University of California Santa Cruz Examining College 1
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ EXAMINING COLLEGE 1 INSTRUCTORS’ PEDAGOGICAL DECISION- MAKING A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in SOCIOLOGY by Megan Alpine June 2020 The Dissertation of Megan Alpine is approved: _______________________________________ Professor Rebecca London, chair _______________________________________ Professor Herman Gray _______________________________________ Professor Heather Shearer ___________________________________ Quentin Williams Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..iii List of Figures………………………………………………………………………...iv Abstract………………………………………………………………………………..v Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………vi Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 2: History of Core…………………………………………………………...12 Chapter 3: Theory……………………………………………………………………49 Chapter 4: Methods…………………………………………………………………..70 Chapter 5: Explicit, Implicit, and Oppositional Approaches to Teaching the College 1 Learning Outcomes………………….……………………………………………..85 Chapter 6: The Impact of Sense of Autonomy on Classroom Practices……………124 Chapter 7: Teaching Chinese International Students in an Untracked College 1 Course………………………………………………………………………………175 Chapter 8: Conclusion………………………………………………………………239 Appendix A: Participant recruitment materials…………………………………….269 Appendix B: Interview protocols…………………………………………………...273 References…………………………………………………………………………..277 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: A timeline of reforms to the Core course, 1965-2016…………………14-16 Figure 2: Changes in the three-quarter average enrollment of international undergraduate students as compared to all undergraduate students at UCSC, 1995-96 to 2018-19…..………………………………………………………………26 Figure 3: Changes in the three-quarter average enrollment of international undergraduate students at UCSC, 1995-96 to 2018-19……………………………...26 Figure 4: Pathways for Composition 1, Composition 2, and ELWR satisfaction under the Academic Literacy Curriculum…………………………………………………..38 Figure 5 College affiliations of participants in qualitative sample…………………..75 Figure 6: College affiliations of survey respondents………………………………...76 Figure 7: Demographics of study samples as compared to UCSC lecturers………...77 Figure 8: Codes and sub-codes used for qualitative analysis……………………82-83 Figure 9: Summary of instructors’ responses to questions about untracking………193 Figure 10: Document providing overview of College 1 Implementation study……271 iv ABSTRACT Examining College 1 Instructors’ Pedagogical Decision-Making Megan Alpine Since the founding of UC Santa Cruz in 1965, first-year undergraduate students have enrolled in a class called Core: a seminar offered by their college that introduces students to the theme of the college and, in recent decades, college-level writing. Beginning in Fall 2018, Core was reformed into a new course called College 1. Unlike Core, College 1 focuses on academic reading rather than writing and includes a common set of learning outcomes designed around the “ACMES:” analysis, critical thinking, metacognition, engagement across difference, and self- efficacy. This dissertation examines the implementation of College 1 from the perspectives of the instructors who first taught it in Fall 2018. Drawing from interviews, classroom observations, and an original survey, I examine how instructors understood the College 1 learning outcomes and taught these in their classrooms. This study sheds light on the process of implementing curricular change in higher education and, more broadly, on how individuals’ sensemaking shapes change in institutions. Three main findings emerged from this study: College 1 instructors tended to adopt explicit, implicit, or oppositional approaches to teaching the course learning outcomes; instructors’ classroom practices were related to their sense of autonomy over their classes; and a central challenge articulated by instructors was the integration of Chinese international students into their untracked classes. From these findings, I offer practical recommendations for future professional development trainings for College 1 instructors. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of many faculty members and friends who were exceptionally generous with their time, energy, and expertise. I first want to thank Rebecca London for volunteering to chair this dissertation, encouraging me to persist through significant challenges, and offering thoughtful feedback on every piece of writing I sent her way. Rebecca, I am immensely grateful for your willingness to stick with me through this dissertation – even when it turned out to be a completely different dissertation project than what you originally signed up for! Thank you, too, to Herman Gray, Heather Shearer, Dana Takagi, and Eva Bertram, who served on my dissertation and qualifying exam committees and each pushed my thinking in productive new directions. My colleagues and friends across departments at UCSC have helped me in ways too numerous and profound to account for here. Thank you to my Sociology cohort, Julian Rodriguez, Shun-Nan Chiang, Saugher Nojan, and Yi-Chen Liu, who read so, so many drafts of my writing in the early years; to Mecaila Smith, Ethan Chang, Megan McNamara, Kyle Galindez, James Sirigotis, Aida Mukharesh, Mario Avalos, Justin Obcena, Carla Sette, and Sophia Magnone, who helped me think through many problems and offered relentless encouragement; to my faculty mentors in the Writing Program, Mark Baker, Toby Loeffler, and Amy Vidali, who understood the challenges of balancing research and teaching; and to Sociology staff Meenoo Kohli and Barbara Laurence, who helped me navigate the bureaucracy. vi Barbara – I don’t think I could have made it this far without your support over the last six years. Thank you for believing in me when I was ready to quit! Outside of academia, I have endless gratitude for my family, friends, and teammates who offered much-need support, distraction, and patience with my gripes. Thank you to my parents for supporting my decisions to pursue (and stick with) graduate school. Thank you to my roller derby family, who helped build my confidence in all areas of life, allowed me to see the bigger picture beyond grad school, and kept me laughing through difficult times. Thank you to Maxie Corbin, my partner and constant cheerleader. Lastly, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to all of the instructors who participated in this study of College 1. To the ten instructors I observed and interviewed: not only did your generosity with your time and insights make this dissertation possible, but witnessing your teaching has profoundly changed my own pedagogy. I was deeply inspired by the dedication, brilliance, care, and thoughtfulness each of you showed toward your students in College 1. Thank you for welcoming me into your classrooms. vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In Fall 2018, first-year students at UC Santa Cruz walked into a course that was new to students and instructors alike: a class focused on academic reading skills called College 1. College 1 is a result of two years of faculty and administrators’ deliberations over how best to reform a course called “Core” – a writing-centered course that had been offered since the founding of UCSC in 1965 and was aligned with the theme of each UCSC college.1 A key impetus for these deliberations was the criticism, shared by many faculty and administrators, that the Core course was wildly inconsistent across the colleges. The course did not have a common set of learning outcomes (apart from those tied to the Composition requirement it fulfilled), unevenly emphasized writing skills, and took many different forms and credit loads across colleges; it also “tracked” students according to their writing abilities, which resulted in inadvertent segregation along lines of race and class.2 These deliberations around reforming Core culminated in a proposal for an overhaul of the undergraduate first- year curriculum, put forth by the Council of Provosts and the Writing Program, that became known as the Academic Literacy Curriculum (ALC). The ALC replaces the Core course with College 1, re-interprets the writing requirements for UCSC undergraduate students, and creates new pathways for students to fulfill these requirements. College 1, as defined in the ALC, teaches what ALC authors call the “ACMES” – analysis, critical thinking, metacognition, engagement with others across 1 Core has been offered throughout the history of UCSC, with several exceptions. The “History of Core” chapter describes changes to this course since 1965, including several colleges’ decision to eliminate Core for a few years during the 1970s. 2 Elizabeth Abrams, interview with author, February 15, 2019. 1 difference, and self-efficacy – alongside academic reading skills (Abrams et al. 2017:5). The premise of the College 1 curriculum is the claim that, in order to become college-ready writers, undergraduate students must first become more adept readers of academic texts. On paper, College 1 appears as a consistent, campus-wide curriculum centered on the ACMES and on reading, with slight variations in material according to the theme of each UCSC college. In practice, sections of College 1 vary enormously both across and within colleges. Instructors differ significantly in their interpretations of the College 1 curriculum; these include differences in their assignments, use of class time,