May 29:
This blog has two parts:
- Using the process that we discussed in class on May 24th, write a blog post review of “English teacher educators’ collaboration to counteract colorblind dispositions among White pre-service teachers.” Here is the criteria from English Education, the journal to which this was submitted:
When evaluating theoretical/empirical articles for publication in EE, reviewers consider the following dimensions:
- Significance/relevance to English teacher education/teacher learning
- Theoretical/conceptual framework (connections to relevant research/scholarship)
- Methods (if manuscript is an empirical study)
1. Appropriateness to questions
2. Adequate description of methods (including data collection and analysis)
3. Rigor of method
- Findings/conclusions are literature- or data-based
- Overall advancement and contribution to the field: Originality and innovativeness of the argument
- Writing style/composition/clarity
- Then, look at the reviews. What did you learn from other reviewers? What could you add to the conversation about this particular piece?
-Significance/relevance to English teacher education/teacher learning:
ReplyDeleteConsidering the overwhelming number of white individuals going into public education I feel this is a very significant and relevant topic. English teachers given their content have a special ability (and responsibility) to incorporate such topics within their class work and discussions.
-Theoretical/conceptual framework (connections to relevant research/scholarship):
Clear explanation of how the researchers arrived with the four studies for in-depth review. These reviews were clear, as were the definition of various terms. The themes of the studies were tied together well, and I particularly liked the clear and concise list (p.8) of conclusions. The analysis of the literature and research clearly outlines the previous ‘gap’ and need for the authors study. I also like the last portion of the Lit. review section in which the authors clearly outline the rest of their format and process for the study. It adds in my opinion to their rational. Lastly, providing the positinality for each author seems to add to their grounded theory, and again in my opinion adds to their rational and the authenticity of their research and study
-Methods (if manuscript is an empirical study)
The method was interesting, and while I understand the self-guided ideas (I think I do anyway)… I wonder if the results did not come out as the authors had hoped because maybe it was too self-guided? From my understanding of the results it seems the teachers were not as ‘critically self-reflective’ as the authors had hoped. It seems they were missing the authors intended mark when it came to the discussion of race and gender in the poem and song, and I am thinking maybe there could have been a little more critical feedback on the professors part to help push/guide them.
1.Appropriateness to questions: Very good question, as stated earlier seems to certainly fit within the ‘gap’ outline in the literature review.
2. Adequate description of methods (including data collection and analysis): well described and clearly thought out. Justified and explained by research.
3. Rigor of method: Personally I am still not completely sold on the method. I still wonder if more feedback and critical ‘push’ from the professor could have pushed the participants to go where they seem they were likely uncomfortable to go on their own (gender/ race discussions). I thought it was interesting the author described her own experienced on pg. 14 “I felt morally and socially responsible for addressing this omission in my teaching but simultaneously overwhelmed by this responsibility.” Which I imagine is possibly much like the pre-service teachers were feeling when it comes to discussion of race and gender at this point in their training (limited experience, being pre-service teachers themselves)… I’m wondering if the overwhelming feeling may lead to insecurity, which kept the teachers from addressing those particular topics.
-Findings/conclusions are literature- or data-based: Yes, clear as evidence f the vignettes, and participants quotes and self-reflections in the tables.
-Findings/conclusions are literature- or data-based: Yes, clear as evidence f the vignettes, and participants quotes and self-reflections in the tables.
Delete- Overall advancement and contribution to the field: Originality and innovativeness of the argument:
The authors were very reflective upon this experience, and clearly explained in the section lilted “Together: Collaboration towards new pedagogies and positionalitites” how the results and insights gained for their study can be used in future work and research. They discussed how the study afforded them necessary space to discuss, share, and develop new practices, while also finding and addressing critical blind spots. All this information they can use in future research and practice, which certainly are and lead to further contributions in the field.
-Writing style/composition/clarity: The writing in this article is very clear. The research, background and rational are clearly thought out and developed. The writing style is clear and easy to follow, and the added footnotes help to clarify important phrases and aspects. The authors also did a nice job of explaining the format within the writing, helping to guide the reader through their process.
