed significantly to the formation of a unique version of American English (as opposed, for example, to simply having a recognizable “accent” that other immigrants tend to lose over a few generations) (Baugh, 2000; Labov, 1972). Thus, AAVE, although historically embedded, is not a mere historical artifact but a living language with multiple varieties (e.g. Black English vernacular, Negro English, African American language, Afro-Caribbean English, and Southern Black English) that continue to evolve somewhat independently from the so-called mainstream American English. Sociocultural theory, as defined by earlier research (Vygotsky 1978, 1986/2000), has set the framework for using sociocultural practices to understand the writing practices that occur between teachers and students. If the goal of education is to enable students to communicate ideas and thoughts through writing, then it is time for researchers to research how to approach the teaching of writing among multilingual students so these students can become successful communicators. Research Methodology The case study sought to capture not only the outcome but also the experiences of the teachers and the students as they worked on learning written academic English. In fact, the case study method was selected because it was thought to best capture the social interactions between the teachers and students in the language learning process (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). The study took place across an academic year of instruction in New York City at PS 123 a public elementary school (K–5) located near the St. Ann's section of the Bronx. The student population of 600 students is 90% free lunch and 10% paid lunch, 77% Hispanic, 20% African American,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 80

and 3% from other backgrounds. The school has a small student to teacher ratio, and aims to provide multiple enrichment programs and cultural opportunities for its students. Many of the students live within an eight-block radius of the school. As such, PS 123 is not only a school, but also a safe place for students to play and socialize with their friends. Both action research and case study methods were used to capture the experiences of the teachers and the students in their quest for written academic English acquisition. The case study approach (Dyson & Genishi, 2005; Stake, 1995) was chosen to document the AAVE-speaking students’ journeys as they learned written academic English. The case study work presented in this research study was originally situated within a larger study that consisted of three teachers and three students. The data were collected in a five-phase recursive collaborative inquiry process (Bean-Folkes, 2009). The researcher was present as a participant observer in one fourthgrade classroom and two fifth-grade classrooms several days a week. The teachers in this study were selected by snowball sampling, which is a process in which one person recommends a participant and then another concurs with that recommendation or suggests additional potential participants (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The suggested participants for this study were based on years of teaching, consistency for literacy instruction, and interest in language study. The teachers selected two students from each of the classrooms being observed in the study based on the examination of sample writing pieces, the students’ use of oral AAVE, and the difficulties the students had exhibited in the past in learning written academic English. The focus was on students who showed traces of AAVE in their oral and written language and for whom AAVE, in the opinion of the teachers, impeded their learning of written academic English. Working collaboratively with the teachers, the researcher examined the focal students’ written academic English education, especially as it unfolded during the literacy blocks that focused on writing and language study. The researcher was a teacher participant who used data collection methods of participant observations, semi-structured interviews with teachers and students, student-produced artifacts, and field notes. The field notes were “cooked” using theoretical notes, personal notes, and methodological notes. Both the field notes and the interview transcripts were analyzed for patterns by using a recursive practice to review the data. Patterns in the field notes, transcripts, student artifacts, and observations were triangulated across each case study teacher and student. The purpose of this triangulation was not to generalize the results, but to construct the narratives of the three focal students and their experiences. This paper highlights one teacher and student who particularly illustrate the challenges in writing instruction today around cultivating linguistic flexibility. Data Collection The Story of Ms. Figueroa. Ms. Figueroa, a veteran teacher who represents the second generation in her family to attend college, is a tall Latina woman who, from the outset, appeared

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 81

to be someone who was determined to see her students use more academic language in both the spoken and written English they used in the classroom: I do know that some of the language that I hear them speak that they would use on the playground, when out playing with their siblings, they might use it at home…. I see it in their writing, like the grouping of certain words. Like the word ain’t is a very common one, [and instead of] “because,” they say “’cause.” Some of the playground language, I would assume it is playground language….they use it in their writing. (M. Figueroa, personal communication, April 18, 2007) Ms. Figueroa believes that the language of home is not in need of fixing but can function like a “pair of party shoes” that one can put on or take off as one wishes to. For her, school is the place to learn academic language, which prompts her to focus on the smaller details of speech. As a nondominant language speaker herself, she recognizes that her students need to speak in multiple ways, but her instruction methods were problematic for her students. Ms. Figueroa made an effort to recognize the influence of AAVE in her students’ writing in order to understand the impact of verb tense confusion. However, her beliefs and her instruction methods were in opposition to one another. In discussions about helping her students grow as writers of written academic language, Ms. Figueroa talked about using small group instruction instead of whole class instruction: They get a lot more attention, and I can really work with them and refer back to what we’ve done together as a group….[I] felt like the writing block wasn’t long enough sometimes because I wanted to meet with students [more] to give them opportunity…[to work with] me…. (M. Figueroa, personal communication, April 18, 2007) What was missing from her instruction method was the work she had done on language inquiry. On most days in her classroom, a typical language period began with a short mini lesson followed by a longer period of independent writing time. Ms. Figueroa allowed her students to participate in an additional language inquiry block (Bean-Folkes, 2009), but when students has time to write relied more on printed, premade charts that emphasized the standards of English. She strained to see the value of inquiry into language and its impact on written academic English. The Story of Deshawna. Age nine, Deshawna, a vibrant African American girl whose family’s roots are from the South, moved to New York City a few years ago. She is the oldest of four children. She has spent a lot of time in school and is aware that her mother sent her to school to receive a good education. She has also learned from her mother—and perhaps from other adults around her, such as Ms. Figueroa, her teacher—that it is important to have good speaking and writing skills. Deshawna recognized that poor speaking and writing skills are associated with lower class status. For example, she said, “peoples going to think I live on the streets.”

Volume 3, Page 82

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

I learned from Deshawna’s comments—like, “peoples going to think I live on the streets”—that she recognized that “poor” speech and writing are associated with lower class status. Deshawna views herself as a good writer, but she struggles with switching between the language of home and the language of school. She simply knew that one was good and the other was, in her words, “bad”. She had been told by her family that the language of home was not to be valued and that her job in school was to learn and embrace the language of school. She eagerly participated in the language inquiry lessons and wrote during the writing blocks with equal intensity. Her oral dialect has several AAVE features, such as the tonal semantics (Redd & Webb, 2005, p. 45) in the form of intonational contouring, which stress the high pitch and pronunciation of certain syllables such as “I DON-no, I think when I grow up…”. The phonological stress of “B” on the first syllable in “Being” and on “did” in contractions such as DiDn’t. However, the tension between her oral language patterns and her written language patterns was a source of frustration for her. Overall, she possessed more language variety in her speech than in her writing. Data Analysis Interviews were transcribed and coded for patterns along with the fieldnotes. The following analysis illustrates the complex interactions among Ms. Figueroa’s beliefs, statements, and actions about teaching written academic English in her classroom. This analysis documents the value Ms. Figueroa placed on teaching written academic English. In the excerpt in the data section, Ms. Figueroa noted the students’ use of their home language (AAVE in this case) in the school setting, and she stated that such usage in the students’ writing created tension for her in the classroom. However, a pattern was noted in Ms. Figueroa’s instructional methods. She was not explicit in the modeling of her expectations and she did not make direct connections to the language patterns previously taught in her modeling. For example, much of what she taught about punctuation was on a chart; however, she failed to refer to this chart when she taught a writing lesson. She believed that she had given the students the punctuation and grammar rules, but her demonstrations of writing during her writing lessons coupled with her language “expectations” lacked direct connections. Her work with language was currently happening during small sections of the day, but what the students needed her to do was to bring these parts together meaningfully. Her instructional methods were relevant to lesson content, but they were not truly sustaining the students by addressing their specific writing needs (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Paris, 2012). In addition, Ms. Figueroa’s actions led the researcher to examine if there was any value for the use of language flexibility in her students’ writing. As a person of color, she identified with the importance that language holds for communities and families. Yet as a teacher, she had not encountered a method of instruction that would allow both the student’s instructional needs and written competence to exist comfortably.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 83

In addition, because of Ms. Figueroa’s inexperience with language varieties, it was a challenge for her to understand the features, mechanics, grammar, and usage of AAVE. In a way, her choice to work with Deshawna on grammar mechanics versus AAVE might have been due to being more comfortable in improving Deshawna’s written academic English rather than instructing grammar. Nonetheless, Ms. Figueroa did not believe that such grammar usage created a significant obstacle to the students’ learning of written academic English: I think it is important for them to know the difference between the home language and the academic language in school – definitely, because it transcribes to their writing and it transcribes to their understanding [of] what is going on in the classroom… And it is important for them to know that in society, you know, this is the kind of language that they use as professionals. They know that there is that difference [emphasis added]. (M. Figueroa, personal communication, April 18, 2007) In this statement, it is clear that Ms. Figueroa embraces linguistic flexibility and why it is important, but how she demonstrates this in her instruction is unclear. She was unsure how to address the variety of nondominant languages spoken in her classroom, and she did not know how to teach standard written English with greater consistency. The implications from the approach she had embraced meant that students were taught with a more top-down, isolated version of instruction versus a full inquiry approach that would allow students the opportunity to explore and fully own language variations. Ms. Figueroa believes that the language of home is not in need of fixing but can function like a “pair of party shoes” that one can put on or take off as one wishes. For her, school is the place to learn academic language, which prompted her to focus on the smaller details of speech. Ms. Figueroa’s observations might have been shaped partly by her own childhood experiences when she learned written academic English. She recalled feeling that she “would need the language in order to progress and in order to understand and to be a part of society because going to college required [one] to have that kind of language” (M. Figueroa, personal communication, April 18, 2007). Ms. Figueroa, as a person of color, is aware of the importance of maintaining the language of home while building the language of school (Delpit, 1988, 1995; Delpit & Dowdy, 2002; Elbow, 2002; Fogel & Ehri, 2000; Richardson, 2003). Hence, AAVE is a positive language because it is the language of one’s community and culture. Knowing the underpinnings of Ms. Figueroa’s observations helped to frame the sociocultural context behind what prompted her to make curriculum decisions for her students, such as Deshawna.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 84

