Education--Research--Methodology

Throughout the nation, many community college students arrive at the doors of public higher education without college-level skills. As the need for remediation over the years has grown, the controversy over who should be responsible for it---and whether it should be provided at all---has also grown. In Florida, more than 60 percent of all incoming college students must enroll in one or more remediation courses in the areas of reading, writing, or mathematics. Florida law requires students to take non-credit "College-Preparatory" classes if they score below mandated cut-off scores on state-approved placement tests. The central theory of this study is that ongoing, comprehensive and systematic evaluation that is effectively communicated and utilized in Florida's colleges can make a significant contribution to the College Preparatory program. While this study examines budgetary factors and student achievement rates, it focuses particularly on evaluation, the extent to which evaluation is being performed in the College Preparatory program, and how that evaluation throughout the state has changed over a five-year period. The study identifies four general areas of evaluation: (1) student-level evaluation, (2) program-level evaluation, (3) evaluation via communication in the organization and (4) utilization of evaluation in the organization. It analyzes the relationship between each area and the perceptions that faculty, administrators and staff have of remedial program success, and it distinguishes among faculty, administrator and staff perceptions of evaluation and preparatory program success. In the end, it is the synthesis of the four general areas of evaluation, along with input from its various stakeholders, which result in effects on remedial education.

This study explored the relationship between critical theories and student achievement. The study applied the principles of Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Pedagogy in studying the impact of artistic and hegemonic communication on student achievement. The purpose of the study was to critically analyze the language discourse of educational leaders and to determine the extent to which the language discourse contributes to the persistence of the achievement gap and the continuing marginalization of diverse groups of children. This research study offers a practical set of recommendations on how to use the process of critical discourse analysis to arrive at more adequate solutions to the problems that contribute to the achievement gap. It demonstrates how an uncritical acceptance of textual communication from powerful sources such as state departments of education makes educational leaders responsible for the academic failure of children. This study was therefore concerned with finding a process to interrupt hegemonic communication and allow for more democratic use of language that accommodates the multiple realities of the school system. The Research Design used in this research process incorporated data analysis at the state, district and school site levels. The processes of critical discourse analyses were used to scrutinize the language of verbal and written texts and observation data for socio-political relations and ideology embedded in the language. The study found that at the federal, state and district levels hegemonic language was used to assert the worldview of educational accountability and standardization. In contrast to the federal, state and district data, the school site data revealed the use of critical discourse to counteract hegemonic communication and give voice to the multiple realities that exist. This study highlights the fact that educational leaders, including the crafters of educational policies and related documents, skillfully use language to advance their particular perspective. The study demonstrates how educational leaders can implement artistic leadership to open up the spaces in the discourse to interrupt hegemonic communication and eventually close the achievement gap.