The research question of this article is relevant to English teacher educators (and relevant to all teacher preservice educators): “How do English preservice teachers identify colorblindness among White preservice teachers, and develop pedagogical interventions to counteract this disposition”. The authors support their case that despite the emergence of Youth of Color as the majority of students, the teacher force remains predominately White, thus promoting experiential and cultural blind spots in teaching methods.
DeleteThe literature review does a good job summarizing the four chosen articles and distilling their findings, although, I am unsure if only four sources is sufficient to establish the full picture of the existing literature. The lit review does establish four themes in the literature that I was expecting the authors to dig into. However, I feel like their own findings just confirmed what they found in the lit review. They did not unpack their findings enough to move the knowledge base further ahead. For example, lit review #2: White teachers employ strategies and techniques to avoid discussing race/ and dismiss the significance of race. This was confirmed in the authors’ findings when they expressed their dismay at their participants’ reluctance to directly address issues of colorblindness and racism.
As a reader, I was interested in WHY the participants avoided directly confronting this (fear, embarrassment, not recognizing it?).
Also, I feel the chosen methodology is poorly aligned to answer the research question. The chosen method (Self-study?) focused more on examining the researchers positionality and reflexivity, than on getting to heart of the question. The co-authors are already knowledgeable about this topic. An examination of their reflexivity is less interesting the and examination of their participants’ knowledge (or lack of) culturally sensitive pedagogy, bias, etc. The methods and study design lacked going “all the way” to try and answer their research question.
Like Abby said, I feel that the authors pulled their punches. A more critical and direct approach, and a better suited methodology (Action Research?) would have gone deeper into the question, and provided more a compelling discussion to the reader.
The article was well written from a technical standpoint, however, for me, the clarity suffered a little. At times, I was unsure with what exactly it was the authors wanted to know.
Chris,
DeleteI agree that that method the authors chose to use in this study tells more about them than their students. I would think they would want to focus on other educators of pre-service teachers to see how they identify the students that are color blind towards race, and how they intervene.
The only thing I disagree with is your assessment of writing clarity. I found a few places where I felt that the authors were either wrong or hadn't made their argument clearly. I always leave open the possibility that may failure to understand could be "user error" but it happened a few times in this piece. I also agree with Chris that the authors may not have chosen the best path to the answers they were seeking...
DeleteDisclaimer: I wrote this before the directions were posted. I cut a bunch and I think I have covered everything.
ReplyDeleteAmerican public schools are becoming increasingly diverse while the teaching corps remains overwhelmingly white. This is well documented but I found the presentation of this in the article to be a bit unclear. First, the authors state that “White teachers have become the face of the public school teaching force in the U.S.”. This sentence seems to imply that there was a time when Whites made up a smaller percentage of teachers in the United States. The authors follow this with a chart showing a small decrease in the percentage of teachers who are white over the span of 25 years. The next sentence claims that 84% of teachers are “White and female” but the supporting table shows whites making up 81.9% of public school teachers in 2011-2012. This is at best unclear and at worst incorrect. On page 3 the authors state that “the dramatic demographic shifts within the teaching force and pipeline to teaching, relative to the student body population is unprecedented.” This sentence seems to indicate that the “dramatic demographic shift” is occurring among teachers rather than students when the demographic shifts are nearly all on the student side. The authors have a strong argument for the importance of their study. It would, however, benefit from some greater clarity in writing and the correction of what appears to be some inconsistency in the statistics used to support their claims.
