Home » Articles posted by Kingsborough Center for Teaching and Learning
Author Archives: Kingsborough Center for Teaching and Learning
Session 2: 4/8 and 4/10
In this session we considered a case on activities. In this case, a professor assigned a difficult readon on Marx and students were frustrated. One student, in particular, who had lived under communism, was angry. The professor used this student’s perspective to generate new questions to explain Marx, but became the sole knowledge base on the topic.
We discussed the following question: Which aspect(s) of the motivational frameworkmight help Professor X in designing activities that better engage students?
Responses included:
Meaning: Ask students reflect on their own economic situation to make the topic more relevant; invite student to select passages that they find meaningful and reflect on these
Inclusion: Have students work in groups and jigsaw so that they connect with each othe
Attitude: Invite students to negotiate supplemental texts so they have some choice; invite student to select passages that they find meaningful and reflect on these
Competence: Journal logs allow students to show reactions, inferences, and assertions to show that they’ve understood the text and class discussion and/or faculty feedback can confirm what students understand of the text
Session 2 (11/6 @ 12:40 and 3 pm) & 11/12 @ 12:40pm
Groups discussed two readings. One presented Ginsberg and Wlodkowski’s Motivational Framework. We asked participants to consider their course syllabus in light of this framework:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.466.6742&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=25
The second reading is by Django Paris who distinguishes “Culturally Sustaining” pedagogy from GLB’s “Culturally Relevant” framework.
https://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist159/restricted/readings/Paris2012.pdf
Session 1 (Oct. 9, 22, 23) – three groups
At this first session, participants read three cases and considered the syllabus in light of the Motivational Framework and the following questions:
- What is the syllabus used for?
- Who is (or should be) the audience of the syllabus?
- How do instructors help students to engage with the syllabus, to understand why and how it serves the student?
- What are some ways that instructors can be aware of protocols in place for them to create a student-friendly syllabus that provides reasonable accommodations for students who need them.
- What assumptions do teachers make about their students’ engagement and understanding of a course syllabus?
- How might a teacher confront his/her bias related to this situation?
Motivational Framework:
Competence: How might the response enhance students’ understanding that they are becoming more effective in authentic learning that they value?
Inclusion: How might the response help students feel respected by and connected to other students and the teacher?
Meaning: How might the response engage students in challenges that are so compelling that students lose their sense of time?
Attitude: How might the response offer students more meaningful choices and promote greater personal relevance?
Session 5
June 25th: Meeting Notes
- Why CRT?
- CRT is an approach to teaching that puts students at the center by respecting their cultures and leveraging their experiences in the service of learning.
- Being culturally responsive involves
- Getting to know ourselves and the implicit biases we have that may impact our pedagogical choices (Harvard studies)
- Getting to know our students and what they value.
- Willingness? To adapt and accommodate unpredictable and unfamiliar classroom terrain (conversations and behaviors) and learning how to utilize those moments to build upon knowledge and access complex concepts, terms, theories, applications, etc.
- The Motivational Framework
Session 4
May 31st, 2018
So today we discussed a plan for working as well as some of the goals:
Work Plan:
We would work on this google site and we tentatively agreed to meet on the following Tuesdays at 11 am in M391:
- June 26th
- July 3rd
- July 24th
Some Tentative Goals
Creating modules to help faculty….
- See their roles as instructor as one of preparing their classes for their students
- Identify unintended biases in their teaching
- Assess their own cultural responsiveness
- Use students’ experiences as building blocks for learning
- Foster a culture of inclusion in their classes
- ??
Modules might take the form of vignettes that ask a questions about unintended biases and missed opportunities for inclusion. Or showcase moments where CRT happens in the classroom (faculty guided or student guided) which faculty may or may not recognize as CRT.
Session 3
May 9th and 10th
Participants: Loretta, Jason, Stuart, Tara, Janine
Here are some notes from Monday’s ATD meeting:
We reviewed the subcommittee goal updates and discussed the possibility of creating an online CRT module for faculty, at the suggestion of John Acosta. I spoke with both Chris and John after the meeting because it occurred to me that TWO ideas have been floating – a “teaser” module to pull folks in and a more substantive module to share what we’ve learned so far. There might be room for both, but the group seems to think the substantive module was a good idea and we’ve continued to discuss that in this week’s CRT FIG meetings.
