The structure of a class centered on interviews done by individuals who worked as a group might seem rather odd to some, but our class was able to make it work. Looking back the class can be broken down into three sections. First was preparation and foundation building, next came implementing and finally a period of analysis. Many of us taking the class had little to no knowledge of what Oral History actually was before walking in the door on the first day. But what we did know was how to work in a group. It is a trait tat has been woven into our way of thinking at CSUMB.
Within a circle we all over came those first days nerves by sharing what had brought us to that point in our lives, we talked about family, and school. Many of us realized that we ourselves were first generation college students and this class was going to have a major impact on our lives.
After the first day the class moved forward by reading several stories and essays from first generation college students. We critically analyzed each paper, to look for weaknesses and strengths with in the authors writings and arguments. Many days were spent discussing background readings such as Richard Rodriguez's "The Achievement of Desire", pieces from writing done by bell hook, Richardson and Skinner's "Helping First-Generation Minority Students Achieve Degrees" or Jay M. Rochlin's Race & Class on Campus.
Toward the end of the first half we were prepped on interviewing styles and how ask questions so the voice of the interviewee was the one that was heard. The class practiced interviewing each other and learning about the equipment.
Finally we were ready for the real interviews. The group we focused on was first generation college students that had participated in our campuses Summer Bridge program. A program that brings incoming freshman to campus several weeks before the start of the Fall semester to help orientate them to college and college life. A previous class had interviewed ten of the thirty-two students two years ago as freshman and we were doing a follow-up. The other twenty-two students were Sophmores and Freshman on campus.
To keep some cohesion among the interviewing questions we were creating we split into three groups, Juniors, Sophomores and Freshman. Each person in the class choose a group they would like to interview and based upon the group they were in choose two names from a list to interview.
As small groups we created a list of questions which inquired into the financial needs of these first-generation college students, their family, friends, school relations and teacher and mentor interactions, if any.
Trying to work out schedules and setting up interviews was difficult at first, but those who were able to get their interviews done first came back into the classroom to share what they had learned. It was very interesting to see how a quote from one of the interviews could lead to an hour-long discussion among the class. To know that not only did the students interviewed have a lot to say about their experiences, but the class also shared many of those experiences or had unique comments and questions of their own to add to the discussion. Also keeping a journal of the interviews helped us to keep the interview in perspective. The journal writing made sure we were self-reflexive about how our interview went and also kept us aware of what we were trying to learn from the interviews.
When all of the interviews were done the class had to transcribe them. However, due to time limitations we were only able to transcribe one of the two interviews we each did. At this point the class moved on into its analyzing period. The groups we had been placed in started to take on a more important roll. We still held classroom discussions on topics, but we spent more time in small groups. Reading the interviews from each of the groups members, talking about which topics seemed to be most common among our group of interviewees and how we should handle the finale paper and panel discussion we were to present at the end of class.
These groups were critical to the last part of class. Within them each student had more of a voice and we were truly able to look closely at the interviews we ad done. We compared and contrasted each interview. We talked about personal experiences with the class and within our own lives. Being part of a group that went back and analyzed the interviews was very eye opening. Each of us had a different perspective from which we viewed the same interview. Being able to talk to someone else about a subject that is going to be written about helped to clarify details and expand upon individual understanding. We shared ideas about which quote from our interviews would best represent the issue or which background reading would better give insight to what an interviewee was trying to say.
Each group had to hold out of class meeting in order to bring the finale paper together. We also were part of a panel presentation at the end of the Spring 2000 semester, which was held for university faculty, staff, students and administration. During our presentation we spoke of all we had learned from our interviews and also came up with several suggestions for the campus community on how to better support first-generation college students.