University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

(USC Thesis Other)

Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Syllabus Review Equity-Oriented Tool as a means of self-change among STEM Faculty
by
Jordan Anysia Greer

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by Jordan Anysia Greer 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jordan A Greer certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Megan Chase
Artineh Samkian
Estela Mara Bensimon, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore how a team of science, technology, engineering,
mathematics faculty at a Hispanic-serving institution sought to bring about racial equity through
an inquiry-based intervention. This team of faculty participated in a professional development
intervention that focused on their course syllabi. The findings illustrate that faculty participants
did make changes to their post-syllabi. The professional development sought to mediate faculty
learning but none of the participants post-syllabi was considered to illustrate all six elements of
equity-mindedness. This study concludes by suggesting how the training on the syllabus equity-
oriented tool could have been facilitated differently to better assist faculty in learning how to be
more critically race conscious in language and content.
Keywords: Syllabus equity-oriented tool, faculty, inquiry-based intervention, CHAT

v
Acknowledgements
Estela Mara Bensimon, I thank you for your unwavering support, guidance, and
commitment to helping me through this journey. The last 4 years have been extremely emotional
for me in that I have experienced the many joys and defeats that life brings. Thank you for
reminding me to call on a network that has been instrumental in my professional and academic
journey. My success would not have been possible without your leadership and your ability to
bring communities within higher education together.
To my committee members, Artineh Samkian and Meghan Chase, I appreciate your
individual guidance and support throughout my doctoral journey. Thank you for extending your
resources to get me to the finish line!
Dr. Cynthia D. Villarreal, thank you for welcoming me with open arms and for serving as
a reviewer for my dissertation. Your ongoing support never goes unnoticed. Drs. Adrián Trinidad
and Román Liera both served as role models for what it truly means to be dedicated to racial
equity work. It has been a pleasure to learn from all of you, and I truly appreciate the time that
each of you dedicated to get me to this point.
My work colleagues, Debbie Hanson and Esmeralda Hernandez-Hamed, you both have
shown up for me collectively and individually. I am forever grateful for the time and support
throughout my time at CUE and now REC. Cheers to many more memories! I cannot forget
Kaylan S. Baxter. I am in awe of you as a scholar. Your presence and ongoing support never
goes unnoticed.
Dr. Aysia Pennell-Brown and Christopher Sweeten, you both helped me survive and
thrive during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our friendship means the world to me, and I am happy to
learn from you both over the last 4 years.

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Preface ............................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Background of the Problem ...................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 6
Review of Literature ........................................................................................................... 7
Cognitive Frame of Equity .................................................................................................. 8
Cognitive Frame of Deficit ................................................................................................. 9
Cognitive Frame of Diversity ............................................................................................. 9
Overview of Course Syllabi .............................................................................................. 10
The Role of Faculty .......................................................................................................... 12
Learning Based Interventions ........................................................................................... 13
Description of the Professional Development Workshop ................................................. 14
Chapter Two: CUE’s Syllabus Review Tool ................................................................................ 21
Theory of Change ............................................................................................................. 21
Equity-Mindedness ........................................................................................................... 21
The Racial Reckoning in 2020 .......................................................................................... 24
Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus Review ............................................................. 25
Activity Triangle Setting as a Framework for Racial Equity ........................................... 40
The Activity Setting Design of CUE’s Syllabus Review Workshop ................................ 43

vii
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 45
Qualitative Methods .......................................................................................................... 45
Document Analysis ........................................................................................................... 45
The Partnership With CUE ............................................................................................... 47
Description of the Institution ............................................................................................ 48
The College of Social Science .......................................................................................... 49
Positionality and Access ................................................................................................... 49
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 49
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 53
Equity-Mindedness ........................................................................................................... 54
Anti-Equity-Mindedness ................................................................................................... 54
Memos............................................................................................................................... 58
General Findings of Pre-Syllabi ........................................................................................ 60
Anti-Equity-Mindedness in Pre-Syllabi ............................................................................ 61
Data Collection for Post-Syllabi ....................................................................................... 64
Equity-Minded Learning and Change ............................................................................... 65
Anti-Equity-Minded Learning and Change ...................................................................... 67
Trustworthiness ................................................................................................................. 69
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 70
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 70
Chapter Four: Pre-Syllabi Findings .............................................................................................. 71
Welcoming ........................................................................................................................ 71
Demystifying ..................................................................................................................... 73
Creating a Partnership ....................................................................................................... 75
Validating .......................................................................................................................... 77

viii
Representing ..................................................................................................................... 77
Deconstructing .................................................................................................................. 78
Unwelcoming .................................................................................................................... 79
Upholding College Policies or Practices ........................................................................... 80
Chapter Five: Findings of Post-Syllabi ......................................................................................... 85
Welcoming ........................................................................................................................ 85
Demystifying ..................................................................................................................... 87
Creating a Partnership ....................................................................................................... 90
Validating .......................................................................................................................... 92
Representing ..................................................................................................................... 93
Deconstructing .................................................................................................................. 94
Unwelcoming .................................................................................................................... 95
Upholding College Policies or Practices ........................................................................... 96
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 98
Chapter Six: Discussion ................................................................................................................ 99
Personal Reflection ......................................................................................................... 101
Implications ..................................................................................................................... 103
References ................................................................................................................................... 106

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: CUE’s Six Equity-Minded Practices and Definitions* 34
Table 2: CUE’s Syllabus Review Training and Pre-Syllabus Submissions 51
Table 3: Faculty Participants’ Post-Syllabi Submissions 52
Table 4: Six Anti-Equity-Minded Practices 56
Table 5: Memo Reflection Criteria for Equity and Anti-Equity-Mindedness 59
Table 6: Pre-Syllabi Slices that Reflect an Anti-Equity-Minded Stance 62
Table 7: Faculty Participants’ Pre- and Post-Syllabi Submissions 65
Table 8: Equity-Minded Evidence Identified in Pre- and Post-Syllabi 66
Table 9: Anti-Equity-Minded Evidence Identified in Pre- and Post-Syllabi 68

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: CUE Equity Workshop Series Tools and Activities 15
Figure 2: CUE’s Critical Dimension of Equity 17
Figure 3: CUE’s Accountability Dimension of Equity 18
Figure 4: CUE’s Syllabus Review Guide - How Syllabi Serve 27
Figure 5: Equity Perspectives and Equity-Minded Practices As Applied to the Syllabus 29
Figure 6: An Illustration of ‘Demystifying’ as a Checklist 33
Figure 7: The Coding Approach, Reflection Activity 36
Figure 8: Demonstration of Equity and Deficit-Minded Practices 37
Figure 9: CUE’s Equity-Minded Syllabus Review Workshop* 41
Figure 10: Excerpt From Geoscience Pre-Syllabus 74
Figure 11: Excerpt from CHEM 1110 Pre-Syllabus 76
Figure 12: Excerpt of “Welcoming” in Biochemistry I 86
Figure 13: Reflection Essay Assignment that Reflects Creating a Partnership 91
Figure 14: Excerpt From Biochemistry I 92

xi
Preface
My mother, an alumna of Spelman, a historically Black college, took my only cousin (on
my mother’s side of the family) and me to visit the all-women’s institution. I vividly remember
my mother entering the front entrance gates to drive on campus. We were in a yellow mustang
convertible, and we had to pass the campus security guard to park on campus. As a city girl who
grew up on the West Coast, I was not excited about getting out of the car to bear the humidity
that the South was known to bring every summer. Yet, I do remember seeing my mother at peace
knowing that she was home. She gave my cousin and me a tour of every building, but most of
them were locked because the Black liberal arts college was known for not holding classes
during the summer. But to our surprise, one door to Sister’s Chapel (the on-campus worship
sanctuary) was left unlocked, and, so, the three of us entered. I was so excited that I ran down the
aisle and walked on stage where I noticed a large organ that stood behind me. In front of me
were rows of pews in the two-story building. I cannot quite capture how I felt at this moment, but
I walked across the stage and somehow knew that this institution would be my first choice. After
this trip, all my college-related high school assignments would center on my visit to Spelman
College. My mother provided me with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn about the culture
of Spelman, which was designed to educate women of Black/African descent. This experience
shifted the type of environment I wanted to be in after high school. During the spring of my
senior year in high school, I received my acceptance letter to my first choice, Spelman College.
My undergraduate experience at Spelman College granted me the privilege to learn and
understand my identity as a Black woman. There are moments I will forever cherish like
witnessing the election of the first Black President of the United States of America or attending a
protest for the execution of Troy Davis (Butts County, GA), who was a Black man accused of

