Our students are coming from us in large numbers with poor skills due the quality education they received before they got to us. We should redefine what we mean by remediation: it's important to make remediation empowering, not a punishment. So if we really want to graduate students with strong skill bases, we need to infuse writing into all of our courses, not just in remediation classes. Low income students are overrepresented in the students that need remediation, there's a class gap in quality education. So while we may have a student body that is very exposed to various cultures, I think they are apathetic when it comes to social justice, and some the issues of equality that deal with other societies. Social justice is a totally different thing than diversity. Here are some example quotations from the interviews: Overall, respondents suggested paying attention to both difference and disadvantage, and better our understanding of how these concepts apply to our particular student population.
For instance, inequality should be understood in terms of low-income, educationally disadvantaged students and remedial skill building (this would call for reinstituting programs such as writing-across-the-curriculum). Respondents reported the desire to expand our definitions of "diversity and social justice" to include the category of inequality in addition to racial and ethnic diversity and other forms of diversity. Expand Definitions of "Diversity and Social Justice" The principal four are described in detail, followed by a list of the remaining. We found seven core themes with important implications for bringing about transformative types of pedagogies and practices on the CSUEB campus. We defined a concept as an idea or insight expressed by a respondent we defined a theme as a repeated idea or concept, or set of related concepts, found within a single interview and appearing across two or more interviews, which we paraphrased and condensed. We first identified key concepts from interview transcripts, then, building on these concepts, identified themes from which we derived our recommendations for changes in pedagogy surrounding diversity and social justice at CSUEB. To analyze our interview data, we used grounded theory, a data-driven, "ground-up" approach to qualitative research (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
We used a semi-structured interview guide to glean an overall understanding of DSJ-related activities, perceptions, and programing on the campus and how they overlapped with experiential learning about social issues in the classroom and/or community. The exemplary programs were the following: Justice Studies Master's Program and Undergraduate Degree at SJSU Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program at Temple University, PA and Center for Research on Social Change at UC Berkeley. This included 12 interviews with representatives from eight programs on our campus and three interviews with directors of exemplary programs at three other universities. In 2012-13, we conducted 15 interviews with key informants from 11 programs.
0 kommentar(er)
