To all,
The term of this FLC is about to end. We have one more scheduled meeting on April 23, and the final presentation of our work at the “FLC Year-end Celebration” on Friday, May 11, 12-1:30, 7th Floor of the Library.
Minutes of today’s meeting follow, and will also be posted on the Groups page.
But first, I hope that we can still produce something of value from this year’s discussions. At the previous meeting, summarized at https://my.umbc.edu/groups/climateeducationservice/posts/74773, we decided on the curriculum front to flesh out how a two-course sequence might work. The first course would provide a basic understanding of the science, policy, and human meanings of climate change, and the second course(s) would be smaller seminars where students would engage actively with climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.
Those minutes also asked you, by 4/2, for today’s meeting, to contribute some content to a document shared with you on Google Drive. That document would try to identify class content that would be desirable for the first course. With that rough start, it could be easier to think about the contents of the second courses.
That document now includes contributions from Roy, Brian, Dawn, Matt, and Elaine. We need more. If you continue to think that this effort is worthwhile, please add to the document. Please also read the minutes, comment on them if you’d like via the Group page, and be ready for our next meeting on April 23.
Regarding the “year-end celebration” (which I cannot attend as I will be out of the country), Matt will also need a summary of the “events” ideas we have discussed.
Roy
---
Minutes:
Five attended. We started by discussing how to integrate humanities and arts into the first course. Anna recommended the book Teaching Climate Change in the Humanities and a UMassAmherst course on literature and climate change. Also suggested as options were the film/graphic novel The Snow Piercer, the novel New York 2140, and a Margaret Atwood novel. (And to add to this list, this looks interesting:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25152058-loosed-upon-the-world).
Anna will search for graphic novels on this subject.
It was noted that history is among the topics not included in the current list of the first course’s topics.
We also had a brief discussion of how to design a large course to include active learning during class sessions.
Turning to the desire to use the second course for community engagement, we discussed what resources might be desirable. Topping the list:
--transportation, such as 15 person vans;
--more administrative support for community partner engagement beyond what Shriver can currently provide; and
--TAs: graduate students; undergraduates with experience in the relevant courses.
The final topic was identifying the institutional challenges of delivering the first and second courses. We will need to discuss these at our next meeting. Those challenges include:
--which faculty would co-teach the first course and how often;
--whether the first course would be listed in a department (e.g. GES, INDS) or as a “university” course (second courses would likely be located in lead faculty departments);
workload credits for departments for the first course; and
--UGC approval.
The term of this FLC is about to end. We have one more scheduled meeting on April 23, and the final presentation of our work at the “FLC Year-end Celebration” on Friday, May 11, 12-1:30, 7th Floor of the Library.
Minutes of today’s meeting follow, and will also be posted on the Groups page.
But first, I hope that we can still produce something of value from this year’s discussions. At the previous meeting, summarized at https://my.umbc.edu/groups/climateeducationservice/posts/74773, we decided on the curriculum front to flesh out how a two-course sequence might work. The first course would provide a basic understanding of the science, policy, and human meanings of climate change, and the second course(s) would be smaller seminars where students would engage actively with climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.
Those minutes also asked you, by 4/2, for today’s meeting, to contribute some content to a document shared with you on Google Drive. That document would try to identify class content that would be desirable for the first course. With that rough start, it could be easier to think about the contents of the second courses.
That document now includes contributions from Roy, Brian, Dawn, Matt, and Elaine. We need more. If you continue to think that this effort is worthwhile, please add to the document. Please also read the minutes, comment on them if you’d like via the Group page, and be ready for our next meeting on April 23.
Regarding the “year-end celebration” (which I cannot attend as I will be out of the country), Matt will also need a summary of the “events” ideas we have discussed.
Roy
---
Minutes:
Five attended. We started by discussing how to integrate humanities and arts into the first course. Anna recommended the book Teaching Climate Change in the Humanities and a UMassAmherst course on literature and climate change. Also suggested as options were the film/graphic novel The Snow Piercer, the novel New York 2140, and a Margaret Atwood novel. (And to add to this list, this looks interesting:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25152058-loosed-upon-the-world).
Anna will search for graphic novels on this subject.
It was noted that history is among the topics not included in the current list of the first course’s topics.
We also had a brief discussion of how to design a large course to include active learning during class sessions.
Turning to the desire to use the second course for community engagement, we discussed what resources might be desirable. Topping the list:
--transportation, such as 15 person vans;
--more administrative support for community partner engagement beyond what Shriver can currently provide; and
--TAs: graduate students; undergraduates with experience in the relevant courses.
The final topic was identifying the institutional challenges of delivering the first and second courses. We will need to discuss these at our next meeting. Those challenges include:
--which faculty would co-teach the first course and how often;
--whether the first course would be listed in a department (e.g. GES, INDS) or as a “university” course (second courses would likely be located in lead faculty departments);
workload credits for departments for the first course; and
--UGC approval.