We identified some preliminary learning outcomes for the module, and I am adding to those some ideas that have since come from CRT FIG discussions this week.
Outcomes:
By the end of this module, faculty will begin to:
- Reflect on themselves as instructors
- Identify unintentional biases that may be implicit in their courses by considering their own syllabi, course
materials, curriculum, etc. - Develop strategies to address these biases in order to enhance student motivation
I will be in touch with those of you who expressed interest in working on this over the summer – if anyone else is interested, please let me know! John said if we created a PowerPoint with links to readings, he would create the module for us. Thanks, John!
Session 2
April 25th and 26th
Participants: Dawn, Tara, Loretta, Jason, Janine
For the most part, we used this meeting to update everyone and move the FIG forward.
We also agreed that, for next time (May 9th at 3 OR May 10th at 11:30), we would “reply to all” on the CRT FIG email and send around a lesson or assignment for the group to review through the lens of Ginsberg’s framework.
Everyone was also invited to come to the next ATD subcommittee meeting, on Monday, May 7th at 1:50 in KCTL.
Session 1
March 22nd and March 28th
Participants: Jason, Stuart, Midori, Loretta, Cathy, Stella, Dorina, Janine)
- Those of us who gave out student surveys re inclusion last semester shared our results.
- We also discussed changes we made to our courses based on last semester’s discussions as well as what we learned at Ginsberg’s workshop this winter. Given the workshop, we talked about trying out some of the ideas from the workshop and some folks were open to visiting each others’ classes. I’ve created a google doc where we can post our teaching times, for those of us who are interested.
- Before we actually visit, though, and even if that is not logistically possible, I think we can work next time with some of Ginsberg’s ideas on Collaborative Lesson Design. Please think about how we might implement this, if you think it’s a good idea.
- We invited FIG participants (you!) to be part of the ATD Subcommittee on Teaching and Learning, which has also been exploring CRT. We met last week and, at that meeting, Chris Calienes reviewed our survey questions and said he would look into having them included in an equity survey that was being planned for students. The next subcommittee meeting will be on Monday, May 7th at 1:50 in KCTL – if you’re free, please join us!
- Also, here is the link to Ginsberg’s article which I sent around for the first meeting, for those of you who have asked.
- FInally, if you haven’t yet done it for CRT, please complete the pre-semester survey …thanks!
Next meetings: Wednesday, the 25th at 3 OR Thursday, the 26th at 11:30 – please note BOTH will be in M378, the Honor’s Lounge! Hope to see you then!
Session 1B: 3 pm
Plan for next semester (Spring 2018):
Pick up with Chapter 6 of this book to help implement ideas into our syllabus and using this as a starting point for discussion.
11/29/17 – Chapter 5
Participants: Lisa, Susan, Janine, & Tara
Discussion about the assessment Practices
Portfolios & Rubrics – Pros & Cons
Self-reflective Assessment
Make them student dialogues when you can —> What would you say to x about x?
We posed the question about grades and whether we feel they have become inflated. Yes, it seems to be problem. (Honors classes or ESL literacy issues)
Assessment, teaching, and learning (from and with) our students feels like an ethical and moral responsibility.
11/15/17 – Chapter 4
Participants: Dorina Janine Tara Susan
P. 184 – We argue not against….convention.
Reminds us of observations – not wanting to take risks, unfair critiques that don’t match goals.
p. 191 – one issue in higher education // like growth mindset (performance) vs. fixed mindset (outcome).
We like how this book is open to new approaches.
Ways we can present students with agency and choice. Maybe not texts but assignments. Questions what do you want to know more about?
254 – problem posing model – codeveloped curriculum
Posing a problem – teacher based/ issued
Generative themes – grow out of student’s culture
Topical themes – social question from faculty but relevant
Academic themes – scholastic/professional/technical knowledge put forward
Operationalizing the book’s suggestions is useful
We want students to understand all arguments and make an argument for either side.
