June  25th: Meeting Notes

1. Why CRT?
   1. 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.
   2. Being culturally responsive involves
      1. Getting to know ourselves and the implicit biases we have that may impact our pedagogical choices (Harvard studies)
      2. Getting to know our students and what they value.
      3. 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.

2. The Motivational Framework

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….

1. See their roles as instructor as one of preparing their classes for their students
2. Identify unintended biases in their teaching
3. Assess their own cultural responsiveness
4. Use students’ experiences as building blocks for learning
5. Foster a culture of inclusion in their classes
6. ??

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.

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:

1. Reflect on themselves as instructors
2. Identify unintentional biases that may be implicit in their courses by considering their own syllabi, course
   materials, curriculum, etc.
3. 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!

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 9^th at 3 OR  May 10^th 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.

March 22nd and March 28th

Participants: Jason, Stuart, Midori, Loretta, Cathy, Stella, Dorina, Janine)

1. Those of us who gave out student surveys re inclusion last semester shared our results.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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!
5.  Also, here is the link to Ginsberg’s article which I sent around for the first meeting, for those of you who have asked.​
6.  FInally, if you haven’t yet done it for CRT, please complete the  pre-semester survey …thanks!

Next meetings: Wednesday, the 25^th at 3 OR Thursday, the 26^th at 11:30 – please note BOTH  will be in M378, the Honor’s Lounge!  Hope to see you then!