Deshawna Teaches Us From Deshawna’s comments like “peoples going to think I live on the streets,” she recognized that “poor” speech and writing are associated with lower-class status. What Deshawna had yet to figure out was how to acquire the “good” standard of English. Dewey (1938/1997) proposed that school is viewed as a key socializing resource for individual improvement and economic equality. Deshawna, similarly, had a belief in meritocracy and that such a system offers her an opportunity to succeed. She shared this belief in the initial interview about the importance of learning written academic English. This goal of success and advancement is why her mother sent her to school, and her job at school was to make the most of this opportunity. However, despite all of Deshawna’s hard work, she still had a long road to travel toward consistency as a writer of academic English at the beginning of this research study. Indeed, Deshawna had tried to acquire standard English, yet a gap in her knowledge of the language still seemed to stand in her way of achieving the written academic English skills she sought. The following section provides further insight into Deshawna’s journey toward filling the “gaps in her knowledge”. Talkin’ the “Right” Way: The Tension between Speech and Writing In the beginning of the study, Deshawna’s conversations with the researcher were short, her sentences were simple, and her speech was “safe.” It was almost as if she was afraid to be interviewed: Deshawna: Well, now, I, like it actually helps, that actually helps me a—talk better because—before, I did—I didn’t talk in the right language. And— Researcher: What do you mean, ‘talk in the right language?’ Deshawna: Like, I used to say wrong things that weren’t, like, weren’t right for anybody to say. Like, not regular talking. (Deshawna, interview, October, 2007) Labov (1972) encountered a similar issue among the African American students he worked with. He researched and documented how children’s willingness to engage others in conversation was a function of their social relationship with the person they were addressing as well as the topic and setting. Hence, it was no surprise that Deshawna’s speech was short and that her sentences fragmented, yet multiple encounters and time might have impacted the relationship with the interviewer and allowed her to speak more fluidly. One day during language study time, Deshawna and her partner looked intently at a sentence strip with the following text: “‘Yeah, but a party is more fun with a lot of kids,’ Rigo said.” Ms. Figueroa stopped the group to point out what Deshawna and her partner

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 85

discovered. "My friends here have noticed words like, 'Rigo said' after the quotation marks. Do you know what they are called?" The students shook their heads and said, "No." "These words are called speech tags. Look at your slips of paper. Do you see a speech tag?" The students went back to looking; then suddenly, a student cried out, "My speech tag is at the beginning of the sentence!" Another said, "We don't have any speech tags on ours!" Afterwards, the students talked about the variety of speech tags that they had on their slips of paper. They also discussed how speech tags are sometimes short, like "Rigo said," or expanded, like "Jose said as he ran down the block." At the end of the lesson, the students stopped to write a memory note, which is a note to themselves about what they wanted to remember about the day's lesson. What i wanted to remember is: in the beginning, the middle, and at the end of a story, and that the punctuation marks have to be inside the quotation marks - Deshawna's Memory Note For Deshawna, the time spent examining this example of writing allowed her to notice the specifics of dialogue punctuation. The use of the inquiry method after direct instruction provided additional time for Deshawna to reflect on what she learned. This reflection time became an important aspect of Deshawna's learning because it allowed her to become aware about what she had learned. An additional factor in this episode of Deshawna's learning was the coaching the teacher did with Deshawna. Initially, when the researcher observed Deshawna's increased ability to punctuate dialogue during the inquiry lessons, the assumption was that Deshawna had more time to look at her writing than in other lessons. But after the researcher’s notes and transcripts were analyzed, it was apparent that Ms. Figueroa coached or prompted Deshawna with questions like, "Look close [at] your strip: what did the author need to know?" or "What do you notice about the punctuation?" These prompts encouraged Deshawna to slow down and look closely at her writing, enabling her to notice more about the grammar of language. The socioemotional style of learning (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011; Dyson, 1992; Gee, 1996; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Vygotsky 1986/2000) was powerful for Deshawna. Her memory note from the previously discussed lesson told the reader what she was able to see and what it meant to her as she shifted her knowledge to a more conscious level (Goodman, 2003). Just as important as the “push” toward school context and language in a case like Deshawna’s is the “pull” of the cultural value associated with the use of AAVE. In the African American community, learning to speak “good English” is viewed as a way to improve career opportunities and financial success. However, African American people speak AAVE for cultural and historical reasons that are linked to issues of race and class discrimination (Morgan,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 86

2002; Smitherman, 1977). It is important for Deshawna to speak her home language because facility in vernacular speech and standard English are both valued in the African American community as is the ability to switch between them in appropriate contexts. In other words, African Americans who are connected to both their communities and histories and able (and/or inclined) to function in “mainstream” society are expected to be aware of the language choices they make in given social contexts or when they face particular social, political, or communicative challenges. Because of these reasons code-switching is a common skill and a frequently observed behavior. At the time of the interactions with Deshawna, it is safe to assume that she had already been learning about language for quite a while. At the very least, this was evidenced in her awareness of the importance of varying her language use in different social contexts. Moreover, although Deshawna appeared to show apprehension about her ability to speak in a manner appropriate to the different contexts in the initial conversations, her writing at the time showed little evidence of the morphosyntactic features that scholars commonly associate with AAVE (Fogel & Ehri, 2000, p. 218). However, Deshanwa’s writing samples in Figure 1 demonstrate her ability to code-switch. Deshawna’s ability to code-switch demonstrates linguistic flexibility because she can write a pattern of text that matches a given context. Baugh (2003) and Wheeler and Swords (2006) have vigorously argued that students should be made aware of the different language patterns that are appropriate to the time, place, audience, and communicative purpose of any interaction. Deshawna already has the ability to use a variety of language patterns, which makes the difference between whether she is perceived as someone who might “live on the streets”. Her ability to code-switch, moreover, connects with her cultural and personal identity and with how she is perceived within the community. Greene and Abt-Perkins (2003) have pointed out that in the United States, historically, becoming literate and possessing a variety of literacy skills has been and remains a means of survival for African American people. Indeed, one might say that “language is destiny” and that control of academic language allows an individual to avail himself or herself to the opportunities that our society is justly proud of. Such opportunities, however, remain unattainable for many persons of color. What We Can Learn about Instruction from Deshawna’s Experience The researchers observations of Deshawna during the extended inquiry lessons revealed that she demonstrated more about what she learned when she was engaged with the text for periods of time—for instance, when she was prompted or coached to see one particular aspect of her writing and when she was pushed to write about what she learned. In fact, it was clear that she was the type of learner who benefited from being given the time to examine language and from being supported through coaching for what to look for in language. These opportunities allowed her to develop what Bruner (1990) refers to as metalanguage, which is important for her to develop a deeper knowledge about how language works.

Volume 3, Page 87

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Many of the principles in a writing process approach, such as allotted periods to practice writing and writing about real-world topics (Calkins, 1986/1994), had been a part of Deshawna’s writing instruction. However, what was missing, from a sociocultural learning theory perspective, was a consistent and predictable time to inquire about language, to interact with language, and to talk with peers and teachers about language. When Deshawna experienced an increase in language inquiry time, she increased her awareness of how to think about language, which Goodman (2003) regards as a shift of the student’s language skills from an intuitive level to a conscious level. This increase in time gave her the chance to process what she learned and use it in her writing. What was absent for Deshawna was a variety of instructional methods, such as inquiries and guided practice that would support her as a learner in her ability to use what she learned about language. These instructional methods allow Deshawna to develop a stronger working knowledge about academic language. It appears that Ms. Figueroa unconsciously values more traditional methods for language instruction and mechanics to improve her students’ writing. What is missing is the expansion of the students’ knowledge base about written academic English. An instructional approach that would allow more time for social is needed (Bean-Folkes, 2009; Redd & Webb, 2005). More time is needed to inquire into grammar, looking at how it works, and why students need to be prepared with a better understanding for its use in writing. This tension between inquiry learning and isolated instruction was a tension for Deshawna, as well as for many in the teaching profession, because the ways that language learning was presented and the ways that Deshawna learned best were out of sync. Deshawna blossomed when she had the time to inquire, question, and work with the content information. Ms. Figueroa’s approach to teaching writing was mainly traditional through direct instruction. Ms. Figueroa believes that standard English is “good,” “proper,” and the ticket to success in life as exhibited by her own life story. When a direct, explicit instructional approach was used, Deshawna became a part of the lesson and did her work as it was assigned, but she struggled to transfer this knowledge to day-to-day practice. Discussion This research study supports the need for language study time within the complex literacy environments in which teachers spend large amounts of time supporting African American students develop written academic English. The existing literature (e.g., Dyson, 2009; Pinkett, 2002) demonstrates that time can have an effect on student learning. Yet there is a need to address the instructional approaches to language instruction that allow students to develop linguistic flexibility which this article aims to address. It was noted that AAVE influenced Ms. Figueroa’s pedagogical decisions to determine which areas of grammar to focus on in order for her to support her African American students as they learned written academic English. Delpit (1997, 1998) and Goodman (2003, 2006) would

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 88

argue that teacher education and professional development fall short of the instructional practices that address the needs of many African American literacy learners. Today’s multicultural classrooms require teachers to be aware of the roles that culture, history, and language play in learning (Delpit, 1997; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Lee, 2003; Paris & Alim, 2014; Richardson, 2003b), and they need to develop a repertoire of instruction to meet these needs. The decisions Ms. Figueroa made for language instruction were based on oral and written examinations of AAVE. Perceptions about language and the value placed on language can impact how African American students learn written academic English (Baugh, 1999; Elbow, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Paris, 2014). Teachers, whether consciously or unconsciously, carry with them perceptions regarding various language forms and dialects, and how a teacher brings their perceived value of this into the classroom affects students’ learning. Hence, Ms. Figueroa, knowing that school is the place where students learn academic language (Delpit, 1986), was pushed to create an environment that did not have a variety of charts, and existed without detailed instruction about how to use grammar rules. Ms. Figueroa was also impacted by her observations of the challenges that students encounter when they learn written academic English. She was challenged in supporting her African American students to learn written academic English from the inability to identify AAVE features. She came to realize some of the differences between AAVE, mechanics, and grammar, and that her students were not being obstinate but that there may have been learning issues that resulted from their vernacular. Fecho (2004) and Wolfram (1998) also experienced similar dilemmas, which led to the need for information about language and language instructional tools. They, like Noguchi (1991), realize that teachers need to rely on functional grammar, or “writers’ grammar,” in teaching written academic English. The results of this portion of the study shed light on the fact that interventions such as increased language inquiry and explorations into language are important steps to support students’ language learning. Suggestions for Student Learning It was observed in this study that there is a tension in the time spent in urban classrooms on language study for African American students. This tension addresses the language issues African American students face in writing. It is not the fault of teachers, but it is the pressures that teachers feel about making time for language instruction. Regardless of these pressures, teachers should make sufficient time for academic language instruction. In addition, the time spent on language study needs more specific instructional approaches (Bean-Folkes, 2009; Redd & Webb, 2005) that match student needs in order to be effective. Too often teachers address written academic English issues with too few lessons. This dumping effect is leaving many African American students behind in their academic language development. An underpinning in this study is the importance of different language approaches to instruction that ultimately impact the effectiveness of writing instruction. Knowledge of