xii
murdering a police officer. My illustrious college granted me the time to reflect on the world
around me while also providing a space to be surrounded by a group of like-minded individuals
(peers, professors, staff, and administrators) who would do everything possible to ensure my
wellbeing. Through a curriculum centered on the effects of the African Diaspora
1
and its
subsequent losses and successes, I gained an understanding of the historical circumstances and
cultural foundations that inform who I am today.
Due to the small size of Spelman College
2
, faculty and administrators got to know each
student on a personal level, whether it was during office hours, informal check-ins around
campus, or an unexpected phone call. I made the transition to college with the understanding that
I would be in a place with individuals who would be invested in my growth, but everyone
exceeded my expectation of what it means to demonstrate care and support. Because my mother
attended the same institution, I entered with a network of faculty, administrators, staff, and peers
who knew her and assisted me in navigating the social norms and hidden rules of what it meant
to be a college student. These individuals provided me with valuable information about
fellowships and career choices. The bond of sisterhood at Spelman College overrode
demographic characteristics such as being a first-generation student or coming from a low- or
high-income family. Over the course of my undergraduate experience, I learned to understand
the privilege associated with my middle-class upbringing, hear how my peers experienced racial
microaggressions, and the many obstacles I faced as a Black woman in finding my voice and
purpose. As a first-year student living in Howard-Harreld (HH) Hall dormitory, I listened to my

1
As cited in Palmer (2000), modern African diaspora refers to a community of people of
African descent who share past experiences based on racial oppression (p. 30). Regardless of an
individual’s cultural, social, or political beliefs, these descents share an emotion bond through
their ancestral continent and may express interest in learning about their ancestral background.
2
Spelman College has approximately 2,200 undergraduate students.

xiii
sisters’ similar experiences in “sounding White” in high school or wanting to attend a college
where they were the majority. Despite our geographical differences, our ability to articulate and
effectively communicate with varying audiences contributed to our want in learning about how
we should address individuals outside of Spelman’s gates. Ultimately, I learned that even though
we were young Black individuals, there was much diversity among us. Our curriculum centered
on the history of Blackness and ancestry, which allowed us to understand our heritage as well as
the differences reflected in our own lived experiences. While I cherish my memories inside and
outside the classroom, I also learned how to advocate for myself.
While I have fond memories of my undergraduate experience, not all of my experiences
were positive, which serve as the impetus for this study. During my junior year, I was struck by
the syllabus used by my education instructor Ms. Alfred
3
(pseudonym). Her syllabus outlined the
policies and practices she expected her students to follow. If we had any questions, she would
tell us to refer to the syllabus. This was a very small class, just three students, including me.
Most professors, except Ms. Alfred, treated their syllabi as contracts or living documents that
could be adjusted at any time. In the past, I did exactly what my instructors told me to do up until
my junior year. During my sophomore year, I started exploring various ways to access the
required textbooks without it becoming a major financial burden. Ms. Alfred’s course required
an expensive textbook. Fortunately, I came across the online version of the required text, which I
rented for the semester. The price was nearly a third of the hard copy, and I did not foresee
needing the textbook beyond her course.
This was the first time I rented a textbook online, and I was very pleased with myself for
having the foresight to do so. The online version had a read-aloud tab, direct links to online

3
Pseudonyms are used for all individuals in this study to protect their identity.

xiv
resources, and an in-text note section that allowed me to annotate any section of the book. After
experimenting with the online electronic book the night before, I was excited to attend class the
following day. I vividly recall my interactions with Ms. Alfred when she asked all three students
to pull out our textbooks. Two of my peers pulled out their hard copy textbooks while I opened
my laptop. The instructor directed her attention to me and assumed that I did not hear her
direction. I shared with everyone that I rented the electronic copy of the textbook because it was
cheaper than buying the textbook at the campus bookstore or the hard copy online.
While I assumed she would be impressed that I utilized outside resources that worked
best for me, Ms. Alfred indicated that having a rented online textbook was not permissible. She
told me I had to purchase the hard copy of the textbook, and I politely refused. I explained that I
could not return the online copy. Ms. Alfred believed that my computer was a distraction and I
would not be focusing on the class. She then told me that I had to print hard copies of the
readings because she wanted me to make certain that I was on task. This short-term fix worked
out until the online textbook company informed me that I had a limit to the number of pages I
could print.
Not knowing what to do, I went to the dean’s office, with whom I had a good relationship
since my freshman year. This dean, in particular, had served as my English professor, so she was
familiar with me as a student and served as a thought partner in many ways. Dean Jenkins was
aware that I depended on my laptop for taking notes, completing assignments, and reading
materials. As I stepped into her office to sit down, she smiled and asked, “What’s the problem?”
I was known for dropping by without making an office appointment, but she had the ability to
see the good in all challenges and situations. I explained my rationale for purchasing the online
textbook and my instructor’s inflexibility. I also explained that I grew up on technology and

xv
enjoyed utilizing resources that I fully understood. The dean approved my usage of the online
textbook, much to my instructor’s disapproval.
Ms. Alfred used the course syllabus as well as other rules to enforce her authority and
position as the instructor. Even though there were only three of us, she did not attempt to create a
sense of community or affirm us as partners in learning. Since I did not follow her directions in
this course, I felt that I was micromanaged during my senior year. For example, during student-
teaching that year, my assigned mentor noticed that Ms. Alfred wanted to find a reason to write
me up. Fortunately, I was transparent with the student-teaching mentor, and she was completely
aware of our dynamic. She became another advocate who ensured my wellbeing and protected
me from unnecessary stress. At the time, I was just frustrated with Ms. Alfred. However, now
after several years as a former project specialist at the University of Southern California’s Center
for Urban Education (CUE), I have learned that a syllabus can be a powerful instrument in its
impact on students’ feelings, motivations, empowerment, and sense of self-efficacy. Ms. Alfred
used her syllabus as a symbol of control, which ultimately was detrimental to my experience, at
least in her classes.
Harnish and Bridges (2011) argue that course syllabi can illustrate characteristics such as:
(1) a warm tone; (2) a detailed explanation for assignments; (3) a personal note from the
instructor; and (4) their passion for teaching. Rumore (2016) stated that syllabi have been
referred to as a legal document yet, instructors have the power to define how knowledge should
be acquired in their classroom. Instructors such as Ms. Alfred have the ability to design a
learning environment that connects to students on a personal level, challenges their
understanding through research and lived experience, and views them as contributors to learning
and knowledge. It is because of my lived experience that my dissertation sought to assist faculty

xvi
in learning whether and how their course syllabus met criteria that reflect the principles of
equity-mindedness developed by CUE. Through an inquiry-based intervention, I wish to learn
how faculty members think through the language they use in their course syllabus to
communicate care and support or racially minoritized students. To investigate learning among
university instructors, I must first situate the problem of the lack of racial diversity in STEM
education and workforce.