Global learning styles – showing students the full picture goals
Looking at major assignments as chapters of your work/portfolio
P. 255 – whose interests are being served?
11/01/17 Chapter 4 – Meeting canceled, will resume 11/15
10/18/17 Chapter 3
Participants: Susan Ednie, Cathy Leaker, Janine Graziano, Lisa Paler, Tara Thompson
The discussion began with us informally talking about what aspects of our job we take home with us and how much do we allow our personal selves to become emotionally attached to our work. It is a difficult balancing act at best.
On page 137 we talked about the book’s declaration/assumption that students “generally enjoy thinking about why they learn..” — Most of us had an issue with this notion because that is generally not our experience or perception of our students. This grew into a general discussion about what in the book is making us uncomfortable (we disagree with) or what about it helps us to confront ourselves/our bias.
A pedagogical approach that was mentioned was Relationship. Relevance and Rigor in that the teacher focuses on establishing relationships with his/her students, consciously tries to make the curriculum relevant, but at the same time rigorous and appropriately challenging. This brought us to a discussion of how it is sometimes difficult to develop those relationships with our students.
Learning Contracts – an exercises recommended in the book we found to be a bit problematic with our student population. However, we admitted that we do kind of do versions of these in a sense. We make rubrics and conference with students and explicitly discuss goals and steps to move forward when they notice their academic progress is in jeopardy. We try not to play the blame game and consider that sometimes it is we (the teachers) who need adjust, not the student.
We also discussed the idea of choices and how giving students too many choices can be problematic. How do we balances student wants vs. their needs. How do we manage the level of discomfort a curriculum places onto a student? What happens when that discomfort is unevenly distributed and aligned with privilege? What is the culture of our community college? What is the general struggle of our students here at KBCC?
Finally, the session was concluded with a brief look at how we might try to incorporate Gardner’s 5 entry points into an assignment to speak to students’ different learning styles and multiple intelligences.
10/11/17 Chapter 2
Participants: Susan Ednie, Peter Fiume, Janine Graziano, Kirstin Polizzotto, Dorina Tila
We struggled with some of the ideas in the text, but, as Susan pointed out, we appreciate that the book has caused us to really think and question our assumptions. We recognized, however, that assumptions are an integral part of our cognitive processes and that the norms of inclusion, themselves, represent underlying assumptions. We saw the process of questioning assumptions as moving us away from what used to be “solid ground.” We likened this to the state of midair suspension that a trapeze artist experiences.( I found this quote by Marilyn Ferguson – maybe the one Regina referenced – “It’s not so much that we’re afraid of change or so in love with the old ways, but it’s that place in between that we fear . . . . It’s like being between trapezes. It’s Linus when his blanket is in the dryer. There’s nothing to hold on to.”)
Or, as Peter said, like a baseball player trying to steal a base; he also likened our work to facilitating the crossing between borders.
We also recognized lots of places where we might inadvertently be less than sensitive and felt that the best way to approach this might be to develop relationships with our student where we are explicit about our best intentions and then welcome then to point out places where we might fall short (as suggested in the text). Kristin shared her strategy of giving students blank index cards that they could use to write down such places and leave on her desk for her to consider. She also shared a Dichotomous key activity.
We also talked about building community and groupwork, and Dorina shared her experiences in using what can be called “experiments” or “games” in her economics classes. Susan expressed her interest in jigsaws.
9/27/17 Chapter 1
Participants: Susan Ednie,Cathy Leaker, Janine Graziano, Lisa Paler, Tara Thompson
Discussion began with participants’ questions and goals, which included
- Gaining insight into our own unseen biases and discovering ways to incorporate those insights in practice in order to reach as many students as possible
- Learning more about how to carry out what can be seen as our ethical responsibility to facilitate learning for all students.
- Concerns: Developing more stereotypes – desire is to find ways to focus on students as individuals.
While the need to address students as whole persons drove much of the conversation, participants also touched upon the challenges of a CRT approach, including the danger of not providing enough challenges for students.
Subsequent meetings will be at 3:00 in M391 on 10/11, 10/18, 11/1, 11/15. and 11/29.
The group decided to read Chapter 2 for 10/11.