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 89

different approaches would allow teachers to decide what type of instruction is needed. This becomes important during writing lessons because it supports instructional methods that allow students to deepen their knowledge of written academic English through practice. African American students would benefit from gaining greater language awareness in the third grade, which would support their knowledge of language and independence in learning written academic English. During this time, students would become aware of the variety of dialects and the importance of these dialects. Immersion in greater language awareness would set the stage for students to understand the richness of their language and why they might choose to learn another dialect instead of being told they have to learn it. Teachers would introduce a process for learning language awareness so that the responsibility for language awareness might be released over time to students for further development and inquiry. During this language awareness process, opportunities for discussions about language and power, language and identity, and ways in which language is developed might be uncovered. Students could look across their reading, their writing, and their language life to research how language is used by themselves and their families. Students might interview peers, family members, and neighbors to discover new books, new language varieties, and other cultural experiences. This work would lay the foundation for teachers to decide which combination of academic writing approaches (Bean-Folkes, 2009) would best serve the needs of their African American students. The point here would not be to point out that one language choice is “good” and the other “bad”, but that the ability to switch from one to the other is powerful and worthy of possessing. Suggestions for Teacher Educators For teacher educators, suggestions for practice begin with the call for the inclusion of consistent descriptive language study and not just prescriptive mechanics of writing in the literacy curriculum. To implement this approach successfully, teachers need more exposure to language use in preservice or in-service courses because this can expand their perceptions and provide them with wider linguistic knowledge of instructional approaches (Goodman, 2003, 2006; Redd & Webb, 2005; Smitherman, 1994). Too often, African American students, like the ones in this study, are provided with limited feedback and limited opportunities to develop their language knowledge. This lack of instructional time is not intentional, but it is a reaction to the many issues that teachers encounter in teaching written academic English to their students. Teachers typically respond to student writing with a limited knowledge base of language dialects and form. In urban elementary classrooms where students are learning language flexibility, it is important for teachers to develop this knowledge and recognize the ways that language study can be embedded into the existing components of literacy. To support such approaches and opportunities, this research study recommends a deepening of teacher resources during both teacher preparation and professional development. The professional development role would support teachers’ knowledge bases in the areas of language learning, language diversity, and

Volume 3, Page 90

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

linguistics (Goodman, 2006) in addition to modeling methods of instruction and providing potential resources for teachers and students who wish to investigate the nuances of language more deeply. As Du Bois (1903/1973) pointed out many years ago in the Souls of Black Folk, Black folks have two souls, one Black and one American, similarly, Black children today operate in two worlds of speech, one White and one Black (p.136). It is important that schools acknowledge this fact and not allow this duality to hinder student progress in written academic English. Conclusion The tensions and notions of inequality between the languages of home and school continue. Here are a few recommendations for teachers of African American students that would return the focus to keeping “our eyes on the prize.” First, it is important to realize that having linguistic flexibility is very valuable for students. Developing linguistic flexibility among students, which crosses linguistic, cultural, and historical backgrounds, is paramount. The ability to identify key features of AAVE can support teachers in their decisions regarding the development of linguist flexibility. Moreover, awareness of and appreciation for the variety of languages spoken throughout the world can attract language learners to wanting to learn written academic English. Thus, teachers must push against the narrow view that it is enough to just learn the “correct” language and, instead, broaden the view toward an interest in the many instructional ways that language can be taught. This argument is not new. Many have written about the richness of the varieties of AAVE (Greene & Abt-Perkins, 2003; Rickford & Rickford, 2000; Smitherman, 1977, 1994). It is time to embrace linguistc flexibility by helping educators to understand the power of speaking multiple languages. Second, educators widen the instructional methods that embrace the language of home while also embracing the language of school. Educators should be prepared to guide African American students on their language journeys. Many African American students benefit from the guidance of an experienced mentor, especially one who is genuinely interested and values a student’s linguistic flexibility. This can be brought about through instructional strategies such as language inquiries, language explorations, and guided practice that would empower language learners to develop greater knowledge, think about this knowledge, and, finally, bring this knowledge into practice. Future research in this area across grade levels and school communities would add to the body of knowledge in this area. In conclusion, the notion of language flexibility has existed among African American teachers as far back as the early 1900s. African American students have always possessed more than one language variety. These early literacy instructors knew that it was their responsibility to bring the power of language to their students. They knew that the African American language was more than just “nonstandard” grammar. It is a way of living that is worthy of respect and it

Volume 3, Page 91

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

constitutes a thriving culture (Richardson, 2003a). However, the changes that desegregation brought with it created a tension between the language of home and the language of school. Teachers are faced with a mix of language varieties in the classroom. To this end, having a variety of instructional practices, such as the inquiry study to support multiple language varieties, is needed. This work adds to the understanding of the socio-interaction between teacher and student that impacts written instruction. Teachers with a variety of instructional tools are able to teach rather than demand the use of academic language. While keeping “their eyes of the prize” – along the way. Author Biography Dr. Bean-Folkes is a faculty member at Rowan University, Department of Language, Literacy & Special Education. She received her M.Ed. and Ed.D. in Curriculum and Teaching with a concentration in Reading and Language Arts from Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research interests involve multilingual classrooms, written academic language, African American language varieties, sociocultural and sociolinguistic perspectives of education for African American students, and other nondominant language speakers as they learn the academic language in urban settings. She is a researcher and a practitioner, working in K–12 classrooms with students, teachers, and administrators from diverse backgrounds in high-poverty areas in New York City, New Jersey, and across the United States. She is actively involved in the National Council of Teachers of English and the American Educational Research Association. Her publications include Schools of Hope: Teaching Literacy in the Obama Era in the edited volume Reading the African American Experience in the Obama Era: A Handbook for Teaching, Learning, and Activism, edited by Peter Lang, Culturally Diverse Children’s Books for Your Classroom Library, School Talk, NCTE, and Why I Teach – The Power of Language, The Reading Teacher. References Baugh, J. (1999). Considerations in preparing teachers for linguistic diversity. In C. T. Adger, D. Christian, & O. L. Taylor (Eds.), Making the connection: Language and academic achievement among African American students: Proceedings of a conference of the coalition on language diversity in education (pp. 81-95). McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics. Baugh, J. (2000). Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Baugh, J. (2003). Linguistic profiling. In S. S. Makoni, G. Ball, & A. K. Spears (Eds.), Black linguistics: Language, society, and politics in Africa and the Americas (pp. 155-168). New York, NY: Routledge.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 92Â

Bean-Folkes, J. (2009). Teaching African American students written Academic English through writing: Three African American students, a researcher, and their teachers, Dissertation Abstracts International, 449. (AAT 3368419). Behizadeh, N. (2014). Mitigating the dangers of a single story: Creating large-scale writing assessments aligned with sociocultural theory. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 125-136. Brown-Jeffy, S., & Cooper, J. E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 65-84. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (Original work published 1986) Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive Black educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 379-385. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press. Delpit, L. (1997). Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction. Rethinking Schools, 12(1), 6-7. Delpit, L. (1998). What should teachers do? Ebonics and culturally responsive instruction. In T. Perry & L. Delpit (Eds.), The real Ebonics debate: Power, language, and the education of African American children (pp. 17-26). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Delpit, L., & Dowdy, L. K. (Eds.). (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York, NY: MacMillan. (Original work published 1938) Du Bois, W. E. B. (1973). Souls of Black folk. Millwood, NY: Kraus-Thomson Organization. (Original work published 1903) Dyson, A. H. (1992). Whistle for Willie, lost puppies, and cartoon dogs: The sociocultural dimension of young children's composing or toward unmelting pedagogical pots. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(4), 433-462. Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dyson, A. H., & Smitherman, G. (2009). The right (write) start: African American language and the discourse of sounding right. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 973-998. Elbow, P. (2002). Vernacular Englishes in the writing classroom: Probing the culture of literacy. In C. Schroeder, P. Bizzell, & H. Fox (Eds.), Alternate discourses and the academy (pp. 1-12). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fecho, B. (2004). Is this English? Race, language, and culture in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 93Â

Fogel, H., & Ehri, L. C. (2000). Teaching elementary students who speak Black English vernacular to write in standard English: Effects of dialect transformation practice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(2), 212-235. Gay, G. (1994). The essence of learning. Bloomington, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gee, J., (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London, England: Taylor and Francis. Goodenough, W. H. (1980). Culture, language and society. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing. Goodman, Y. M. (2003). Valuing language study: Inquiry into language for elementary and middle schools. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Goodman, D. (2006). Language study in teacher education: Exploring the language in language arts. Language Arts, 84(2), 145-156. Gordon, E. W. (1999). Education and justice: The view from the back of the bus. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Greene, S., & Abt-Perkins, D. (Eds.). (2003). Making race visible: Literacy research for cultural understanding. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84. Lareau, A. (2001). Linking Bourdieu's concept of capital to the broader fields: The case of family-school relationships. In B. J. Biddle (Ed.), Social class, poverty, and education: Policy and practice (pp. 77-100). New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer. Lee, C. D. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. 191-225). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lee, C. D. (2003). Why we need to re-think race and ethnicity in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 3-5. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 94Â

Moll, L. C. (1992). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 20-24. Morgan, M. (2002). Language, discourse and power in African American culture. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2010). Common Core state standards for English Language Arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Neito, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Noguchi, R. (1991). Grammar and the teaching of writing: Limits and possibilities. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. Paris, D., & Alim, H. (2014). What Are We Seeking to Sustain Through Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy? A Loving Critique Forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100. Perry, K. H. (2012). What is literacy? - A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language & Literacy Education, 8(1), 51-71. Pinkett, G. L. C. (2002). Supporting African American primary students in meeting the state of Delaware writing standards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware. Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54-66). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Redd, T. M., & Webb, K. S. (2005). African American English: What a writing teacher should know. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Richardson, E. (2003a). African American literacies. New York, NY: Routledge. Richardson, E. (2003b). Race, class(es), gender, and age: The making of knowledge about language diversity. In G. Smitherman & V. Villanueva (Eds.), Language diversity in the classroom: From intention to practice (pp. 40-66). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rickford, J. R., & Rickford, R. J. (2000). Spoken soul: The story of Black English. NewYork, NY: Wiley. Smitherman, G. (1977). Talkin' and testifin': The language of African-American America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Smitherman, G. (1994). The blacker the berry, the sweeter the juice: African American student writers. In A. H. Dyson & C. Genishi (Eds.), The need for story: Cultural diversity in classroom and community (pp. 80-101). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 95Â

