Do we have to post these?

The purpose of this narrative study is to discover effective literacy strategies to engage adolescent boys at City Charter School. At this stage in the research the strategic approaches employed will generally be defined as teaching style, strategic lesson plans and class participation.

My personal "I's"

Using the Peshkin article as a point of departure, I began exploring my own I’s which might inevitably lead to bias in my research pursuits. One of my research interests is the racial achievement gap in the gifted and talented classroom. I intend to use my school as the research site. Traditionally, Black and Latino students at my school do not perform as well academically as their White and Asian counterparts. These differences can be attributed to cultural background and/or socioeconomic status. My “selective I” can blur my vision and lead me to solely focus on the underperforming Black and Latino students and fail to acknowledge those which are , in deed, performing at a high level comparable to their peers. Now that I have read the Peshkin article, I have gained a deeper understanding of the detrimental affect this can have on my research results and am now determined to view participants through a more objective lens.

Another “I” which might lead to bias relates to my ethnic background. As a Puerto Rican woman, I tend to focus great attention on female students of Hispanic descent because they are a group with which I am extremely familiar. However, as a researcher, I am charged with the responsibility to maintain an objective stance and to not allow my personal experiences and biases contaminate my perception of a given situation.

Michelle's Six Is based on the Peshkin article

The below is mostly speculation on my part because, like Nickie mentioned in her post, I have yet to do any true research. However, based on Peshkin's clear descriptions, here are my Six Is:

1. Ethnic Maintenance- As an Italian American, I feel I have a strong connection to my ethnic heritage and culture. My father was the first of his family born in the United States, so I also feel a strong connection to recent immigrants and their experiences in the U.S. It is possible that because of my ethnic and cultural background, I would have some subjectivity toward individuals who share a strong cultural value of family and hard work. However, this subjectivity has yet to be tested.

2. Community Maintenance- Like Peshkin mentions in his 1988 article, I feel that I could possibly struggle maintaining objectivity if I found myself welcomed into a community. Like in Peshkin's example of Mario's Snack Shop, I too have found myself in regular casual conversations with community members that may subtly influence my objective stance on a given issue.

3. E-Pluribus-Unum- I agree that it would be challenging not to overstate a product that I find personally pleasing. Like Peshkin, I would love to see more diversity in school populations and might overstate the "magnitude" of the situation. I would also love to see more student choice in high school courses, more creative options for students etc. Although I can imagine maintaining objectivity when faced with a situation that I find inspiring, I don't think this would be the most difficult I for me to maintain. (I tend to be a bit pessimistic)

4. Justice Seeking- this is a difficult I. Many people are concerned with matters of justice and equality and I'm sure that my passion for the subject would be evident in my writing. However, I do believe that I would be able to take account of my personal feelings and also present the facts in an objective way.

5. Pedagogical Meliorist- Whoa! This is probably going to be a major I for me. As an English teacher for the last 8 years, I have some strong convictions about the way a classroom should run, how students should be addressed, how lessons should be planned and delivered! Yikes! I will have to work hard to maintain objectivity if I encounter a classroom like the one Peshkin describes in is 1988 article.

6. Nonresearch Human- The warm welcome of a community, school or classroom that I am observing might influence my word choice if I have a critical finding, but I don't think it would truly taint my objectivity.

The “I’s” that affect my eyes…

Reading the Peshkin (1988) allows me to safely experience and acknowledge my feelings and biases. As a teacher of struggling learners, I tend to shut of my own feelings in an attempt to allow my students to arrive at their own conclusions. As I was reading, it was hard for me to identify my own “I’s” because I have not yet undertaken formal research.

However when grading assessments or looking at student work, I've noticed certain immediate reactions to my perceived quality of the work versus the amount of effort I believe the student exerted. Therefore, I've often found myself folding the reading responses of students so that I can’t see who wrote the response before I assess it. I catch myself viewing answers differently when I know who wrote the answer beforehand. I suppose this is my Perceived Effort “I”. This can be especially dangerous when I think about undertaking research in classrooms where I have some familiarity with student behavior and effort.

As previously stated, I was able to relate to some of Peshkin’s “I’s” but mostly in a general way. Yet I resonated with his Justice-Seeking and Pedagogical-Meliorist “I’s”. Looking through student data has brought up feelings of anger with regard to inequality with regard to resources in my school community and also anger toward “ineffective” or “uncaring” teachers. This uncovers my Veteran “I”. This is the I that is angered by newer teachers who I perceive as feeling pity toward the children and contempt for the parents. I also feel anger toward teachers with fancy/expensive teaching degrees, yet have no ability to manage their classrooms. A few of these teachers barely finish a year in our school. Since I’m interested in student achievement, I have to be cognizant of these and many other “I’s” as they come to light.