1

Chapter One: Background of the Problem
Colleges and universities in the United States have sought to address the
underrepresentation among racially minoritized students (Black/African American,
Latinx/Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples) in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) education (Rotermund & Burke, 2021). The National Center for Science and
Engineering Statistics (2021) reported that math and science in elementary and secondary
schools provide the needed foundation for students who select a STEM major. Yet, the
Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science,
Engineering and Technology Development (2000) reported that inadequate access to qualified
K–12 teachers, pre-college education, lack of encouragement, and poor articulation between 2-
and 4-year colleges and universities to the current deficit in STEM education for people of color
(NSB, 2021). These same inequities continue to exist in the STEM workforce. The same report
argues that “racial prejudice and ethnic and gender stereotypes are still pervasive” in the United
States’ workplace (Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in
Science, Engineering and Technology Development, 2000, p. 4). Due to the failure to meet
degree requirements, Black and Latinx continue to be underrepresented in STEM employment
(Landivar, 2013). Furthermore, unequal pay, inadequate working conditions, and non-inclusive
environments continue to impact racially marginalized employees. It is evident that there is still a
need to diversify students’ access to education and employment opportunities, especially for
Black and Latinx groups to succeed in STEM.
The United States continues to face challenges in recruiting and retaining students of
color in postsecondary education (Packard, 2016). Persistence in P–20 and graduate school has
commonly been referred to as the “leaky pipeline” (Packard, 2016), in which students declare
2

STEM as their preferred major but they do not successfully attain their degree (Hubbard & Sage,
2010; Ma & Liu, 2017). While the decline in STEM majors varies depending on the disciplinary
area, racial and ethnic inequalities continue to show that students of color are not completing
coursework at the same rate as White students. Packard (2016) noted that the largest
occupational growth area is projected in STEM, but African American students only account for
7% of bachelor’s degrees in STEM fields. The NSB (2021) states that “Hispanics earn
substantially larger portions of Science and Engineering associate’s degrees than bachelor’s and
higher degrees” (p. 30). Asians and Whites attained Engineering degrees at higher rates than any
other racial/ethnic group (NSB, 2021).
The underrepresentation of Black, Latinx, and Indigenous peoples has persisted over
decades despite various efforts to stop their exodus from STEM. However, HBCUs continue to
produce Black STEM graduates at a higher rate than predominantly white institutions (PWIs).
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2021) argues that HBCUs continue to
serve African American/Black students’ needs. About 23% of science or engineering doctorate
graduates earned a bachelor’s at an HBCU between 2015 and 2019 (National Center for Science
and Engineering Statistics, 2021). Despite HBCUs’ ability to produce STEM graduates, their
success is not sufficient to close the STEM equity gap for Black undergraduates and graduates
(National Science Board, 2019). The increased presence of racially minoritized students in
higher education, particularly the growing number of Latinx students in tandem with the
increased demand for STEM professionals, puts pressure on colleges and universities to find
better solutions. This study centers on a Hispanic-serving institution, HBCUs provides a model
for how institutions can support student learning. For this study, I argue that student success
3

relies on the classroom environment and how instructors utilize their course syllabus to
communicate with racially minoritized students.
Statement of the Problem
In 2015, Latinx represented 17% of the United States population, while other people of
color comprised 40% (Zamani-Gallaher et al., 2019). As racially minoritized populations are the
majority, it is important to examine the success rates of students of color in secondary and
postsecondary education. The dropout rates among Latinx between 16- and 24-year-olds was the
highest (7.4%) compared to any other race and ethnicity population in 2020 (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2022). When examining trends in postsecondary education, studies indicate
that Black and Latinx students continue to fall behind White and Asian students in STEM degree
attainment (NSB, 2021).
In postsecondary education, the racial divide exists in persistence and degree completion
among Black and Latinx students. Latinx college enrollments continue to increase, but their
degree attainment still falls short compared to other racial-ethnic populations (Zamani-Gallaher
et al., 2019). Fries-Britt et al. (2010) argued that Black and Latinx students are severely
underrepresented in STEM majors. While national funding from government and organizations
have supported initiatives to address the equity gap among minorities, women, and students with
disabilities (Benjamin, 1999; Hubbard & Stage, 2010; NSF, 1998; Packard, 2016), more can be
done to strengthen the pedagogical practices of STEM faculty. One strategy is to increase their
awareness of the issue that their practices are underperforming for Black, Latinx, and Indigenous
students who desire careers in STEM.
Most interventions to address STEM underrepresentation have focused on compensatory
programs for students of color (Bensimon, 2007; Bensimon et al, 2019). Multiple studies indicate
4

that best practices like tutoring, mentoring, learning support centers, academic advising, career
awareness, and programs for at-risk and first-generation students improve retention in STEM
(American Society for Engineering Education, 2012). Nevertheless, Packard (2016) reported that
students leave the STEM disciplines for various reasons, such as (a) lack of information
regarding workforce opportunities, (b) limited opportunities to participate in research with
faculty, (c) course curriculum that does not relate to real-world problems, and (d) “chilly
department and workplace environments” (p. 3). More recently, a few scholars have turned their
attention to faculty members’ values, beliefs, and attitudes and their impact on the academic
racial-ethnic minority students’ success (Bensimon, 2005, 2007; Bustillos et al., 2011; Hubbard
& Stage, 2010).
Higher education faculty are predominantly White and have not been taught to reflect on
how racism perpetuates via their teaching and interactions with racially minoritized students.
Bensimon and Gray (2020) viewed these individuals as first-generation equity practitioners who,
like “first-generation” college students, need additional supports to develop racial literacy.
Specifically, STEM faculty (like the majority of higher education faculty) need to “learn what it
means to be anti-racist in thought and action” (Bensimon & Gray, 2020, p. 70). Research on
faculty and K–12 teachers has documented the role of faculty members as institutional agents.
Institutional agents are “individuals who deploy their resources, networks, and positional
authority” to promote the success of students of color (Bensimon, 2019, p. 1691; Stanton-
Salazar, 1997, 2001, 2011). For instance, I did not view Ms. Alfred, a Black woman, as an
institutional agent because she did everything in her power to assert her authority in the
classroom using her course syllabus. However, if she had been provided the time and space to
reflect on her teaching philosophy through a structured inquiry activity, our shared experience
5

could have assisted in how she utilized her syllabus. Asserting a position of power has always
been my experience with instructors, yet some have looked beyond rules and regulations to show
caring and support for me as an individual. Thus, institutional agents view students in
partnership rather than maintaining the status quo as authoritarian figures.
Developing faculty into institutional agents could be a strategy to transform the
notoriously chilly and White-centered STEM academic environments into an environment where
Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students feel welcomed and validated as future scientists. Through
professional development training, my purpose was to provide a learning opportunity for STEM
faculty who wanted to reflect on how they communicate with Black and Latinx through
language. This dissertation will focus on learning among STEM faculty who participated in a
structured inquiry activity.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to document an inquiry-based intervention that involved
STEM faculty at a Hispanic-serving 4-year institution examining their course syllabi through the
lens of racial equity using a tool developed by the Center for Urban Education (CUE). The
intervention required that the participants consider whether their syllabi were welcoming, likely
to make racially minoritized students feel represented, provided students with the information to
succeed, and demonstrated awareness of the discipline as racialized in its content and outcomes.
For example, while mathematics is thought of as objective and race-neutral, it produces
differentiated outcomes by race and ethnicity and favors White students who have benefitted
from advanced math courses offered in their high schools or through dual enrollment programs.
Four research questions informed this study
6

1. In what ways does the syllabus of STEM faculty members reflect or omit CUE’s six
equity-minded syllabi practices?
2. In what ways does the syllabus of STEM faculty members reflect or omit six anti-
equity-minded syllabi practices?
3. In what ways do STEM faculty who participated in CUE’s professional development
training make changes to their post-syllabus that reflect CUE’s six equity-minded
practices?
4. In what ways, as the facilitator, could I improve the professional development
training based on STEM faculty illustrations of CUE’s six equity-minded syllabi
practices?
I answered these research questions by analyzing how equity-minded
4
thinking is the driving
force behind self-reflection.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation consists of six chapters. Following the introduction, Chapter One
provides an overview of the literature that highlights what practitioners can do to address
inequities in student success among Black and Latinx students enrolled in STEM majors.
Chapter Two introduces the CUE’s Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus Review Protocol. In
this chapter, I outline all protocol sections and describe the activity triangle framework. In the
third chapter, I describe my research design. This chapter centers on a document analysis
approach through which I reviewed faculty members’ pre- and post-syllabi. Chapters Four and

4
In the context of this study equity-mindedness describes critically race-conscious
faculty who exhibit the following characteristics: (1) self-awareness of race and racism in and
outside the classroom; (2) recognition of racialization in student educational outcomes; and (3)
willingness to implement changes in their pedagogical and relational practices to be responsive
to students of color.
7