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. V. John-Steiner, M. Cole, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (2000). Thought and language (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1986) Wheeler, R. S., & Swords, R. (2006). Code-switching: Teaching standard English in urban classrooms. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Wolfram, W. (1998). Linguistic and sociolinguistic requisites for teaching language. In J. Simmons & L. Baines (Eds.), Language study in middle school, high school, and beyond (pp. 79-109). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 96

Me and my grandfather, Timothy went to Disneyland and it was fun. It was fun because I went swimming with my cousin I went on the rollercoaster and my grandfather flipped my cousin in the water. She was mad. It was funny to me because she had her hair curled, and my grandpa messed up her hair. Her hair was dripping wet. She looked like an evil witch with no smile. I said to my grandfather “ooh your in trouble” and I quickly swam away with my grandfather right behind me My cousin was swimming so fast she caught up to my grandfather and dunked him in the water. It was pretty funny to me. I was laughing at them. Just then they went underwater and they each got a leg and splash I went down in the water but was still laughing while I was still under the water. My cousin said “Why is she still laughing when we got her back.” Everyone was laughing. As my cousin was laughing She snorted. My grand father said “You sound like a pig.” My grandfather turned around and i was not their. He looked nervous. Figure 1. A page from Deshawna’s Writer’s Notebook. An example of the ease she found moving between AAVE and standard English.

Volume 3, Page 97

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Cognitive Enhancement in an Elementary School Setting Kenneth J. Kohutek St. Dominic Savio Catholic High School

Abstract There is mounting evidence indicating the importance of early cognitive skills on future success in both the academic (mathematics and language) and social arenas. These early skills include scanning, attention, inductive reasoning, planning, memory, and problem-solving. Another line of research provides positive outcomes for the direct intervention in the development of these skills. These outcomes have been reported in both behavioral and neurological literature with follow-up studies implicating academic success several years after an intervention. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of the Children’s Cognitive Enhancement Program in improving cognitive and kinesthetic skills in an elementary school. Students were encouraged to work with an adult guide who assisted in the problemsolving process. Findings supported the hypothesis that cognitive skills can be enhanced after completing the program. Keywords: cognitive enhancement, problem-solving, cognitive training, planning, fluid intelligence The relationship between different cognitive skills in the development and maintenance of academic, social, and vocational abilities has been well-documented (Epsy et al., 2004; Gathercole & Pickering, 2000; Jeffries & Everatt, 2004; Meltzer & Krishnan, 2007; Singer & Bashir, 1999). The abilities to remember, process complex information, solve problems, anticipate an outcome of decisions, and “course correct” should a decision be incorrect are essential in an information-filled environment. Described by Wertsch (1985) and espoused by Luria years ago, the human brain and the developing culture work in tandem to provide a citizen of that culture with the abilities to cope with challenges for survival in that setting. Because of the gap between the actual use of problem solving and the relevance of skills such as looking for patterns, scanning and developing a plan of action in a technological culture, an option is to teach those skills (Feuerstein, Feuerstein, & Falik, 2010). Historically, it has been the older generation’s task to teach such skills to their young, and it has been that historic passing on of information that assisted in culture’s advancement (Barkley, 2012). Rather than assisting our youth in developing cognitive skills, the emphasis in the educational system has changed to teaching facts (Kellogg, 2008). However, even a brief review of the relationship between academic subjects and brain function finds that there does not seem to be one specific area of the brain dedicated to storing mathematical facts (Dehaene, 1992; Dehaene, Spelke, Pinek, Stanescu, & Tsivkin, 1999; Rubinsten, 2009), language skills (Dehaene, 2009), or original writing (Hooper, Swartz, Wakely, de Kruif, & Montgomery, 2002). Examples of these efforts

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 98

have provided support for the finding that cognitive skills are precursors to the acquisition of mathematical (Blair, Knipe, & Gamson, 2008; Bull, Epsy, & Wiebe, 2008; Clark, Prichard, & Woodward, 2010; Montague & Dietz, 2009; Passollunghi, 2008) and language skills (Alloway et al., 2006; Chung & McBride-Chang, 2011). Instead of the math or reading parts of the brain, it is the brain’s complex wiring and adaptability that allows these complex behaviors to occur (Dehaene, 2009). The layering of neural circuitry from sensory input to the development of cognitive schema to observable behavior is too complex to specify a specific skill, such as reading comprehension, to become a condition to address (Collins & Rourke, 2003). An example of this is a child not paying attention in the classroom. The behavior of not paying attention becomes the concern without consideration of underlying explanations, such as allergies, hunger, seizure disorder, not understanding the material being covered, or impaired functioning of the prefrontal cortex. An example taken from the medical field would be an individual running a temperature. It would not be the temperature that would be treated, but instead the underlying causes (Fischer & Daley, 2006). When dealing with issues of learning, it is often the symptom and not the underlying cause that is addressed. Even though most individuals would agree with this logic, the categorizing of learning difficulties continues to be placed in large categories, such as “Reading Disorder” (APA, 2000). There are continuing efforts to introduce the teaching of cognitive skills into the formal educational process (Brown, 1997; Eaton, 2011; Fischer & Daley, 2006; Howie, 2011; Kellogg, 2008; Melillo, 2009). These efforts have received empirical support from fMRI (Gaab, Gabriele, Deutsch, Tallal, & Temple, 2007; Keller & Just, 2009) and improved academic skills of students (Gaab et al., 2007; Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Shay, 2011; Thorell, Lindquist, Nutley, Bohlin, & Klingberg, 2009). While many of these efforts are promising, perhaps the most ambitious efforts are by Rueven Feuerstein. The Mediated Learning Experience model has been reported to be successful when dealing with students with very serious learning and/or social impairments (Feuerstein et al., 2010). The model stresses the importance of “mediator” involvement in assisting the student in developing more complex problemsolving skills. The theme of the majority of programs is to assist the student in overcoming difficulties that have been diagnosed with conditions, which interfere with the learning process. There are, however, a large number of students who do not receive assistance because they are not eligible for services. Many of these students experience academic difficulties but do not meet the necessary standardized score differentiation to be considered having a learning impairment. Rather than receive accommodations, this large group of students are considered to be “slow learners” (Singer-Harris, Forbes, Weiler, Bellinger, & Waber, 2001) or unmotivated. Many of these students have been described as experiencing auditory or visual processing deficits (Singer-Harris et al., 2001), working memory difficulty (Alloway et al., 2006; Alloway, Gathercole, Willis, & Adams, 2005; Gathercole & Pickering, 2000; Hunh, 1981), executive skills deficits (Dawson & Guare, 2004; McCloskey, Perkins, & Van Divner, 2009), impaired thinking skills (Polett, 2007) or difficulty with problem-solving (Posamentier, 2009). There appears to be a gap between the current knowledge of how students learn and utilize cognitive skills and an empirically based method in which pre-school and students in the first and second grades can develop those skills. Such an intervention, if implemented during the early formative years of education, could conceivably reduce the need for later remedial efforts (Alloway et al., 2006; Bull et al., 2008; Clark et al., 2010). Because of the gap in programs that can be used to assist students in engaging in effective problem-solving, the Children’s Cognitive Enhancement Program (CCEP) was developed.

Volume 3, Page 99

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

By assisting the student in developing cognitive skills at an early age, the student would be better prepared for classroom instruction that would reduce the likelihood of the student falling behind in the classroom curriculum (Kohutek & Kohutek, 2012 a, b). The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of a program that could be used during the early stages of a child’s academic career. Such a program would be empirically driven and financially reasonable for parents and teachers. Instead of being a remediation program, it was focused on being proactive and preventive by making it available for all students at a crucial time of cognitive development. It was hypothesized that there would be a statistically significant level of improvement in the dependent measures that were considered. Method Participants Recruiting students for the study included a two-step process in that, prior to contacting parents and teachers about the study, a letter of introduction, including the research proposal submitted to the university Institutional Review Board, was submitted to the school administration. After meeting with the administration, a letter of introduction, along with the consent form, was sent to all parents of students enrolled in grades K-2. From the 60 positive responses from parents, 30 students were randomly selected. This study was limited to 30 students because of time allotted for the program. A meeting was held with parents to answer questions concerning the study. During the meeting, parents were informed that there would be no compensation for participating in the study, the results would be kept confidential, and the results of the study would be made available to parents. Lastly, participant families were told that they could voluntarily withdraw at any time throughout the study’s duration. It was noted that none of the participants withdrew from the study. The age of participants at the study’s onset ranged from 5.0 to 7.0 years (mean age = 6.40 years; standard deviation = .74). Of the 30 participants, 12 were male (40 %) and 18 were female (60%). None of the students had reported academic diagnoses or were being seen by a mental health professional. Materials

Three scales from the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Skills—Third Edition (WJIIICog) were selected as dependent measures: Spatial Relations (Subtest 3), Concept Formation (Subtest 5), and Planning (Subtest 19). The WJTCS-3 was selected because: 1) it has been well standardized with an age range from 2 to 90, 2) it is grounded in the Cattell-Horn intelligence model, 3) it is available in most schools, and 4) it provides a developmental zone for each skill assessed (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). These scales were selected because of the relevance each has to specific skills essential to academic success as well as variables addressed in the research manual. Spatial Relations, a measure of Gv (visual-spatial thinking) and Gf (fluid reasoning) requires both abstract and concrete nonverbal reasoning, visual-spatial ability, and spatial scanning. Mastery of this task is essential in reading comprehension, inductive and general reasoning for mathematical