In the study, the authors sought to examine the role of collaborating instructors in countering “colorblind dispositions” among preservice English teachers at what is described as a “primarily white institution”. The study took place in an introductory English course offered through the school of education. The authors indicated that the class all self-identified as white. I wonder at what point this self-identification took place. Were the students surveyed at the beginning of the semester? Was the information gleaned from their applications to the college or the school of education? If the students were queried by the instructor at the beginning of the class, it is possible that this could have contributed to their reluctance to critically engage with the course content and may have exacerbated the “circling of the wagons” phenomenon. I would also be interested to learn more about the course itself beyond its position as an early course in the program. Was this course required of all students in the program or did these students select the course out of a number of possible options? Based on the data- my hunch is that it is required of all candidates but it would be nice to hear more about how these students ended up where they are. I would also be interested to know the demographics of the program. Is it common for every student in a course to identify as white? The authors do an excellent job of positioning themselves (as they should in a self study) in the context of the study. It would be helpful to hear more about where they were studying.
part 2:
DeleteI question whether this implementation of self-study allowed the researchers to collect the data necessary to thoroughly answer their research question.
Why was the study conducted just over the course of a single semester? The authors sought to “develop pedagogical interventions to counteract” colorblindness but the study seems to be limited to an examination of colorblindness in the course. Why was the in-class reflective writing assignment given prior to providing feedback on the first assignment. If this study spanned multiple semesters where the authors could have collaboratively designed interventions to “counter” colorblindness, this approach would have made more sense. Based on the data gleaned from the first assignment, the responses to the second were not surprising. If this was a study examining the prevalence of colorblind dispositions among preservice English teachers this approach would be perfectly adequate. The added goal of addressing pedagogical interventions would have been better addressed in a longer study.
Another approach that could have added more depth to the data would have been to interview the participants. The authors convincingly established the prevalence of “colorblindness” among the 14 students in the class. Limiting the student voice to what they produced in the classroom left easily answerable questions unanswered. The study aimed to a) examine how “English teacher educators identify colorblindness among White teacher candidates” and b) How do English teacher educators “develop pedagogical interventions to counteract this disposition?”. I feel that the data collection in the Self-Study approach was unnecessarily limited as it did not include information related to what led to this “colorblind” approach to teaching. Both aims of the study would be better addressed with this information. On page 17, for example, Author Two wrote, “It is difficult to definitively discern what teacher candidates meant by these statements but avoidance of explicit discussion about race seemed to remain a consistent theme”. If the research design provided an opportunity to probe these responses the authors would have had a far deeper pool of data as well as greater clarity in what was really going on from the perspective of the students. In another instance, a student reported she hoped to become more “equitable in grading”. This phrase is potentially packed with meaning but it was viewed by the authors as evidence that the teacher had “considered race” in their teaching. Responses such as these beg to be “unpacked”. What was her goal in being more “equitable in grading”. Has she been unfair in her grading of students of color up to this point? What factors contributed to “inequity” in grading? Is this code for something else entirely? Is this evidence of something other than “colorblindness”? Without a mechanism to “unpack” some of the potentially important information contained in the student work, the authors were not able to fully gauge the perspectives of the students. The authors did provide adequate evidence to convince the reader that the students exhibited “colorblind dispositions” but the choice not to interrogate the problem further may have left other underlying problems undiscovered.
Dang Brian! You hit them on the head! I want to add that aside from the concerns you bring out, I also wondered about the racial makeup of the high school students! I think this may have a significant influence in the way that the English teachers addressed race.
DeleteIt would be interesting to know. Part of me thinks that the avoidance of "race" indicates a fair number of students of color... Engaging "race" is difficult/dangerous when you are white and ill-equipped to do it. I think the self-study approach may have been unnecessarily binding in this case and there is a lot that was left "unknown".
DeleteAuthors, your article is well-written, timely, and tackles an important set of ideas. Moreover, the different perspectives of the authors, given their personal histories, provide for an interesting read that can be utilized for deep exploration of current racial tensions in the US. Lastly, below are several comments that I hope will be helpful as you refine your article prior to publication. Please note that I have used the journal's criteria:
ReplyDeleteA. Significance/relevance to English teacher education/teacher learning:
The article provides opportunities to explore “colorblindness” in an education program. The authors’ review of the literature highlights two different studies in which successful interventions have yielded useful/progressive results (with digital stories and young adult literature - page 7). Although the author’s write a powerful description of their experiences during a semester, the study at hand however, does not provide explicit/specific ideas on how to successfully address colorblindness.