Five present the results from my analyses. Chapter Four focuses on the findings from 15 pre-
syllabi, while Chapter Five presents the results from six faculty members post-syllabi. In the
concluding chapter, I provide a discussion and recommendations for future research.
Review of Literature
Studies, such as those by Bustillos and colleagues (2011), provide a strong argument for
paying greater attention to the role of practitioners, particularly college and university faculty
members and department chairs, in facilitating greater success opportunities for racially
minoritized students to effectively achieve and succeed in STEM fields. Research has shown that
postsecondary education continues to fail students of color compared to their White counterparts
(Packard, 2016). Yet, the work at the University of Southern California’s CUE has sought to
assist faculty in addressing educational disparities by focusing on designing a space in which
faculty examine their policies and processes through inquiry. Bensimon et al. (2012) asserted that
a culture of inquiry could assist instructors in reflecting on their purpose in designing a space that
allows for “critical meaning-making with an eye toward problematizing the role of structures,
policies, and practices in the production of racial inequities in educational outcomes” (p. 47).
This notion of inquiry provides an opportunity for faculty to explore institutional practices and
processes based on evidence that seeks to address common dominant ideologies and beliefs
(Bensimon et al., 2012).
To assist faculty in taking responsibility for the racial disparities in STEM degree
attainment and completion, Bensimon’s (2012) organizational learning framework allows
“administrators, faculty, and staff to learn “the ‘rules or reasoning’ that govern how individuals
interpret situations and how they design and implement their action” by becoming aware of their
own cognitive frames (Argyris, 1991, as cited in Bensimon, 2005 p. 100). The three cognitive
8

frames outlined by Bensimon (2005) seek to assist individual practitioners in learning how they
make sense of their experiences and what they can do to unlearn and redefine policies, practices,
and processes that contribute to degree attainment for students of color (Bensimon, 2005;
Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). She outlines three cognitive frames that guide individuals in
learning how faculty can categorize their hunches, ask questions, and take actions to make sense
of their role in addressing underrepresented students’ needs (Bensimon, 2005).
Cognitive Frame of Equity
As defined by Bensimon (2012), equity-mindedness “places the institution as the
responsible agent for the unintended creation of inequity and for the actions to correct it” (p. 35).
Bensimon used the concept of cognitive frames to represent the culturally acquired knowledge,
values, beliefs, and experiences administrators, faculty, and staff members use to make sense of
these phenomena (Bensimon, 2005). Faculty members who exhibit an equity-minded cognitive
frame recognize that racially minoritized students have been deprived of educational
opportunities due to attending less well-resourced public schools with limited curricular choices
where they experience racism (Bensimon, 2005, 2007). In broad access universities like Central
State University (CSU, a pseudonym), instructors often have low expectations and do not see
Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students as academically prepared. In contrast, equity-minded
faculty understand racism as systemic and pervasive in practices, policies, and structures.
Consequently, they are more likely to engage in asset-based practices and invest effort in the
success of Black, Latinx, and other racially minoritized groups. Equity-minded faculty have also
been described as institutional agents who draw on their resources, knowledge, and networks to
create opportunities for racially minoritized students (Bensimon et al., 2019; Stanton-Salazar,
2011).
9

To assist practitioners in becoming equity-minded, CUE created several equity-minded
protocols to help faculty inquire into their practices, see that they reflect deficit-mindedness, and
facilitate a cognitive shift toward equity-mindedness (Bensimon, 2005). The theory driving the
inquiry processes pioneered by CUE is that practitioners are more likely to become equity-
minded if they study their own practices through the lens of racial equity.
Cognitive Frame of Deficit
Individuals with a deficit cognitive frame attribute inequities in students’ educational
outcomes to the belief that students of color are underprepared for college, inadequately
socialized, and lack personal motivation to attain their certificate or college degree (Bensimon,
2005). Deficit-mindedness can be identified when practitioners use language to communicate
perceived shortcomings of Black/African American, Latinx, or other historically minoritized
populations (McNair et al., 2020). Rather than viewing students of color as knowledgeable,
deficit-minded practitioners focus on academic, cultural, economic, and experimental deficits.
According to Bensimon (2007), this frame views students as lacking the foundational knowledge
and academic skills to attain a postsecondary certificate or degree (McNair et al., 2020).
Cognitive Frame of Diversity
A diversity cognitive frame allows historically marginalized communities access to
higher education, but it does not seek to prepare students for the culture or the workforce
(Bensimon, 2005). Rather, diversity focuses on racial demographics rather than individuals’ lived
experiences as causes for the typically unequal educational outcomes among students of color. In
sum, faculty with a diversity-minded cognitive frame “fail to take into account their own roles in
the creation or solution of unequal outcomes” (Bensimon, 2005, p. 102). Equity as a cognitive
frame seeks to dismantle inequities in educational outcomes, specifically for historically
10

minoritized students. An equity framework grants practitioners the right to use their agency to
question who is being served through a critical race lens (Bensimon, 2005, 2007; Malcom-
Piqueux & Bensimon, 2017). It requires faculty to focus on the root of the problem and the
individual changes needed to dismantle educational inequities among students of color. Through
these three cognitive frames, faculty have the opportunity to explore how their experiences and
their institutional and departmental cultures contribute to their beliefs in how they define student
success. By designing workshops and professional development learning opportunities, faculty
become researchers of their own practice.
Bensimon et al. (2004) proposed the researcher-as-practitioner model as a framework
designed to develop practitioners’ awareness of their biases through cognitive frames.
Combining the elements of participatory action research (Bensimon et al., 2004; Bray et al.,
2000; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Stringer, 1996), community (Bensimon et al., 2004; Smith,
1999), and collaboration, the researcher-as-practitioner model seeks to shift the division of labor
between the researchers and facilitators to bring about change at the organizational, societal, and
individual levels (Bensimon et al., 2004). Ultimately, the desired outcome of the model is to
allow the faculty to uncover their own cognitive frame and how they can reframe their mode of
thinking through an equity-minded lens (Bensimon et al., 2004). Despite continued efforts to
align researcher and practitioner scholars’ efforts to close equity gaps, studies such as those by
Bensimon and colleagues provide a strong argument for paying greater attention to faculty
members’ role in student success.
Overview of Course Syllabi
A staple among America’s higher education system, course syllabi seek to communicate
critical information about student success, institutional and departmental policies about college
11

expectations, and learning outcomes students are expected to master to pass the course (Canada,
2013; CUE, 2018; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Harnish & Bridges, 2011; Slattery & Carlson,
2005). Higher education faculty are rarely taught how to teach undergraduates, and they typically
model their teaching practices on the methods of their own teachers. The majority of faculty lack
racial literacy and rarely consider how Whiteness
5
, erasure of racially minoritized people, and
racialization play out in their classrooms and pedagogically (Bensimon, 2005, 2007; Bensimon
& Malcom, 2012; Bensimon & Gray, 2020; Ching, 2018). According to Calhoon and Becker
(2008), course syllabi has been documented as a “course handbook” or “course guide” while
faculty in the United States view the syllabus as a contract between the instructor and students
(Calhoon & Becker, 2008; Parkes & Harris, 2002; Slattery & Carlson, 2005).
As a contract, the course syllabus communicates rules and procedures in a legalistic tone
rather than centering the needs of individuals in a student friendly manner. By adopting an
equity-minded framework, faculty members could understand racial literacy in a higher
education context (Bensimon & Gray, 2020) while also designing a syllabus that includes
communities of color. Bain (2004) argues that faculty practitioners should design a “promising
syllabus” that communicates what students will learn, encourages them to actively participate in
assignments, and defines what learning looks like in the classroom. Traditionally, the course
syllabus is the first impression that students have and typically one of the first documents they
are provided during the first week of the course.

5
Kivel (1995) defined Whiteness as a “constantly shifting boundary separating those who
are entitled to have certain privileges from those whose exploitation and vulnerability to violence
is justified by their not being white” (p. 19). Cabrera (2020) noted that Whiteness does not
directly refer to white people but acknowledges those who benefit from the organization
structure of oppression.