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 100

achievement and basic writing skills developed during elementary school (Schrank, Flanagan, Woodcock, & Mascolo, 2002). Concept Formation (CF), a measure of Gf, requires the student to utilize nonverbal reasoning skills, rule-learning abilities concept formation, and ability to solve problems with unfamiliar or novel procedures. These skills would be useful in both organizing math problems and using specific information in reaching conclusions after reading a passage from a textbook (Schrank et al., 2002). Planning, a measure of both Gf and Gv, requires planning and implementing a solution to a visual task. Similar to a maze test, the student must trace a complex pattern without lifting their pencil in the planning subtest. Unlike the other subtests, planning prior to beginning the task is critical to successful completion. Planning has been shown to be critical in early math achievement (Clark et al., 2010) as well as in higher-level mathematics (Schrank et al., 2002). The Children’s Cognitive Enhancement Program: Primary Levels Research Edition (Kohutek & Kohutek, 2012a) & Children’s Cognitive Enhancement Program Yellow Book: Primary Levels Research Edition (Kohutek & Kohutek, 2012b) were the manuals utilized during the training phase. It is near the age of five years when many students appear capable of exhibiting a wide range of metacognitive skills (Shamir, Mevarch, & Gida, 2009). The approach utilized throughout the manuals most closely follows Fisher’s “meta-teaching model” in which the student is required to explicitly state strategies prior to initiating a task. The purpose of this process is to assist in the development of self-appraisal and selfmanagement (Fisher, 1998). Mediated Learning (Feuerstein et al., 2010) is an integral part of the program. The manuals have been used with individual students or small groups (three or four students) that are supervised by an adult or “guide”. The four levels consist of a number of challenges that require the student to utilize attention, working memory, inductive reasoning. Should the initial response be incorrect, the student is encouraged to rethink the problem and develop an alternative hypothesis to the challenge’s solution. Embedded within the manuals are suggestions for the guide as well as hints for the student to assist in the successful completion of the challenges. Examples of strategies include planning, organizing, prioritizing, shifting, memorizing and reviewing the completed challenge for accuracy. Another strategy embedded in the manual is an emphasis on developing a plan prior to starting the challenge. This time of preparation prior to action is crucial because it allows the student to manage strategies and organize the skills necessary to improve their strategies (Fischer, 1998). It was anticipated that, through systematic, consistent development of these skills across the various challenges, the student would be internalizing a model of his or her reasoning, an essential aspect of metacognition (Zakin, 2007). Many of the challenges require manipulation of a pencil or other writing device while others require manual a geoboard and rubber bands. The importance of being able to use visual-spatial/visualmotor skills and manual dexterity was blended into the program. Procedure There were three portions of the study design: preassessment, completion of the CCEP, and postassessment. The author administered both assessments as well as worked with each student through the manuals. Individual sessions were held biweekly contingent upon the school calendar and the

Volume 3, Page 101

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

student’s availability. Training sessions ranged from 15 to 30 minutes with the specific time frame for each session contingent upon the student’s ability to focus. Each session started with a brief review of progress made the previous session and the strategies used to solve the challenges. While the challenges were divided into four levels, the goal of each session was mastery of the required skills rather than completion of a specific number of pages or levels per session. Some tasks, especially those in the Yellow Book, appeared too difficult for the kindergarten students, with the student stating that it was too difficult or simply turning the page to the next challenge without completing it. At those times, the guide would more directly intervene by breaking the challenge into smaller segments, sharing strategies by “thinking aloud”, and/or demonstrating a strategy to successfully complete that challenge. The average number of sessions per student was 8 with a range of 5 to 10. It was observed that the older students were able to gain mastery of the tasks more quickly than the younger students. The youngest students (5.0 to 5.3) were unable to complete the manuals over the allotted sessions. The postassessmen measure occurred as the student completed the manuals or at the end of the agreed upon 10 sessions. Results Each student completed both the preassessments and postassessments. Repeated t-tests were utilized to compare the changes in the means of each variable. These results suggested that the improvement in each variable was statistically significant (p < .05). CF (t (29) = 5.65; p = .0001) was the variable with the most significant improvement. The change of means from the pre and post measures was 11 standard score points (pre mean = 110, s.d. = 11.3; post mean = 122, s.d. =10.6). The effect size of these two means was large with the Cohen’s d = 1.08. Scores on the Planning subtest were likewise significant with a pre-treatment mean of 108 (s.d. = 9.2) and a posttreatment mean of 113.2 (s.d. = 9.1) (t(29) = 3.29; p = .003). The effect size of these two measures was considered to be medium (d = 0.51). The pre-/post on Spatial Reasoning were significantly different (t(29) = 2.99; p = .006). The effect size (d = 0.70) was in the medium range. Further analysis of the data found that the effect size between the pretreatment means ranged from medium to small (SR/CF d = 0.41; SR/Plan d = 0.30; CF/Plan d= 0.15). However, when comparing the posttreatment means, the effect size for CF was large (S/CF d = 1.15; SR/Plan d = 0.21); CF/Plan d = 0.89). These findings lend additional support to the magnitude of improvement found on the CF subtest. Discussion The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to determine if cognitive skills, as assessed by the WJ III Cog, could be increased, and 2) to assess the efficacy of the CCEP in enhancing cognitive skills in students enrolled in grades K-2. Results indicated that the skills of spatial reasoning, concept formation, and planning could be increased. After the students completed the CCEP, there was a statistically significant (p< .05) increase in each of the three dependent measures considered. This study supported both hypotheses. These findings lend evidence to the growing field of literature supporting the idea that cognitive skills necessary for success in mathematics, reading, and writing can be enhanced. The relevance of these findings cannot be overstressed in that there is potential for many, if not most, students to gain the cognitive skills necessary to succeed in the academic setting.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 102

The inclusion of cognitive enhancement skills in the academic curriculum continues to be an overlooked, valuable portion of the educational process. Posamentire (2009) describes a distinct difference between problem-solving and strategies that may be taught from a text to solve a particular math or reading problem. While efforts to include training of cognitive skills may be found in science and math classrooms, these skills may be downplayed because of the need to teach facts necessary to successfully pass national or statewide standardized tests. It is noted that one school declined participation in the study because of that school’s emphasis on preparing students for the statewide test. While the number of students in each grade was too small for a statistical analysis, it was noted that the average number of sessions differed with the kindergarten children requiring more, as well as briefer sessions. At times, sessions with the younger participants were often only 10 minutes. On the other hand, students in the second grade worked more diligently, completed more challenges each session, and appeared more involved in the process. This observation supports Chevalier & Blaye (2009) who reported that, although verbal labeling enhances performance on some measures, children do not spontaneously resort to verbal rehearsal before the age of seven or eight years of age. Another variable not accounted for in this study was the time of day in which the training occurred. It was observed that kindergarten students appeared less involved in the process during the afternoon which is often recess or less structured classwork. There remain a number of variables to consider when examining this set of data, including the location in which the study was conducted, the small sample size, the lack of a control group, and the CCEP’s ecological validity. Students enrolled in a parochial school are likely a unique sample for any number of reasons. While students were randomly selected from parents who agreed to participate in the study, the fact that they volunteered may also have had an impact on the sample in this study. A number of parents requested additional information concerning the program, progress their child was making through the manuals, and information concerning the pre and post assessments. The location of the specific school in which this study took place may have also resulted in students from an above average family income. The findings are based on a sample size of 30 students, which makes it difficult to generalize to the entire population of the school in which the study was conducted. While the likelihood of getting significant findings with a larger sample being less stringent, the use of a larger sample would be desirable. The selection process for these students may also make it difficult to generalize the findings from this study to a larger sample. It is noted that the study was conducted during the school year. During that time, each student was exposed to their classroom curriculum and experienced cognitive growth as a result of maturation. While not documented statistically, it was noted that, as the school year progressed, students in the first grade as well as the older students in kindergarten became more proficient at the successful completion of tasks in the manuals. Learning the required skills to master these challenges, as well as maturation, may have contributed to this improvement. Future studies might consider including a control group to compare with the experimental group’s overall improvement during an academic year. Finally, the issue of ecological validity must always be considered in this type of research. While the students showed a significant increase in the dependent measures, changes made in the classroom and future successes in academic skills have yet to be investigated utilizing this program. A child’s ability to utilize skills learned in the cognitive training sessions in the classroom is difficult and often difficult to assess (Elliott, Gathercole, Alloway, Holmes, & Kirkwood, 2010).

Volume 3, Page 103

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education Author Biography

Kenneth Kohutek, currently guidance counselor at St. Dominic Savio Catholic High School in Austin, pursued psychology throughout his academic training (Texas A&M University, B.S.; University of North Texas, M.S., Ph.D.) with postdoctoral training in neuropsychology (Fielding Graduate University). His experience includes working in universities, primary/middle and high school, residential treatment centers, hospitals as well as maintaining a private practice for 15 years. His research interest includes the development and assessment of programs designed to enhance cognitive skills in school age children. References Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Adams, A., Willis, C., Eaglen, R., & Lamont, E. (2006). Working memory and phonological awareness as predictors of progress toward early learning goals at school entry. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 417-426. Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C., & Adams, A. M. (2005). Working memory and special educational needs. Educational and Child Psychology, 22, 56-67.

American Psychiatric Association.(2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: 4th Edition. Washington, DC: Author. Barkley, R. (2012). Executive functions: What they are, how they work and why they evolved. New York, NY: Guilford. Blair, C., Knipe, H., & Gamson, D. (2008). Is there a role for executive functions in the development of mathematical ability? Mind, Brain and Education, 2, 80-89. Brown, A. L. (1997). Transforming schools into communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist,52, 399-413. Bull, R., Epsy, K., & Wiebe, S. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers: Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205-228. doi: 10.1080/87565640801982312

Chevalier, N., & Blaye, A. (2009). Setting goals to switch between tasks: Effect of cue transparency on children’s cognitive flexibility. Developmental Psychology, 43, 782-797. Chung, K. K. H., & McBride-Chang, C. (2011). Executive functioning skills uniquely predict Chinese word reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 909-921. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a002474 Clark, C. A. C., Pritchard, V. E., & Woodward, L. J. (2010). Preschool executive functioning abilities predict early mathematical achievement. Developmental Psychology, 46, 11761191. Collins, D. W., & Rourke, B. P. (2003). Learning-disabled brains: A review of the literature. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25 (7), 1011-1034. Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2004). Executive skills for children and adolescents: A practical guide to assessment and intervention. New York, NY. Guilford Press.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 104

Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain. New York, NY: Penguin Press. Dehaene, S. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44, 1-42. Dehaene S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999) Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioural and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970-973. Eaton, H. (2011). Brain School: Stories of children with learning disabilities and attention disorders who changed their lives by improving their cognitive functioning. Vancouver, B.C.: Glia Press. Elliott, J. G., Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Holmes, J., & Kirkwood, H. (2010). An evaluation of a classroom-based intervention to help overcome working memory difficulties and improve long-term academic achievement. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 9, 227-250. Doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.9.3.227 Epsy, K. A., Mcdiarmid, M. M., Cwik, M. F., Stalets, M. M., Hamby, A., & Senn, T. E. (2004). The contributions of executive functions to emergent mathematical skills in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26, 465-486. Feuerstein, R., Feuerstein, R. S., & Falik, L. H. (2010). Beyond smarter: Mediated learning and the brain’s capacity for change. New York, NY: Teachers College Columbia University. Fisher, R. (1998). Thinking about thinking: Developing metacognition in children. Early Child Development and Care, 141, 1-15. Fischer, K. W., & Daley, S. (2006). Connecting cognitive science and neuroscience to education: Potentials and pitfalls in inferring executive processes. In L. Meltzer (Ed.) Understanding executive function: Implications and opportunities for the classroom (p. 55-72). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Gaab, N., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Deutsch, G. K., Tallal, P., & Temple, E. (2007). Neural correlates of rapid auditory processing are disrupted in children with developmental dyslexia and ameliorated with training: An fMRI study. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 25, 295-310. Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2000). Working memory deficits in children with low achievement in the national curriculum at seven years of age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 177-194.