B. Theoretical/conceptual framework (connections to relevant research/scholarship)
Focusing on frameworks, including your connections to the literature, there are several areas of concern: a) on page 3 you state that “YOC have steadily become the majority of the US public school student body”, this does not make sense to me as I understand that there have been shifts in student populations, but I do not recall any data showing that YOC are now the majority - furthermore, there is such generalized de facto segregation, that your statement misses the mark in exploring the problem with current trends. b) Also on page 3, you state that “racial-cultural mismatch between teachers and students is in and of itself a problem” but you do not provide any evidence (or literature) to support your statement - removing any power the statement yields. c) on page 10 you describe your students as all “self-identified white”, and yet you do not get into why this may be a problem (lack of diversity in your class/sample).
C. Methods (if manuscript is an empirical study)
1. Appropriateness to questions
In your cited literature (page 6) you bring up the fact that other white women have studied this phenomena and I wish you had explicitly questioned/described in which ways the racial differences between the authors focused the questions.
2. Adequate description of methods (including data collection and analysis)
You collected data on students for only one semester (14 weeks), I wonder if this is enough time to deal with the pressures of paradigm shifting about race along with the intense pressure of learning how to become a teacher.
Also, you have a discrepancy in your timeline: on page 10 you wrote “14 weeks” and on page 12 you describe 16 weeks of meeting notes and journal entries - did you have 2 additional weeks for these?
3. Rigor of method:
The use of vignettes seems appropriate, along with the inclusion of writing entries, peer feedback, fieldnotes, emails, and journal entries. However, there are some gaps that can be addressed: a) on page 14 you do not describe what you mean by “inquiry-based discussion”. b) on page 15 you describe that YOC might feel “uncomfortable: but provide you further description. And c) on page 12 “inquiry-based discussion plans” are not defined nor explored - this can have profound effects.
David I agree for sure on the time period for the study. I hadn't really thought about it in terms of the actual study duration. I was thinking more about the fact the participants were pre-service meaning they had limited school/ classroom and students experience on which to base their ideas about working with/through diversity... but yes you are very right, that combined with only 14 weeks of course work does not seem enough for critical and crucial "breakthroughs" the authors were looking for, especially with very deeply rooted beliefs and ideas people likely developed over much longer periods of time growing up.
DeleteI said the same thing about the duration of the study. I think that the 16 weeks accounted for additional time that Author 1 and Author 2 met to discuss data and findings. I felt that the duration of the study coupled with the design that limited the voice of the students put the researchers in a difficult position to address many changes in pedagogy. I wasn't really sure why they opted not to give feedback on the first project before having students engage the second. Based on the nature of the work on the first project I am not sure they could expect much more from the second with no feedback/intervention. I think that the "colorblindness" was well established after project #1. I was just most troubled by the limited voice of the students. I felt like there was a great deal left undiscovered here.
DeleteD. Findings/conclusions are literature- or data-based
ReplyDeleteOverall advancement and contribution to the field: Originality and innovativeness of the argument:
On page 20, you state that “candidates deliberately chose themes that were more difficult to examine”, I honestly think that race is a difficult issue for many people to address and therefore I am confused by your statement - is “heroism” more difficult than racial oppression? You do not provide any literature/data to back this statement.
On page 22 you describe “racial miseducation” but do not provide any literature that describes this conclusion.
Also, on page 22 you state that “English teacher candidates’ coursework consistently evidenced racial erasure and resistance”, but you do not provide any evidence for this statement (which is probably true, but you do not have any analysis of the coursework outside or your class).
Lastly, on page 23 the description of your implications/recommendations sound a lot like your actual study (“to reflect upon the context of their education” and “incorporate reading and class discussions”) yet you also describe the limitations of this approach - how can we do better in training English teachers?