12

The Role of Faculty
According to Bensimon (2007), institutional agents employ their social network and
resources to help students of color achieve the skills needed to successfully attain a
postsecondary certificate or degree. The literature has traditionally focused on what students
achieve rather than faculty characteristics and how their understanding affects student success.
To help address racial inequities in degree completion, Bensimon (2007) focused on learning
problems that focus on what faculty can do rather than what students can do.
Bensimon and Gray (2020) sought to help first-generation equity practitioners understand
how their pedagogical practices and teaching artifacts result from their own experiences. As
educators and researchers who seek to make STEM studies more appealing and readily available
to students of color, practitioners need to be exposed to learning opportunities that allow them to
reflect on their teaching practices. Bensimon and Gray (2020) argued that the majority of faculty,
regardless of discipline, lack racial literacy
6
. According to the authors, the professoriate, a
majority White profession, is traditionally focused on student deficits rather than faculty
responsibility. Bensimon and Gray (2020) seek to shift the traditional label of “first-generation”
students to faculty who lack the foundational knowledge and experience in confronting the
racialized pattern, outcomes, and experiences of historically minoritized populations.
Research has brought attention to the underrepresentation of African American, Latinx,
and other minoritized groups in K–12 academic preparation programs, but the literature has
focused more on supplemental learning opportunities in secondary and postsecondary education;
limited opportunities for research or career-relevant activities, and department and workspace

6
Winans (2010) defines racial literacy as “the ability to examine critically and
recursively the ways in which race informs discourses, culture, institutions, belief systems,
interpretive frameworks, and numerous facets of daily life” (p. 476).
13

climates that fail to acknowledge the racial identities of people of color (Packard, 2016). By
focusing more on the role of faculty and classroom climates as factors that dissuade or push out
minoritized students, it allows instructors the ability to dismantle a race-neutral field. Bensimon
(2007) argued that faculty can help students of color navigate the hidden rules and norms to be
successful in postsecondary environments. One way of assisting students of color is having
faculty self-reflect on their roles as instructors and the written language they use to communicate
to students in their course syllabi.
Learning Based Interventions
The Center for Urban Education (CUE) designed an institutional change intervention to
address inequities in higher education (Peña et al., 2006). For 2 decades, CUE has produced
racial equity tools to help faculty understand how their teaching approaches, as well as the
artifacts, can mediate learning. Ching (2018) designed an inquiry-based intervention to advance
racial equity by exposing community college math faculty to how they can bring about equity-
mindedness. This study examined how equity-mindedness and cultural inclusivity were
incorporated into course syllabi through a one-time professional development training. Ching
(2018) found that providing space for critical reflection among faculty to reflect on their teaching
practices and classroom artifacts was not enough time for participants to develop lasting equity-
mindedness.
Ching (2018) proposes that faculty need space to reflect using inquiry-based workshops
designed to bring about equity-mindedness. Through structured learning opportunities provided
by CUE, faculty have the space to reflect on their teaching pedagogy and their role as instructors
to develop equity-mindedness. Studies have shown that inquiry-based interventions allow faculty
to reflect and learn how they view a problem through a deficit, diversity, or equity cognitive
14

frame (Bensimon, 2005); evaluate their beliefs and behaviors as instructors who seek to address
the equity problem (Bustillos et al., 2011; Ching, 2018); and develop and implement race
consciousness to address the equity problem among students of color (Peña, 2012). Ching’s
(2018) study provides a structured learning opportunity that considers faculty time to attend to
their teaching practice but suggests that a one-time professional development session is not
enough time for instructors to finalize lasting equity-mindedness into their course syllabus
syllabi.
Peña (2012) also sought to make faculty aware of their own values for racial equity
through an inquiry method focused on critical consciousness and self-change. Peña (2012)
argued that faculty play a pivotal role in alleviating inequitable educational outcomes for
students of color by designing an inquiry-based professional experience to learn how faculty
members develop critical consciousness
7
and their individual commitments to change their
practices. In both studies, faculty members were provided the opportunity to become aware of
the racial equity gaps at their institution and to become intentional about how they can be
responsive to the needs of students of color. Like Peña (2012) and Ching (2018), the next section
will describe the professional development workshop and tools that I used, followed by the
inquiry-based tool that sought to assist faculty on CUE’s Equity-Minded Syllabus Review Tool.
Description of the Professional Development Workshop
One of the six CUE’s professional development training sessions centered on the syllabus
review protocol, which sought to support the learning of equity-mindedness among STEM
faculty at CSU. The syllabus review tool sought to help practitioners reflect on how language is

7
Based on the work of Landreman et al., (2007), Peña (2012) defines critical consciousness as
the knowledge and decision making that address inequitable educational outcomes of students of
color. These efforts seek to produce social change.
15

used and how content is presented through a critical race lens and provide an opportunity for
individuals to inquire into how their practices, policies, and processes impact students of color.
Figure 1 illustrates all of the tools and activities that were presented to faculty over the course of
the professional development training.

Figure 1
CUE Equity Workshop Series Tools and Activities

16

Through a series of CUE-facilitated inquiry-based workshops, participating instructors
examined course- and department-level data by race and ethnicity. They learned to ask, “why is
it that we perform better for White students than for Black and Latinx?” This question led to
workshops where the faculty interrogated their syllabi, coded their gradebooks to identify
racialized patterns, discussed readings, and learned to view racial equity from the perspective of
accountability and critical race theory. Through these workshops, the practitioners were
encouraged to examine how their values, beliefs, and practices could transform learning for
students of color. While CUE’s scope of work entailed a total of six workshops, my study
focuses only on the review of course syllabi.
By centering on racial equity, faculty are prompted to reflect on whom their syllabus
serves through the lens of racially minoritized students. Furthermore, instructors are also
reminded to reflect on how Black and Latinx students may experience or engage in dialogue with
their peers around standard requirements such as classroom expectations, rules, assignments, and
policies embedded in an instructor’s course syllabus. While the syllabus review tool allows for
critical reflection on language and practices, CUE’s workshops present an additional opportunity
for participants to question the history of their syllabus, the unspoken rules and behavior of their
discipline, and how their syllabi reflect or do not reflect CUE’s six equity-minded practices. The
following sections briefly describe the sessions before going in-depth into the syllabus review
sessions, which are the topic of this study.
Step 1: Workshop to Understand Equity from a Racial Perspective
The first workshop centered on equity and equity-mindedness, which allowed CUE staff
to introduce race-conscious practices to increase instructors’ knowledge of the concept of equity
through the critical and accountability dimensions. The critical dimension of equity recognizes
17

that historical discrimination and structural racism account for the lived experiences that impact
communities of color. Introducing the critical dimension is meant to provide a space where
faculty can self-reflect on history’s impact on their lived experiences (see Figure 2). It is
important for instructors to note the different forms of oppression that have informed policies
and practices within American colleges and universities.

Figure 2
CUE’s Critical Dimension of Equity

18

The accountability dimension of equity refers to parity in educational outcomes such as
access and degree completion. This perspective shifts the responsibility from students to
practitioners. Overall, CUE seeks to call attention to the history of structures and policies that
have been historically institutionalized and made acceptable. As mentioned by Dowd and
Bensimon (2015),
Accountability policy can support practitioner knowledge and agency to dismantle
structural racism, but the current situation in postsecondary accountability practice and
policy is characterized by historical amnesia about higher education’s role in the
racialization of education opportunities and outcomes. (p. 3)