Hooper, S., Swartz, C., Wakely, M., de Kruif, R., & Montgomery, J. (2002). Executive functions in elementary school children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 57-68. Howie, D. R. (2011). Teaching students thinking skills and strategies: A framework for cognitive education in inclusive settings. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley. Hunh, R. H. (1981, December). R2M2P: A meta-cognitive approach for teaching cognitive strategies to facilitate learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Reading Forum (2nd, Sarasota, Fl). http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?ERICExtSearch SearchValue 0=ED211946&ERICExtSearch Search Type 0=no%accno=ED2211946

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 105

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Shah, P. (2011). Short- and long-term benefits of cognitive training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 108, 10081-10086. Jeffries, S., & Everatt, J. (2004). Working memory: Its role in dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties. Dyslexia, 196-214. DOI 10.1002/dys.278 Keller, T. A., & Just, M. A. (2009). Altering cortical connectivity: Remediation-induced changes in the white matter of poor readers. Neuron, 64, 624-631. DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.10.018 Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 1-26. Kohutek, K., & Kohutek, A. M. (2012a). Children’s Cognitive Enhancement Program: Primary levels research edition. Tampa, FL: Authors. Kohutek, K., & Kohutek, A. M. (2012b). Children’s Cognitive Enhancement Program Yellow Book: Primary Levels Research Edition. Tampa, FL: Authors. Melillo, R. (2009). Disconnected Kids: The groundbreaking Brain Balance Program for children with Autism, ADHD, Dyslexia, and other Neurological Disorders. New York, NY: Penguin Press. Meltzer, L., & Krishnan, K. (2007). Executive function difficulties and learning disabilities. In L. Meltzer (Ed.), Executive Function in Education (p. 77-105). New York, NY: Guildford Press. McCloskey, G., Perkins, L. A.,& Van Divner, B. (2009). Assessment and intervention for executive function difficulties. New York, NY: Routledge Press. Montague, M., & Dietz, S. (2009). Evaluating the evidence base for cognitive strategy instruction and mathematical problem solving. Exceptional Children, 75, 285-302. Passolunghi, M. C. (2008). Cognitive abilities as precursors of the early acquisition of mathematical skills during first through second grades. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 229-250. Polett, N. J. (2007). Teaching thinking skills with picture books: K-3.Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited/Teacher Ideas Press. Posamentier, A. S. (2009). Problem solving: Building strategic competence. Vol. 14. Sadlier. Code # 904691. www.sadlier.com. Rubinsten, O. (2009). Co-occurrence of developmental disorders: The case of developmental dyscalculia. Cognitive Development, 24, 362-370. Schrank, F. A., Flanagan, D. P., Woodcock, R. W., & Mascolo, J. T. (2002). Essentials of WJIII Cognitive Abilities Assessment. New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Shamir, A., Mevarch, Z. R., & Gida, C. (2009). The assessment of meta-cognition in different contexts: individualized vs. peer assisted learning. Metacognition Learning, 4, 47-61. DOI 10.1007/s11409-008-9032-2 Singer, B. D., & Bashir, A. S. (1999). What are executive functions and self-regulation and what do they have to do with language-learning disorders? Language, Speech and Hearing in Schools, 30, 265-273. 0161-273.0161- 1461/99/3003-0265

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 106

Singer-Harris, N., Forbes, P., Weiler, M. D., Bellinger, D., & Waber, D. P. (2001). Children with adequate academic achievement scores referred for evaluation of school difficulties: Information processing deficits. Developmental Neuropsychology, 20, 593-603. Thorell, L., Lindqvist, S., Nutley, S. B., Bohlin, G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training and transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12, 106-113. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III: Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasco, IL: Riverside Publishing. Zakin, A. (2007). Metacognition and the use of inner speech in children’s thinking: A tool teachers can use. Journal of Education and Human Development, 1, 1-14.

Volume 3, Page 107

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Urban Charter Schools and Factors that Influence the Achievement of Students from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Backgrounds York Williams West Chester University Abstract Charter schools have become the fastest growing school reform option for many inner-city and minority students who come from families who often lack access to average performing traditional public schools for them. However, charter schools are considered the number one alternative to failing public schools for various reasons. A number of these charter schools are located in urban school communities that are identified as ‘high needs’ and who educate a large percentage of students with special and other needs who come from at-risk backgrounds. The latter is oftentimes complicated by the achievement gap. This analysis will elucidate some of the factors that tend to impact the mission of urban charter schools and extend the discourse around urban education reforms aimed at educating culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students who attend them. Keywords: Culturally Responsive Teaching, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse, Urban School, High-Needs With the mandate on schools required to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) identifies at least five ways in which a school may restructure; one of which is the charter conversion option, whereby a school reopens as an independent entity but still operates within the public school system. Charter schools provide autonomous and alternative education models. Since these schools are governed according to state law, however, many states micromanage charter schools to the point that they are virtually indistinguishable from traditional public schools. A tension arises between NCLB's focus on fundamental restructuring and charter school statutes that do not allow for a complete overhaul of a school's governance structure. This makes charter schools a viable option for school districts and their students who may be limited to attending failing schools. However, this mandate for all students to make AYP, does not provide safeguards for students identified under IDEA to make progress based on their goals, before that school can sanctioned. This is the case where charter schools, as one phenomena, may be paradoxical in nature. For some, the charter may be a safe haven, with its limited budget and shortage of Highly Qualified Teachers (HQT), but for others, the school

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 108

may potentially lead students with disabilities and other needs down a one way street of no return. Charter schools have become the fastest growing school reform option for many innercity and minority parents, who often lack access to average performing traditional public schools. However, charter schools are considered the number one alternative to a failing public school for various reasons; they are free, they offer a culturally responsive curriculum, they uphold high expectations and standards, and most urban charters hold school discipline as the number one priority, often times alongside achievement and performance (Buckley & Schneider, 2006; Finn, Caldwell, & Raub, 2007; Hess &McGuinn, 2002; Snell, 2005; Wells, 2002;Williams, 2013; Wilkens, 2011). As identified in Table 1, a large percentage of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students attend charters schools in states with large minority urban school districts. Students who come from CLD backgrounds, tend to be African American, Latino and or other, who are not members of the majority culture, here, white middle class and those who speak English as their dominant language (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Harry, 2008; Hoge & Coladarci, 1989; Ladson-Billings, 1994). These students form the basis of our nations under-performing groups of students identified by states based on high stakes testing and NCLB (2001) data. The majority of the charters are created in these states and school districts with a focus to close the achievement and performance gap of it’s mostly CLD students. The latter is not inclusive of those CLD students with identified special and or exceptional needs. However, charters find it difficult to keep pace with the demand, as they often accompany long waiting lists and teacher shortages, especially in high needed areas such as science, math, and special education (Finn et al., 2007). Nonetheless, charters have had no shortage of eager parents racing to their doorsteps pleading their case for their child’s enrollment (Finn et al., 2007; Hess & McGuinn, 2002; Williams, 2013). The commitment of volunteer hours and partnerships is a hallmark of charter schools, which allow them to live up to the demands of their charter philosophy. However, to what extent and how successful charter school philosophies have been in the urban school system with students who are disabled and have specific needs is understudied (Barr, Sadovnik & Visconti, 2006; Wilkens, 2011). There is no comprehensive data set that is complete with all of the nations’ charter schools; nor are there accounts of perspectives from parents and students on what makes charter schools successful. But as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and now the reauthorized Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 2010) clearly recognizes that charter schools have become an inescapable aspect of public education. Educational reform movements have significantly pushed for innovation in our schools. Charter schools, now serving nationally over 1.5 million students in more than 5000 schools, have typically been welcomed as a way to deliver this innovation. In large metropolitan cities with school districts that serve over 50% of CLD students, such as Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Houston, charters serve 80% of them (Center for Education Reform, 2011; NCSRP, 2009). Data based on Table 1, indicate the nations’ largest urban school districts and the demographics of the student population that make up its schools. Charter schools in

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 109

those cities are at least 50% minority. However, missing from data on charter schools is the extent to which charter schools located in urban school districts and residentially segregated school communities, have become culturally responsive to the diverse and high needs that their students bring to the school context. Hence, charters, perhaps unwittingly, have been designated as the panacea to assist with closing the ever-growing achievement gap for CLD students who attend urban schools. Additionally, whether willingly or not, the majority of these charter schools report mixed results about their success in closing these gaps in achievement, behavior, and services for these students who bring with them special, exceptional, and English language learning (ELL) needs (Wells, 2002). The author will examine some of the nuances and vignettes that have become characteristic with educating students from CLD backgrounds who attend urban charter schools. Additionally, the author will attempt to elucidate some of the culturally relevant factors that impact the performance of these students. Lastly, the author makes recommendations to charter school reformers, policy makers, and educators to put into practice that can create a conceptual and pedagogical framework that can address some of these challenges through a culturally responsive lens, thereby increasing the achievement of these students, many who are from CLD backgrounds (Garcia & Guerra, 2004; Harry, 2008; Hoge & Coladarci, 1989; Ladson-Billings, 1994). Urban Charter Schools and High Needs Students Charter schools have become one of the most popular school reforms used to repair failing schools and to support poor performing urban school districts (Wells, 2002). While charter schools have not been perceived as the ultimate answer to urban school woes, they have been recognized for their efforts at attempting to close the widening achievement gap between black and white students. Additionally, charter school reform has developed into a unique, yet paradoxical, grassroots effort. Charter schools create educational opportunities for many disadvantaged inner city students who bring with them ‘high needs’ while simultaneously creating competition between themselves and public schools, and between families who choose charters over those families who do not (Wells, 2002; Wells, Lopez, & Holmes, 1999). “High needs” can be understood in terms of students who are not identified with special education learning problems, but who may come from troubled homes, communities, non-traditional families, have behavior, social, emotional or other undefined needs that impact teaching and learning. Nevertheless, charter schools have become a primary urban school reform that is used to address urban school problems such as school inequity, the growing black/white achievement gap, and other issues confronting urban schools. Charters have also become a safe space for the any high-needs students who attend them (Wells, 2002; Wells, Scott, & Slayton, 2002; Williams, 2013). Charter schools are one of the most sweeping national legislative proposals of school reform (Buckley & Schneider, 2006; Snell, 2005; Wells, 2002). Yet this rapid growth has

