In this qualitative study, I employed ethnographic techniques (i.e., data collection, participant observation, interviewing, and collection of archived material and digital artifacts stored in Schoology). I drew from communities of practice and identity frameworks to examine focal participants' literacy practices when participating in the online space of Schoology and provided screenshots to showcase this participation. I examined email exchanges that were co-created by teacher and student that demonstrated their reliance on a digital tool to continue the teaching and learning processes. I exhibit screenshots of focal participants' engagement with the revision process as they used Schoology’s and Microsoft Word's digital editing tools. Finally, I examined focal participants' participation in Schoology's online discussion forum to highlight how they revealed aspects of their identities and performed these identities in a mainstream-learning environment as well.
My analysis establishes that focal participants' access to an LMS like Schoology and other digital spaces (e.g., email) supports the language learning and literacy practices of reclassified ELLs. In addition, my analysis of focal participants' digital and communication practices shows that they contributed to their agency, positioned themselves as empowered and knowledgeable learners, and performed the role of "peer as mentor" when providing feedback to their peers. Finally, in my analysis of focal participants' inventories of digital literacy practices, I discovered that their engagement in Schoology for the purposes of learning and communication reinforced their language learning, both traditional and digital literacies, and overall academic achievement. Findings of this study emphasizes the importance of technology integration at the secondary level so that all students have equal access to digital and multimodal ways of learning in today's digital age.
The oppressive legislative policies and polarizing media narratives of undocu/DACAmented Latinx im/migrants in the United States have created unfavorable campus climates, which have further marginalized those students in higher education who fit into this category. As a result of Donald Trump’s presidency and rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that soon followed, undocu/DACAmented Latinx students are experiencing an increase in stress, anxiety, and fear to the point that they become silent, depressed, and feel the need to advocate more for their existence and worth on campus. My critical ethnographic case study investigates the everyday experiences of Mexican undocu/DACAmented students enrolled at a public university in Arizona – a state that borders Mexico – as they pursue their undergraduate degrees in the Trump era. This study is guided by critical race theory and LatCrit, sense of belonging, and resistance capital theoretical frameworks, and seeks to answer the following: (a) how race and racism shape their collegiate experiences, (b) where these collegians find belongingness to persist towards graduation while navigating an anti-im/migrant sociopolitical climate, and (c) how these students exercise agency via their activism efforts. The broader case study includes individual collaborative interviews, twelve months of participatory field observations, and a collection of documents. This study aims to expand the field of higher education’s understanding of how federal, state, and institutional policies and policymakers affect undocu/DACAmented students’ experiences in and persistence through college, highlight the agency exercised and assets these collegians bring with them to college, and offer research, policy, and practical recommendations for higher education and student affairs institutional agents.
shift in how teacher evaluation policies govern the evaluation of their performance.
Spurred by federal mandates, teachers have been increasingly held accountable for their
students’ academic achievement, most notably through the use of value-added models
(VAMs)—a statistically complex tool that aims to isolate and then quantify the effect of
teachers on their students’ achievement. This increased focus on accountability ultimately
resulted in numerous lawsuits across the U.S. where teachers protested what they felt
were unfair evaluations informed by invalid, unreliable, and biased measures—most
notably VAMs.
While New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system was labeled as a “gold standard”
due to its purported ability to objectively and accurately differentiate between effective
and ineffective teachers, in 2015, teachers filed suit contesting the fairness and accuracy
of their evaluations. Amrein-Beardsley and Geiger’s (revise and resubmit) initial analyses
of the state’s teacher evaluation data revealed that the four individual measures
comprising teachers’ overall evaluation scores showed evidence of bias, and specifically,
teachers who taught in schools with different student body compositions (e.g., special
education students, poorer students, gifted students) had significantly different scores
than their peers. The purpose of this study was to expand upon these prior analyses by
investigating whether those conclusions still held true when controlling for a variety of
confounding factors at the school, class, and teacher levels, as such covariates were not
included in prior analyses.
Results from multiple linear regression analyses indicated that, overall, the
measures used to inform New Mexico teachers’ overall evaluation scores still showed
evidence of bias by school-level student demographic factors, with VAMs potentially
being the most susceptible and classroom observations being the least. This study is
especially unique given the juxtaposition of such a highly touted evaluation system also
being one where teachers contested its constitutionality. Study findings are important for
all education stakeholders to consider, especially as teacher evaluation systems and
related policies continue to be transformed.