Figure 3
CUE’s Accountability Dimension of Equity

19

To better understand both the critical and accountability dimensions of equity, Dowd and
Bensimon (2015) empower practitioners to examine their own practices using inquiry tools that
focus on race. While American colleges and universities deal with how racial segregation
continues to influence various primary, secondary and higher education structures equity as
accountability provides space for first-generation practitioners to institutionalize a race-
conscious lens in practice (Bensimon & Gray, 2020). Thus, my affiliation with CUE and STEM
faculty at CSU allowed space for critical conversations around inquiry and how equity-minded
syllabi practices can assist in self-reflection and potentially improve student outcomes.
Step 2: Redefining Student Success Through an Equity Framework
The traditional understanding of student success neglects faculty responsibility and
support for student learning and outcomes, which ultimately presents an opportunity for faculty
to reconsider how they define success. Through a race awareness lens, CUE reframes students’
success as a practitioner’s responsibility that focuses on their effort, care, responsibility, and
commitment to student success. I challenged STEM instructors to consider their own racialized
experiences and provided a space for them to develop their own definitions of success and to
consider what students may need from them to be successful in STEM disciplines. Ultimately,
my goal was to shift the focus from students to one that centers on practitioners creating a
relationship with the students to ensure successful outcomes, especially for students of color.
This model provides a space for students of color to feel included in their learning in hopes of
having a lasting support system as they navigate higher education. The previous workshops
provided the foundation for practitioners to dive into their course syllabi. In the next section, I
will provide an over of the course syllabus followed by a description of the syllabus review tool.
20

After orienting faculty to CUE’s theory of change through visual PowerPoint slides, I
introduced faculty to the syllabus review tool. The inquiry activities embedded within the tool
seek to connect faculty members’ thinking about student success to their real-life experiences to
bring change. Thus, the purpose of my intervention was to provoke faculty members to reflect on
what they know and what they need to know to ensure the success of Latinx and Black/African
American students at CSU. Chapter Two will illustrate all the inquiry activities provided in the
syllabus review tool.
21

Chapter Two: CUE’s Syllabus Review Tool
In Chapter Two, I will discuss CUE’s theory of change following a definition of equity-
mindedness. I will then describe the six sections of the Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus
Review Tool. Next, I will outline the activity system framework that captures CUE’s approach to
developing equity-minded practitioners. Finally, I will use the activity system to illustrate CUE’s
Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus Review as a learning intervention artifact.
Theory of Change
The aim of CUE’s tools is to enable administrators, faculty, and staff to deconstruct
artifacts that they rely on to carry out their work and to see for themselves how these artifacts
center Whiteness in their assumptions, content, and expectations (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012;
Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Artifacts are defined as extensions of campus culture, including the
practices and policies that inform and uphold the institution’s values and expectations. By
engaging practitioners as researchers of their own practices guided by theories of critical race,
participatory critical action research, organizational learning, practice, and sociocultural
(Bustillos et al., 2011), the expectation is that they will bring about self-change (Bensimon,
2004, 2007; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).
Equity-Mindedness
The Center for Urban Education created tools to bring about equity-mindedness: a way of
thinking that requires college administrators, faculty, and staff to be conscious of how racism
continues to exclude and oppress Latinx, Black, Native American, Pacific Islander, and other
racially minoritized populations (Bensimon, 2007; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Dowd &
Bensimon, 2015). The center’s mission is to help higher education practitioners understand how
22

their own practices, as well as institutional policies, produce racial inequality in educational
outcomes.
An equity-minded approach is reflected in actions and stances: disaggregating data by
race and ethnicity to inform inquiry into problems, such as racialized patterns in educational
outcomes (Bensimon, 2004, 2007; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Bensimon et al., 2016; Ching,
2018; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; McNair et al., 2020); exhibiting race consciousness
8
such as
being able to notice who by race participates in a classroom discussion (Bensimon, 2004, 2007;
Bensimon et al., 2016; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Ching, 2018; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015;
McNair et al., 2020); analyzing common educational practices from a racially minoritized
student perspective, for example safeguarding that group work within a classroom does not leave
out students of color (Bensimon, 2004, 2007; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Ching, 2018; Dowd &
Bensimon, 2015; McNair et al., 2020); exercising agency on behalf of people of color for
instance being conscious of using one’s power as an instructor to support racially minoritized
students’ success (Bensimon, 2004, 2007; Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Ching, 2018; Dowd &
Bensimon, 2015; McNair et al., 2020); and ensuring that artifacts of practice such as a syllabus
reflects the experiences and knowledge of racially excluded students (Bensimon, 2004, 2007;
Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Ching; 2018; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; McNair et al., 2020).
To support practitioners’ development of equity-mindedness, CUE has created an Equity-
minded Inquiry Series of tools that engage faculty, staff, and student affairs professionals in a
variety of activities that are designed to uncover the production of racist outcomes through

8
Race consciousness calls attention to racially minoritized students that are not being
served based on indicator such as access and degree completion. A race awareness presents an
opportunity for practitioners to inquire into the ways in which these student populations are
being served through self-reflection and group discussions (Malcom-Piqueux and Bensimon,
2017).
23

artifacts and practices that are believed to be race-neutral and responsive to all students. These
inquiry activities involve the gathering of numerical data, textual analysis, observations, and
structured deconstruction of artifacts that support teaching and the use of student support
services. For example, CUE’s data instruments consist of the Vital Signs Data Template, the
Benchmarking Equity and Student Success Tool, and Course and Department Level Templates
to gauge and assess student outcomes through a race-conscious lens (Bensimon & Malcom,
2012; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Bensimon et al., 2016). While CUE’s data tools provide
practitioners an entry point to understand current racial inequity patterns, they also provide space
for individual and collective learning.
Upon analyzing key indicators such as university access, degree completion, course
retention, and persistence rates for higher education institutions, practitioners are then asked to
engage in reflective activities to understand the experiences of students of color by utilizing
CUE’s tools. Upon making sense of disaggregated data by race and ethnicity, practitioners are
then provided the opportunity to explore CUE’s racial equity tools that facilitate inquiry into
different aspects of campus environments. For example, the document analysis, peer observation,
and web scan protocols allow practitioners to understand how their department is not serving the
needs of students of color from historically marginalized communities. Through guided
reflection, CUE facilitators (I am one of them) seek to empower administrators, faculty, and staff
to engage in problem-solving experiments to bring about transformational change (CUE, 2018;
Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).
To unlearn the habit of attributing inequalities in educational outcomes to student deficits
such as in individual effort, college readiness, and motivation (Bensimon, 2007), CUE’s critical
action research model (Bensimon, 2007, 2012; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Kemmis &
24

McTaggart, 2000) requires higher education practitioners to engage in various dialogues,
activities, and exercises that challenge their beliefs, norms, and values (Bensimon, 2004; 2007;
CUE, 2018; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Through action research, CUE’s inquiry activities aim to
put participants into the role of investigators of their own practices. Simply put, CUE’s theory of
change helps practitioners treat the artifacts of their practice, such as their syllabi, at a distance,
as if they were unfamiliar with them. Through a guided process, the participants interrogate how
syllabi language and content reflect or fail to reflect race-based inclusivity (Bensimon, 2004,
2007; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).
One of the tools used by CUE to develop equity-minded competency among faculty is the
syllabus review which is part of CUE’s Equity-Minded Inquiry Series designed for instructors at
CSU. This study focused on how STEM faculty used CUE’s syllabus review to mediate equity-
mindedness in their pedagogy and teaching approaches. All of CUE’s workshop training
required a structured and facilitated inquiry approach led by a CUE staff member, commonly
known as a project specialist. As the project specialist assigned to work with CSU, my role was
to organize the inquiry activities and facilitate discussions that foregrounded discussions about
racial equity and equity-mindedness. I provided the instruction needed to teach STEM faculty
how to apply CUE’s syllabus review to assess their syllabi through a racial equity perspective.
The Racial Reckoning in 2020
In light of recent mass murders of Black people in America that unleashed nationwide
protests in the Spring of 2020 and re-energized the Black Lives Matter movement, racial justice
reform is now taking center stage in 2020 while prompting conversations and initiatives that are
centered on the injustices that Black people face and have faced in America socially and
educationally. The increased attention and urgency to eradicate systemic racism have reached the
25