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 110

created a number of social and political problems for charter schools. Problems such as student accountability around funding, school budget issues, and curriculum are common. On the other hand, there are a number of attractive features not found in many of the nation’s public urban schools that make charter schools of interest too many parents, community members, and educators. More specifically, charter schools generally maintain small class sizes, low teacher to student ratios, teacher’s assistants in each classroom, extracurricular multi-cultural activities, and more, which makes these schools a unique alternative to public schools. Nonetheless, research on charter schools seems to ignore an important aspect that would enable their reform effort to grow, namely, factors that contribute to the success and or failure at educating the population of high needs urban students from CLD backgrounds. Yet, a large percentage of charter schools continues to expand in urban school districts. Charter schools operate under themes that allow them to secure the amount of autonomy within a district. The majority of urban charter schools are considered local education agencies (LEA), which give them autonomy to function as a member of the local public schools and at the same time provides them the autonomy required to be a charter school. For instance, school based decisions, curriculum, special and gifted education services, minor assessments, and policy governing students, teachers, parent collaboration, and other basic school policy decisions, are often left up to the charter school board. With the exception of the federal mandates, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) and the Individual Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004), charters have flexibility on how to provide services to even this protected class of students. Lastly, state laws and administrative regulations that govern all LEA’s must be adhered to by the charter school. Table 1 reveals that charter schools serve a significant number of urban students from CLD backgrounds. This makes charters a viable resource for this demographic of students, but at the same time at risk for not living up to their expectations to close the achievement gaps. Hence, given the aforementioned, charters become the mirror of traditional urban public schools, in their often programmatic response to the achievement gap (Barton, 2003; Education Trust, 2006; Ferguson, 2002; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Lee & Burkham, 2002; Peske & Haycock, 2006). Urban Charter Schools and the Achievement Gap The Achievement Gap (AG) has been given scant attention by universities and colleges across the country for various reasons (Barton, 2003; Education Trust, 2006; Ferguson, 2002; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Lee & Burkham, 2002; Peske & Haycock, 2006). More specifically, students of color and those from CLD backgrounds suffer the most from underachievement in our nations’ public schools. There appears to be no significant difference between the gaps in performance in the areas of reading, writing, and math between urban or suburban CLD students (Barton, 2003; Education Trust, 2006; Ferguson, 2002; Williams, 2008). Once they arrive at the charter school, attributable to a variety of reasons (mainly to pursue a better educational opportunity) charter educators begin to see the extent of the achievement gap on these students,

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 111

some of which come to the school with special and other learning needs (Williams, 2011). This nexus of issues prevalent within high needs urban schools culminate into the achievement gap (Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Fordham, 1988; Fryer & Torelli, 2005; Ogbu, 2004). However, researchers often miss an important link interwoven within this problem; namely, identifying specific variables that affect the achievement of these students while enrolled in urban schools and how these problems continue to travel with students when they transfer to charter, other public, or private schools. Upon closer examination, one can see that the charter schools located in the nations’ largest urban school districts, who are serving the largest proportion of that state’s urban students from CLD backgrounds, may be uniquely positioned to become first responders to this crisis. However, data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES, 2010) reveal that progress based on reading and math measured by high stakes testing, is spurious, and therefore requires further examination and review. One factor that all of these urban charter schools do share in common, is the location of their school, the demographic of the students that they inherit from these school communities, and gaps in performance at some level of the students who choose to enroll in these charter schools. There are of course a number of additional contributing factors that cause the achievement gap, which new urban schools, like charters, cyber schools, and school choice reformers need to become aware. Most importantly, this knowledge begins with understanding the characteristics of students who bring with them the pattern of underachievement in traditional content areas such as math, reading, and writing. According to Thompson (2004), the underlying causes for poor achievement can be linked to ethnic and cultural learning differences and family background linked to socio economic status (SES). Ethnic groups may have different orientations towards schooling that will impact a student’s chances for success. Certain ethnic groups may be apprehensive, or even opposed, to the education system because their home and or cultural backgrounds may see the education system as discriminatory and inequitable. These students have trouble attaining higher education or even finishing high school. Spencer and Castano (2007) maintain that stereotypes can also lead to a misunderstanding of the gap in performance of students from CLD backgrounds. Stereotypes are generalizations about a culture and are often times so ingrained into society that most people regard the assumptions as fact. Stereotyping in the United States occurs in all areas and affects everyone from all walks of life. Everyone at some point will make assumptions based on race, class, and or language. However, stereotypes hinder individuals through labeling and causes a stigma based on that students self-identified group membership and therefore may cause students and families to feel inadequate and less competent in their roles defined by the school. Teachers, parents, and administrators often fuel these stereotypes. Unfortunately, these stereotypical images are widely held, and accepted in our society. It is attitudes on the part of schools, educators, and school administrators that have also been linked to adding to the misunderstanding of the achievement gap (Ford, 2009).

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 112

Other significant theories abound, such as Ogbu’s cultural resistance theory (1987, 2004), peer pressure and acting White(Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992), and Steele’s stereotype threat (1997, 1999); all adding to the research framework centered around the Black, White, and Brown achievement gap (Williams, 2008). An examination of culturally responsive teaching can aid and assist in this endeavor to close the achievement gap, for not only urban charter school teachers, but also urban charter school leaders, administrators, staff, board members, and community members (Williams, 2013). Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) for Urban Charter Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap Gay (2002) discusses how students of color are over identified in special education, an issue associated with educators’ lack of knowledge about, or appreciation for their cultural values and socialization. Such values tend to heavily impact students’ learning behaviors. Gay (2002) maintains that educational quality for students of color in both regular and special education can be improved significantly by using instructional programs and practices that reflect cultural heritages, experiences, and perspectives. One essential instructional program that is discussed within this framework is commonly referred to as culturally responsive teaching (CRT), which proposes an alternative method to educating ethnically diverse students. Gay (2002) discusses two focuses of culturally responsive teaching; how culture and social behavior influence teachers’ attitudes and affects CRT, and how CRT can be used for special education. The best education for ethnically diverse students is just as much culturally responsive as it is developmentally appropriate. In other words, teachers consider cultural orientations, background experiences, and ethnic identities as ways to facilitate their own teaching and learning within the classroom. Gay (2002) maintains that without CRT, education can never reach its potential for students who are not part of the majority or mainstream schools and society. This is but one of a two-fold task for urban charters. Culturally responsive education is defined by Gay, includes using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning more relevant and effective for them (2002). Additionally, Bazron, Osher, and Fliescher (2005) maintain that teaching the whole student is at the nexus of culturally responsive teaching. However, on this view, part of the problem the authors maintain is that teachers are truly unfamiliar with students’ diverse backgrounds and sometimes misclassify cultural differences as misbehaviors, which becomes their focus, rather than teaching students how to excel academically (Bazron et al., 2005). An institutional and individual self-examination of the issues embedded with cultural misunderstanding that tend to create a disconnect teachers and students who come from CLD backgrounds, is a first step toward improvement. Bazron et al. (2005) maintain that it will require a major transformation of our current school of practices. Teachers need to start by setting high expectations for students from CLD backgrounds, which is important for all

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 113

students. The authors also identify poor practices like placing students from CLD backgrounds in lower tracks with unqualified teachers and using poor teaching materials that lack substance and usable content. Furthermore, teachers should “provide a “scaffold” of support that helps students from CLD backgrounds to succeed. The classroom environment is also important to take into consideration in helping students to achieve success. The environment should be a positive classroom community that allows connections to be made between students and teachers. The classroom curriculum needs to also include a variety of cultural values so that all diverse backgrounds are included. This point becomes quite relevant for urban charter schools, as they grapple with how best to familiarize themselves with the diversity that exists within their own school communities. One can see that there are a number of valuable concepts, practices, and ideas that have the potential to address the significant gaps in education that students from CLD backgrounds bring to the charter school located in an urban high needs and or residentially segregated school community (Berliner, 2006, 2009; Williams, 2008). There must be a radical departure from the traditional way all schools function if educators are to address these significant issues embedded in teaching and learning. The data has already demonstrated the positive impact that innovative pedagogy has on urban students from CLD backgrounds attending urban schools. When not practiced, the traditional methods of teaching, communicating, and learning tends to stratify CLD students attending charter schools. When one accounts for the number of urban charter schools located in large districts, what becomes evident is the duty charters have to educate these groups of students. The ensuing discussion will make recommendations for urban charter schools to adopt that address the growing need to confront these issues that are interwoven with underachievement and the achievement gap. The challenge is for urban charters to do so without the race to win awards for making adequate yearly progress (AYP) based only on High Stakes Tests (HST), but to make education meaningful and measurable for the many students from CLD backgrounds that is sustainable, renewable, and life-long. Recommendations for Urban Charter Schools: Closing the Gaps Across Variable of Race, Class, Gender, Orientation, Ability and Disability There exist no one set of recommendations that can address or redress the issues interwoven within the achievement gap for students who come from CLD backgrounds. However, as has been argued here, the knowledge and understanding, coupled with a rigorous curriculum and culturally responsive teaching, can begin the critical deconstruction and restoration. Charters have this task as the nations’ largest urban education reform movement, and one that is not going away anytime soon (Buckley & Schneider, 2006; Finn et al., 2007; Hess & McGuinn, 2002; Snell, 2005; Wells, 2002; Wells et al., 1999; Wilkens, 2011; Williams, 2013). The following recommendations are meant as a guide and framework for further discussion.