E. Writing style/composition/clarity.
Overall, the article is well-written and there are several key elements that helped with the flow, such is the case on page 8 before the “researchers’ positionalities”. Also, there are several areas of concern that should be addressed including: a) on page 2 you state that "white teachers have "increasingly become the face of public schools" - this statement is misleading as I cannot think of a time when white teachers have not been the majority of teachers in the US. b) I am confused by the last paragraph on page 2 - I find that it confounds your point. c) you never define “WPI” and use it throughout the article without a definition. d) on page 4, second paragraph, your second sentence is confusing - how are you using “engage coursework that minds likely experiential”? e)
I wonder why the sequence of the author’s vignettes? Why start with two rather than one? And f) You do not define the NCTE (only used the acronym).
This article addresses a very important topic that coincides with current racial issues that have been prevalent in the media in recent years. The style used in presenting your argument made for an interesting read. I have made some suggestions and comments below, based on this publication's criteria, which I hope you will use to refine the presentation of your findings.
ReplyDeleteA. Significance/Relevance to English teacher/education learning:
The concept of color blindness on the part of pre-service teachers, and any teacher, has tremendous importance and relevance for our students given the demographics of our public schools for students and their teachers. Anything that has the potential of making our teachers more effective should be viewed as significant, especially something that changes the way teachers view their students.
B. Theoretical/ Conceptual frameworks (connections to relevant research/scholarship):
Overall, you did a very good job laying out the theoretical framework on which your study is based, and on presenting existing literature, including the gaps which you are addressing. One item to address is the mention of the YOC student population being in the majority, yet the numbers presented do not back that up.
C. Methods (if manuscript is an empirical study):
Appropriateness to questions
First of all I liked the research question in terms of finding what they wanted to know, which was how can you find out if your pre-service teachers have color blindness towards race issues, and how can it be addressed. As for answering that question, I'mmnot convinced that the self-study approach was the way to go. We want to know about pre-service teachers, and how they view race. Yes the goal is to find out how educators identify who is colorblind, but I don't think the best way to do that is a self-study of the authors.
Adequate description of methods (including data collection and analysis).
The description of methods seemed very clear and thorough. My one question was whether or not the 14 week time period was adequate to determine if these pre-service teachers were in fact color blind towards race, and then for successful interventions to be implemented.
Rigor of method
I believe that an interview of each student would have yielded more information
. It seems that it was to easy for the participants to hold back information which could have in turn led to more questions from the authors.
D. Findings/conclusions are literature or data based
Overall advancement to the field/Originality and innovativeness of the argument:
The findings were clearly presented, based on the data from the study. The findings presented create a great foundation, or starting point for future study
E. Writing style/composition/clarity:
There are many structural, grammatical, and spelling issues that need to be addressed before any publication could take place. There is also an issue with the discussion of the information presented in the table on page two. You said that the percentage change in white teachers was approximately 4 percent, when in fact it was 5 percentage points, which would indicate a 5.7% change in the number of white teachers.
I also thought that there were parts of that could have been eliminated without diminishing the quality of the piece. (says the guy who had to post his in parts because it was too long). The authors used a lot of words introducing paragraphs/sections that I felt were unnecessary as the subsequent paragraph stood alone just fine.
DeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteThe relevance of highlighting “colorblindness” in pre-service teacher education is essential as historically disproportionate numbers of White teachers continue to serve within our public educational system. This is most emblematic in urban educational settings when there is an obvious mismatch between the race of our teachers and that of their students. As this proves to be our reality, it is essential to prepare teachers on how to first identify their own racist misconceptions to then be in a position to understand and confront contentions of systemic oppression and privilege. White teachers’ identity is typically analogous with their middle-class upbringing – detached from the lived experiences of those belonging to socially marginalized groups. The researchers’ assert the participants in this study as being “colorblind” – they are uncomfortable discussing issues of race, therefore perpetuating their positions of privilege by not acknowledging the social disparities connected to race.
There is no mention in the article of these pre-service teachers completing any foundational courses to include discussions around the systematic manipulation of our educational system by those in privileged positions – positions of power. The tone of the article seems to villainize the participants, instead of faulting the trajectory they’ve followed in their teacher education program by not properly immersing them in matters of racial disparities. In the methods section the researcher states: “I assumed that the pre-service teachers would be open and willing to talk about race and racism because they were mature, curious, and bright graduate students.” (p.15). And then surprised when they either avoided the topic altogether or deviated from it by not being self-reflective, but rather engaging secondary accounts or experiences. Why would these researchers be surprised? These participants have the same demographic backgrounds as those who hold colorblind dispositions. Just the mere observation that they seem open and curious does not equate with being comfortable talking about issues they’ve probably never had the opportunity to engage through open discourse in an academic setting. They are a product of their environment.