highest levels of government with President Biden’s Executive Order directing all government
offices to conduct equity audits. During this period of racial reckoning, tools such as CUE’s
syllabus review (CUE, 2018) can assist faculty members in addressing racial inequity and
injustice in higher education. The syllabus review merges evidence-based research and
pedagogy, which allows instructors to identify the language they use and the messages they
convey, implicitly or explicitly, that contribute to a classroom environment that is or is not
racially inclusive.
Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus Review
Section 1: Do I Know My Syllabus?
CUE’s inquiry approach requires practitioners to recall their purpose for teaching. While
the introduction of the guide centers the need for higher education instructors to routinely
incorporate a structured inquiry process, section one provides a series of questions that allow
instructors to be intentional about how they use their course syllabus. The first section of the
syllabus review prompts faculty to reflect on the history and purpose of their syllabus. This
section of the protocol, titled “Do I Know My Syllabus,” asks faculty members to reflect on three
words or phrases that come to mind when they hear the word “syllabus,” followed by responding
to the question, “In what ways is the syllabus important to your practice?” Upon reflecting on
their own teaching, faculty list the courses they currently teach. This portion of the activity
allows instructors to reflect on where and when they can. It is important for instructors to note
that certain privileges and disadvantages are associated with race. This awareness is important to
understand how students from different backgrounds will show up in their classrooms. During
this section of the review, faculty members are also asked to reflect on changes, if any, that they
26

have made over time. This is important because faculty members often underestimate their
discretion in making changes.
After participants completed Section 1, I facilitated a group discussion. Faculty members
made statements like “Students do not read the syllabus” or “My syllabus is a written contract
agreement between me [the instructor], my students, and the institution.” These responses are
common and reflect assumptions and biases held against their students. While their responses do
not directly answer the warm-up activity, these common responses provide insight into how
faculty members may view their role as instructors, how they engage with students, and what
practices inform their instructional approach to teaching.
As the facilitator, I intentionally do not address these types of questions or statements
because they deflect from the upcoming activities on which I want instructors to focus. When
facilitating this section, my sole purpose is to prompt self-reflection and to provide a space in
which instructors can talk about their values and how their beliefs translate or fail to translate
into their course syllabus. This warm-up activity to the syllabus review serves as my attempt to
introduce faculty to reflecting on how their various identities inform their instruction.
Section 2: Whom Does My Syllabus Serve?
To lay the groundwork for faculty to exercise agency in changing their syllabi, the second
section of the syllabus review guide asks faculty members to conduct their first round of inquiry.
They are directed to examine what is written in their syllabus and indicate whether it is based on
institutional or departmental requirements or reflects the interests and priorities of the faculty
member and students. This section of the protocol looks as follows:

27

Figure 4
CUE’s Syllabus Review Guide - How Syllabi Serve

The goal of this section is to understand the many purposes syllabi can serve. When I
facilitated Section 2, I utilized a syllabus excerpt that explained academic dishonesty and a code
of conduct statement. I asked participants to collectively determine whom the statement serves as
a strategy to practice deciphering (and rarely examined) syllabi sections and their purpose. The
example of the statement on academic dishonesty illustrates a legal requirement imposed by the
institution to safeguard its actions if students should be accused of plagiarism. After facilitating
the example and taking note of instructors’ observations, I asked participants to examine their
own syllabi and, using the instructions provided in the guide, identify whether its inclusion
fulfills institutional, departmental, or personal interests. While the syllabus review identifies
28

three categories, the guide also asks instructors to jot down their own observations in hopes of
assisting them in making sense of whom their syllabus actually serves. Upon completion of the
process, the syllabus review tool asks instructors to identify any patterns that go against their
values and beliefs or to note their absence from their syllabus. While Section 2 of the guide
centers on structures and systems, Section 3 seeks to provoke critical thought into how one’s
syllabus centers the experiences of racially minoritized students.
Section 3: How Does My Syllabus Demonstrate Equity for Racially Minoritized Students?
The six equity-minded practices are distributed across three perspectives provided by
Dowd and Bensimon (2015): equity as fairness, care, and transformation. According to Dowd
and Bensimon (2015), each equity-minded practice speaks to how faculty members can adopt
new language that serves students from historically marginalized backgrounds. Figure 5
illustrates CUE’s six equity-minded practices and their relationship to the three equity
perspectives (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).

29

Figure 5
Equity Perspectives and Equity-Minded Practices As Applied to the Syllabus

Note. *Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus Review

Equity as Fairness
Equity as fairness ensures that all students have impartial access to resources and
opportunities that will advance their overall learning experience in postsecondary education
(CUE, 2018). Faculty can demonstrate equity as fairness through the practice of “demystifying.”
Through a race-conscious lens, faculty members are advised to eliminate harsh-sounding
language in their course syllabi to provide important information to first-time college students.
This practice seeks to translate academic policies into comprehensible materials that help
students understand what they need to know and do to be successful.
30

Equity as Care
Equity as care views every student as contributing “producers of knowledge” based on
their lived experiences and cultural or personal backgrounds. Students have the right to feel
cared for and valued by college and university administrators, faculty, and staff (CUE, 2018, p.
5). The syllabus review tool captures caring via three equity-minded practices: welcoming,
creating a partnership, and validating.
The guiding equity-minded practices ask instructors to reflect on how they welcome
students while ensuring a collaborative learning environment in which students of color feel as
though they belong (CUE, 2018). By creating a welcoming culture, faculty members are able to
explore their classroom norms around instructor-student engagement to ensure that tough
conversations regarding race, implicit and explicit biases, and racial microaggressions are
addressed in ways that respect and empower the well-being of students of color. In addition,
college instructors have the ability to create a partnership in which they work with students to
ensure their success in the course and degree program (CUE, 2018). This equity-minded practice
also asks faculty to specifically state how success will be defined from both the instructor’s and
students’ perspectives.
Creating a partnership allows faculty and students to hold each other accountable in the
classroom while providing students with real-life skills they can use inside and outside the
classroom. Lastly, instructors can validate students’ lived experiences by communicating that
despite personal or professional circumstances, everyone has the ability to be successful and
reach their educational goals (CUE, 2018). Validating students as a practice encourages faculty
members to scaffold assignments and provide the tools to increase their students’ ability to
succeed.
31

Equity as Transformation
Equity as transformation allows students of color the right to participate in educational
learning environments that seek to eliminate injustices and allow their voices to be heard and
valued. College leaders should actively seek to use their own agency to eliminate any inequities
imposed upon racially diverse students. Equity as transformation aligns with two equity-minded
practices: representing and deconstructing.
Representing racial experiences and backgrounds needs to be reflected in readings,
assignments, reports, and documents to disrupt traditional norms regarding whose voice is heard
and acknowledged in the classroom. It is important for faculty to include culturally relevant
pedagogy to create space for students of color (CUE, 2018). Faculty members have the ability to
diversify their course syllabi by incorporating readings that center on the experiences of
communities of color. For instance, a biology instructor could include The Immortal Life of
Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, which highlights an African American woman’s
contribution to science. This book also allows the instructor to discuss who is represented within
STEM textbooks and whose histories have been violated.
Deconstructing requires college faculty to reflect on countering the experiences on which
their course syllabus centers, which tend to reflect the needs of those with privilege based on
race. As mentioned, a reading assignment on The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks might
promote awareness of students’ assumptions, values, and beliefs on what they know about their
discipline and critically reflect on who has privilege and why. Despite racial and ethnic
differences, deconstructing allows counterstories to highlight social inequities. In sum, these
three equity perspectives and six equity-minded practices seek to assist instructors in creating an
environment where students of color feel valued and supported.
32

Getting Inside the Syllabus
For further inquiry into how these practices exist or do not exist within an instructor’s
syllabus, the guide provides two options for practitioners to identify and evaluate their syllabi
through an equity-minded lens. One is the checklist approach, and the other one is the coding
approach. Both approaches require faculty members to deconstruct and reflect on their syllabi.
The checklist approach was developed for first-generation equity practitioners
9

(Bensimon & Gray, 2020) who seek to engage in an examination of their own practices through
a race awareness lens. The checklist approach defines the six equity-minded practices (Figure 2)
into three equity perspectives: fairness, care, and transformation (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).
Equity as fairness seeks to eliminate the opportunity and resource gaps between students: in
essence, those who have or do not have access to resources to advance their learning (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2015). Equity as justice attempts to provide a space that validates the experiences of
underrepresented student populations, ensures a welcoming learning environment, and bridges a
relationship between faculty members and students. All individuals are considered to hold
cultural and personal knowledge that can be utilized in a classroom (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).
Lastly, equity as transformation stresses changing the learning environment for racially
minoritized populations (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). The checklist approach centers on how
content is already incorporated into the syllabus and how language is used to convey information
to students (Figure 6).