Volume 3, Page 114

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

1. Develop a set of inclusive practices that address and identify the beliefs, assumptions and valued experiences of the community of diverse students that charters serve (Williams, 2007). 2. Develop a site based school leadership team that will adopt policies and practices that incorporate how to address the needs of at-risk students who bring dimensions of failure and poor academic performance to the charter school. 3. Adopt a stance of dynamic thinking vs. deficit thinking based on students’ needs (Ford, 2009). 4. Create an ad hoc curriculum diversity committee that can examine the ways that the charter schools unique curriculum, coupled with high state standards, benchmarks, and rigorous assessments, can connect with the backgrounds of the students it serves. 5. Invest in culturally responsive teacher-training and leadership in areas of special education, English Language Learners (ELL), and Gifted Education for students from CLD backgrounds (Williams, 2008). 6. Develop a Response to Intervention (RTI) Model that incorporates aspects of culturally relevant informal assessment, as well as formal assessment, to use to address the discrepancies between learner performance and achievement, as well as habits of mind, disposition, and student affect (Montani & Frawley, 2011). 7. Develop culturally responsive family collaboration that unites the goals, ideas, and values held by the charter school, with those of the diverse parents it serves. 8. Create a culturally responsive and positive school wide behavior support system (PSWBS) that can act as a buffer for students who may exhibit behaviors that are contrary to standards before the practice of “counseling out” begins. 9. Develop professional development partnerships with local LEA’s, universities, and colleges that can enhance the charter’s mission about diverse approaches to teaching and learning while utilizing Best Teaching Practices that are evidenced and research based (NCLB, 2001). 10. Create a cadre of diverse faculty that is reflective of the community, neighborhood, and city residents that are in tune with the greater and immediate charter school community (Keith, 1996; Williams, 2008, 2013). Summary Charter schools have become recognized by school districts, policy makers, legislators and parents, as one of the most viable means to provide a free appropriate public education for students from all backgrounds (Buckley & Schneider, 2006; Finn et al., 2007; Hess &McGuinn, 2002; Snell, 2005; Wells, 2002; Wells et al., 1999; Wilkens, 2011; Williams, 2013). However, very little attention has been focused on the very unique nature of urban education and its impact on the significant number of charter schools who find themselves located in these urban school districts which tend to possess pockets of high needs school-communities, and are perplexed by

Volume 3, Page 115

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

the onerous achievement gap (Williams, 2013). No matter how complex and how old this crisis remains in urban education, the gap can be closed; but not through a narrow focus on HST, more teachers, more money and the development of more education laws and mandates that replace NCLB. The achievement gap can be closed by starting with a few of the recommendations listed here. Based on the data, discussions, and qualitative narratives listed here, one of the most efficient means to address the pernicious gap in achievement between Black, White and Brown students is through critical culturally responsive teaching and assessment complemented with relevant community and family partnerships. The mere notion of a new charter school located in a poor urban or ‘segregated suburban’ school community cannot alone impart radical education reform. The education reform must be born from the education reformers whom, along with the charter school as an organization, must possess teachers and school leaders that adopt a pedagogical and conceptual framework that employs culturally responsive teaching. Author Biography York Williams, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Special Education & School Leadership at West Chester University, conducts research primarily in gifted and special education and urban school choice reform. Dr. Williams is the author of "Urban Charter Schools: African American Parents' School Choice Reform" (2013) and has written over two dozens of research papers and articles and presented them at numerous conferences and workshops nationwide. References Barton, P. E. (2003). Parsing the achievement gap. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Bazron, B., Osher, D., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Creating culturally responsive schools. Educational Leadership, 63(1), 83-84. Berliner, D. C. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 949-995. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Berliner, David C. (2009). Poverty and potential: Out-of-school factors and school success. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [10/12/13] from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-andpotential Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2006). Are charter school parents more satisfied with schools?: Evidence from Washington, DC. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(1),57-78. Center for Education Reform. (2011). Retrieved 3/27/14 from http://www.edreform.com/. Center on Reinventing Public Education. (2009). National charter school research project.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 116

Retrieved from http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/wp_ncsrp8_closingtrouble_apr08_0.pdf Education Trust. (2006). The funding gaps 2006. Washington, DC: Author. Ferguson, R. (2002). Addressing racial disparities in high-achieving suburban schools. NCRELPolicy Issues, 1, 3-11. Finn, J. E., Caldwell, C., & Raub, T. (2007). Why parents choose charter schools for their children with disabilities. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 6(2), 91107. Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising practices and programs. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J., III. (1996). Perceptions and attitudes of Black students toward school, achievement, and other educational variables. Child Development, 67(3), 11411152. Ford, D. Y., & Kea, K. D. (2009). Creating culturally responsive instruction: For students' and teachers' sakes. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(9), 1-16. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289-306. Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of ‘acting White’”. The Urban Review, 18, 176-203. Fryer, R. G., Jr., & Torelli, P. (2005). An empirical analysis of “acting White”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Garcia, S. B., & Guerra, P. L. (2004). Deconstructing deficit thinking: Working with educators to create more equitable learning environments. Education and Urban Society, 36, 150-16 Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting the stage. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 613-629. Harry, B. (2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children, 74, 372-388. Hess, M. F., & McGuinn, P. (2002). Muffled by the din: The competitive non-effects of the Cleveland voucher program. Teachers College Record,104(4), 727-730. Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297-313 Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (Eds.). (1998). The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Keith, N. (1996). Can urban school reform and community development be joined? The potential of community schools. Education & Urban Society, 28(2), 237-268. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dream keepers: Successful teachers for African-American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 117

Lee, V. E., & Burkham, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox among Black adolescents. Sociology of Education, 63(1), 44-61. Montani, T.O., & Frawley, P. (April, 2011). Culturally relevant informal assessment practices incorporated into educational evaluations. National Harbor, MD: Annual Council for Exceptional Children. National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010- 451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (2010). The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010-458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 18(4), 321-334. Ogbu, J. U., (2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting White” in Black history, community, and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1-35. Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Snell, L. (2005). Defining the education market: Reconsidering charter schools. CATO Journal, 25(2), 267-277. Spencer, B., & Castano, E. (2007). Social class is dead. Long live social class! Stereotype threat among low socioeconomic status individuals. Social Justice Research, 20, 418–432. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance of women and African Americans. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. Steele, C. M. (1999). Thin ice: “Stereotype threat” and Black college students. Atlantic Monthly, 284(2), 50-54. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47(6), 723-729. Thomas, S., & Dykes, F. (2010). Promoting successful transitions: What can we learn from RTI to enhance outcomes for all students? Preventing School Failure, 55(1), 1-9. Thompson, G. L. (2004). Through ebony eyes: What teachers need to know but are afraid to ask about African American students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. U.S. Department of Education (2004). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved on April 8, 2013 from: http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtm U.S. Department of Education (2010). Reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act (ESEA). Retrieved on April 8, 2013 from http://www.ed.gov/blog/topic/esea-reauthorization/

Volume 3, Page 118

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 28-33. Wells, A.S. (2002). Where charter school policy fails. New York, NY: Teachers College. Wells, A. S., Lopez, S., Scott, J., & Holmes, J. (1999). Charter schools as post modern paradox: Rethinking social stratification in an age of deregulated school choice. Harvard Education Review,69(2), 172-204. Wells, A. S., Scott, J., & Slayton, J. (2002). Defining democracy in the neoliberal age: Charter school reform and educational consumption. American Education Research Journal, 39(2), 337-361. Wilkens, C. (2011). Students with disabilities in urban Massachusetts charter schools: Access to regular classrooms. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(1), 14-38. Williams, E. R. (2007). Unnecessary and unjustified: African American parental perceptions of special education. Educational Forum, 71, 250-261. Williams, Y. (2008). An analysis of social cultural issues encountered by special education students of color living in residentially segregated communities. In V. Ikpa & K. McGuire (Eds.), Advances in educational leadership and policy: K-16 issues impacting student achievement in urban communities. New York, NY: Information Age Publications. Williams, Y. (2013). Urban charter schools: African American parent’s school choice reform. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic Publishing. Table 1 Major urban cities and charter school enrollments State

Major Urban City(s)

Number of Charters in State

New York Illinois California Philadelphia Florida Texas Michigan North Carolina Maryland Washington

New York Chicago Los Angeles Pennsylvania Miami Houston Detroit Charlotte Baltimore District of Columbia

124 95 733 132 396 416 265 99 34 97

Total % of Minority Students Attending Charters in the state compared to public schools 90% to 48% 94 % to 46% 65% to 72% 56% to 26% 57% to 55% 83% to 66% 53% to 30% 39% to 46% 84% to 52% 50% to 48%

Adapted from the National Charter School Research Project (NCSRP, 2009).

Volume 3, Page 119

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION GUIDE

GENERAL FORMATTING:           

American Psychological Association (APA) Sixth Edition Publication Guidelines Microsoft-Word or compatible format Letter-size (8.5 x 11 inches) format 1.15 spaced text Times New Roman, 12-point font One-inch margins Two spaces following end punctuation Left justification Single column Portrait orientation Third-person

MANUSCRIPT ORDER: 

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).



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.

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Volume 3, Page 120

Following the two spaces, list 3 or 4 keywords or key phrases that you would use if you were searching for your article online.



Body of Paper (sections) ALL of the following sections MUST be present or your manuscript WILL be rejected. o Introduction o Review of Literature o Methods o Results o Discussion



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.



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.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: 

  

Headings o Strictly follow APA sixth edition guidelines to format headings. Five levels of headings are allowed, per APA guidelines. Abbreviations and/or Acronyms o Abbreviations and/or acronyms should be defined at first mention and used consistently thereafter. Footnotes/Endnotes o Do not use footnotes or endnotes. English Language Support o If your native language is not English, you may want to make use of CSI’s in-house editing service to increase the quality of your paper. o The use of these services is elective and in no way guarantees acceptance for publication.

Volume 3, Page 121

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 3, Page 122

Journal of Scholastic Inquiry: Education

Theory and Practice of Teaching an Investigation into Quality Assurance in Internet-Based Education as Defined by Higher Education Organizations Sharon Lilly Fountain, University of North Carolina –Pembroke Theory and Practice of Teaching Critical Thinking in a College of Business Joanne Reid, Corporate Development Associates Phyllis Anderson, Corporate Development Associates What Pre-service Education Students Say about Critical Pedagogy and Content: American Indian Boarding Schools through a Critical Lens Gary W. Cheeseman, The University of South Dakota Our Eyes on the Prize Jane Bean-Folkes, Rowan University Cognitive Enhancement in an Elementary School Setting Kenneth J. Kohutek, St. Dominic Savio Catholic High School

Urban Charter Schools and Factors that Influence the Achievement of Students from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Backgrounds York Williams, West Chester University

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

ISSN: 2330-6564