Session 1A: 11AM
11/29/17 – Chapter 5
Participants: Elizabeth Dill, Janine Graziano, Stuart Parker
The group worked on a potential student survey that we might give our students and this end of this term and plan to use the last chapter to help implement ideas into our syllabus and using this as a starting discussion for the FIG next semester.
11/15/17 – Chapter 4
Participants: Elizabeth Dill, Janine Graziano, Stuart Parker, Raluca Toscano, Tara Thompson
It’s not always easy to get them to say what they are interested in learning – they turn to the script. I’m here to get a degree.
We discussed some criticisms of the book including…. (unfinished notes)
10/18/17 – Chapter 3
Participants: Loretta Brancaccio-Taras, Elizabeth Dill, Janine Graziano, Stuart Parker
Reading: Diversity and Motivation, Chapter 3
Starting with the notion that personal relevance includes “familiarity” we talked about what we saw as the the tension between this and a need to take students to a place of discomfort that may be necessary for learning to occur. To do this successfully, we considered that students need to be supported by making school relevant and meaningful, if not familiar, and we considered the idea of teachers and learners being “co-authors.” However, questioned whether the institution, as currently structured, supports this. Stuart shared a friend’s “3R’s” – relationship, relevance, and rigor – and also the maxim that students “don’t care what you know until they know you care.”
10/11/17 – Chapter 2
Participants: Loretta Brancaccio-Taras, Elizabeth Dill, Janine Graziano, Stuart Parker, Raluca Toscano, Tara Thompson
Reading: Diversity and Motivation, Chapter 2
Summary: We began by making some general observations about the practices discussed in the section as compared to our own, real-life practices in the classroom. The following questions and comments were discussed:
- Who in our class does or does not feel “part of the team”?
- What do we do with a student who “hijacks” the classroom?
- How might we think of the individual act of writing as an inclusive act?
- How do we get to students’ hearts and move them away from frustration and resistance yet maintain a certain amount of discomfort so that students also feel challenged? How do we support them through the discomfort?
- Do we use “Norms” in our classes and how are we with the follow through?
- Why do students resist group work? – They want the banking method? They feel infantilized? What do we do with the “hitchhikers”?
- How do we teach intellectual seriousness as its own reward?
- What can be said for the value of an idea? How do we give it consideration and move past the theory of: if it’s being tested, it matters?
- What assumptions are we making/does the book make?
- Students don’t want to learn for the sake of learning.
- If we ask students to change aren’t we implying that they are not where they need to be or where we think they should be?
- What are we doing when we educate?
- What should what I teach be important to students?
- We are here to provide tools and methods to help students identify and articulate their positions.
- Group work is important so that students learn how to learn.
Subsequent meetings will be at 11:30 in M391 on 10/18, 11/1, 11/15. and 11/29.
The group decided to read Chapter 3 for 10/18.
______________________________________________________________________
9/27/17 – Chapter 1
Participants: Loretta Brancaccio-Taras, Elizabeth Dill, Azure Faucette, Peter Fiume, Janine Graziano, Stuart Parker, Raluca Toscano
Reading: Diversity and Motivation, Chapter 1
Summary: We began by raising question some of the questions that motivated participants to join this group. These include:
- How do we let go of the resistance within ourselves that manifests in clinging to traditional methods and sometimes irrelevant content within our disciplines?
- How do we address students’ resistance that manifests in their clinging to traditional methods and expected content?
- How do we reconcile and approaches and frameworks that we don’t want to lose within the context of this work?
- What are the underlying assumptions we make about ourselves, our students, motivation, and learning?
- What do students need to know and be able to do in the current, changing world?
- How can we mobilize what students already know and can do in the service of learning?
- How can we bring the marginalized into the center?
- Re the Delpit quote (p.3), how does it feel and how do we manage seeing ourselves “in the unflattering light of another’s angry gaze”?
- How do we address the classroom power relationships that students assume exist in the class?
- How do we help students learn how to learn?
- How do we shift from engendering compliance to engendering competence?
We briefly considered the model for the motivational framework for CRT pictured on p. 34.
Subsequent meetings will be at 11:30 in M391 on 10/11, 10/18, 11/1, 11/15. and 11/29.
The group decided to read Chapter 2 for 10/11.