I’m also not clear on the roles of the researchers. Researcher two, being the White, less experienced instructor, is leading the group of all White pre-service English teachers on topics of race in literature. She even admits to her lack of experience in this role and to her own previous colorblindness. It would seem most appropriate for both researchers to lead this discussion. Possibly co-teaching or alternating their roles and then discuss each of their personal approaches and observations. The research question: “How do English teacher educators identify colorblindness among White teacher candidates and develop pedagogical interventions to counteract this disposition?” does not follow the steps of their methodology. I do not consider the design of the discussions, writings and peer observations as being considered interventions. It’s mostly observational, I don’t define it as an intervention where they are expected in some way alter colorblindness. I believe the probes that were meant to provoke those uncomfortable discussions of race were very indirect, instead perpetuating the definition of colorblindness. The selection of a novel and rap lyrics will not magically open up participants to talk about uncomfortable topics. As English educators, they are trained to discuss internal character traits and other text analysis – that’s their default literature discussion. Other, more direct, non-fiction texts could have been selected where factual occurrences of racial disparities are displayed. This way, there is little room to deviate from the topic. This would also eliminate those uncomfortable feelings in confronting race since the pervasiveness of racial disparities is a constant reality.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the review comments, my main criticism of blaming the educator for their colorblindness instead of blaming the system, is also elaborated. I believe this was one of the main flaws of this paper. It was also unclear how the researchers designed what was meant as an intervention. Where the topics based on a previous design? What dictated their choices for the discussion topics and if was their own, independent formulation, why did they decide on those questions/prompts? More background information was necessary on their experience with this very specific type of probing and intervention. How did the less experienced, researcher two, prepare herself for this? Or as a limitation, how could she have better prepared herself for this position of eliciting uncomfortable self-reflections? I believe more clarity is necessary in their backgrounds, their choice for the design of the intervention, the analysis of the data. The self-reflections of the researchers were also limited compared to those of the participants. Based on the expected design of an S-STTEP study, the voice of the researcher is also captured in the data, in terms of their observations and decisions.
I agree with you 100% that this is a problem that is far bigger than the 14 students in that class. You are right that it is a system that created this monster. That said, I think the authors were focused on identifying "colorblindness" and adapting pedagogy rather than identifying the root causes of the problem. I think the authors would agree with you too- they were just looking at one part of a larger issue.
DeleteI just completed reading all of the reviews and learned that I missed some pretty important things. 1) No theoretical framework. This was a pretty big miss. I still think that the greatest shortcoming of the study was that it left so much unsaid/unanswered but this may not have happened if it had been designed differently and grounded in CRT or.. I wish I had thought to suggest that this was really two studies. I felt this. I didn't think that either piece was done adequately but didn't think of these as two distinct studies. I was more frustrated with the lack of student voice than the shortcomings on the collaboration end. Even as a pilot study- I am not sure that the "colorblindness" work got to where it needed to go. I think a pilot would have to hear from the students themselves...more than just what they wrote. I was really uncomfortable with the room. One white instructor and 14 white students led to predictable results. In the absence of any intervention by the instructor the students predictably stayed within a zone of comfort and familiarity...because they could.
ReplyDeleteOne area of disagreement I had with Rosa and Janet was I didn't read the "blame" of the students. The authors definitely ignored the systems/education that informed how theses students approached race but I didn't feel the blame. The part of the study that frustrated me most was that so much about the students was ignored. We knew so little other than that they were white and had an aversion to talking about race even when presented with situations where it seemed impossible to avoid race. In an effort to establish "colorblindness" they blinded the reader to other important issues of identity. (partially stolen from Janet) Silencing the students was the greatest sin in my opinion.