9
Bensimon and Gray (2020) define a first-generation equity practitioner as someone who
takes the responsibility off of students in order to acknowledge their own racial illiteracy. By
taking ownership of what they do not know about race and racism in the United States among
communities of color, these individuals seek to educate themselves and then adjust their
practices and policies to improve educational outcomes for racially minoritized students.
33

Figure 6
An Illustration of ‘Demystifying’ as a Checklist

For example, the first section of the checklist approach focuses on equity as fairness
which aligns with demystifying, one of the six equity-minded practices. Under each equity-
minded practice, there is at least one overarching question that guides self-inquiry, which is
provided prior to the checklist questions. For the demystifying practice, the first guiding question
for faculty is, “Does your syllabus provide students with information they need to successfully
complete the course?” For participants to address this question, the first section directs faculty to
look at their course description. When facilitating this section, many faculty members state that
their course description is taken directly from the course catalog due to various institutional or
departmental requirements. Regardless of circumstances outside their control, faculty are
encouraged to think outside of existing guidelines and develop new ways of conveying what
their course is about through a racial equity lens. Depending on an individual’s familiarity with
CUE’s racial equity tools, the coding approach is designed for participants with experience
annotating their own institutional outcomes using CUE’s six equity-minded practices.
34

The coding approach centers the same six equity-minded syllabi practices for
practitioners already familiar with CUE’s inquiry approach that seeks to bring forth an equity
lens. For example, the first activity asks participants to deconstruct their syllabus by identifying
sections that reflect or do not reflect the practices (welcoming, demystifying, creating a
partnership, validating, representing, and deconstructing).

Table 1
CUE’s Six Equity-Minded Practices and Definitions*
Practice Definitions
Welcoming classroom environment Views students as individuals and communicates
that the course can be challenging but
encourages students to seek additional support
Designs class participation norms that set the
tone for respect and confront anti-
discriminatory comments or behavior
Demystifying college policies and
practices
Communicates basic information (e.g., class
location, office hours, course descriptions) in a
manner that students can comprehend
Ensures that the course syllabus highlights what
students need to know by limiting the overuse
of academic language
Creating a partnership where faculty and
students work together
Conveys instructors’ commitment to supporting
their students by providing clear expectations
The instructor identifies different teaching
methods and allows students to provide
constructive feedback.
Describes student learning objectives by limiting
academic jargon and connects those learning
outcomes to students’ academic and
professional goals
35

Practice Definitions
Validating students’ ability to succeed Uses clearly written language that acknowledges
every student can succeed despite personal or
professional challenges
Provides different types of activities, readings,
assignments, lectures, and assessments so that
students can demonstrate their learning
Representing various racial/ethnic
experiences and backgrounds
Provides written text or images that communicate
racial/ethnic voices and experiences are
included in readings, assignments, and
activities
Ensures that students’ racial and ethnic
backgrounds are viewed as a rich resource that
contributes to culturally relevant and inclusive
readings, assignments, and activities
Deconstructing and challenging
whiteness
Syllabus deconstructs Whiteness and challenges
the status quo in favor of closing equity gaps
for racially minoritized students.
Engages students in critically examining their
assumptions and beliefs of racial inequities and
social inequalities of people, communities, and
institutions

*From the Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus Review (cue.usc.edu)

As faculty members examine their syllabi using an equity-minded framework, they are
instructed to note observations that come to mind while completing the activity (Figure 7).

36

Figure 7
The Coding Approach, Reflection Activity

The second section of the coding approach then asks instructors to count the number of
times that each equity-minded practice is demonstrated or not demonstrated in their syllabi,
followed by the following question, “Were you surprised by the results? Why or why not?” This
question seeks to engage faculty in reflecting on what they believed to be embedded in their
syllabus versus the written language they used to communicate information to students. After
counting and reflecting on the number of times an equity-minded practice is present or absent,
faculty members are then directed to the third activity. This activity asks instructors to locate an
example where an equity-minded practice is demonstrated and where it is not demonstrated
(Figure 8).

37

Figure 8
Demonstration of Equity and Deficit-Minded Practices

This open-ended examination activity allows instructors to identify parts of their syllabi
that reflect or do not reflect the six equity-minded practices by first asking themselves how and
why they believe their example does or does not represent an equity-minded practice.” After
completing the third exercise, the final activity of the coding approach requires faculty to adopt a
student lens. To make the unfamiliar familiar, CUE’s theory of change asks instructors to view
their approach to teaching through the lens of a student, particularly those from historically
racially minoritized backgrounds. The guide asks instructors to imagine they are reading the
syllabus on their first day of class and to reflect on the following questions: (1) “Do you feel that
the instructor is willing to provide opportunities and resources for you to do well in the course,
38

and to gain the knowledge and skills you need to succeed in subsequent courses? Why or why
not?” (2) “Do you feel that the instructor assumes that you want to learn and cares for your
development as scholars and human beings? Why or why not?” While these questions seek to
help faculty members understand how their syllabus communicates their values, beliefs, and vital
information that students need to be successful, it also provokes reflection on what they wish to
communicate to assist their students. The following questions ask faculty to take on the role of a
racially minoritized student while watching them read their syllabus on the first day of class.
They are asked to respond to the following prompt: “Do you feel the instructor and the course
speak to your experiences? Why or why not?” Thus, the syllabus review guide provides two
different road maps to assist faculty in their inquiry journey toward adopting equity-mindedness
within their practice. Section 4 of the guide seeks to assist faculty in exploring changes they may
need to make to better understand how their artifact of practice can advance racial equity.
Section 4: What Will I Do Now?
This section provides an additional opportunity for instructors to think about the changes
they want to make to their syllabi. Instructors are also prompted to reflect on additional artifacts
of practice that they may want to examine while using CUE’s document analysis guide. For
example, the guide centers on questions such as, “Who is the document designed to serve?” and
“How can this document affect Latinx, Black, and Indigenous populations differently from
White students?” Overall, this section hopes to move instructors to center action steps and
outline possible areas in which CUE’s evidence-based inquiry can be embedded into different
aspects of the classroom.
39

Section 5: The Syllabus: A Tool that Shapes Students’ Academic Experiences
Section five of the syllabus review merges research while attempting to address common
misconceptions around what students choose to do with their syllabi. As previously mentioned, I
noted common questions or statements that arose when I facilitated the core values warm-up
activity. I utilized this section of the protocol as my first attempt to encourage faculty members
to challenge their understanding and statements through peer-reviewed research that debunks
commonly held beliefs about students’ classroom behavior. This section is a compilation of
responses to common questions to address how students use their syllabi and how students of
color experience syllabi. After outlining relevant research findings, Section 5 illustrates
welcoming by providing examples of language that centers on positive reinforcement. This
activity leads us into the last section, in which all six practices are outlined in an exemplar
equity-minded syllabus which I will describe next.
Section 6: Sample Equity-Minded Syllabus
Achieving racial equity in practice requires individuals to reflect on their values, beliefs,
and expectations to apply the six equity-minded syllabi practices. When learning any new
concept, it is important to showcase what is possible and to provide examples of how instructors
can redefine their syllabi through their own lenses. This section of the guide provides the full
example of an equity-minded syllabus that was briefly mentioned in Section 3. Instructors see
what is possible by examining how one individual attempted to create an inclusive classroom
environment while also bridging what the institution as a whole had to offer students.
The syllabus review guide hopes to empower faculty to investigate the history of their
own practices through examining language, hidden assumptions, and how lived experiences from
various perspectives influence their classroom dynamics. Through CUE’s inquiry approach,
40

practitioners are empowered to develop equity-mindedness and apply to the six equity-minded
syllabi practices within their realm of control in relation to their syllabi. To understand the
relation between CUE’s Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus Review and CUE’s theory of
change, I will explain the design of CUE’s syllabus review workshop, followed by the activity
setting framework I implemented for this study.
Activity Triangle Setting as a Framework for Racial Equity
Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) was developed by cognitive psychologist Lev
Vygotsky in the 1920s and early 1930s (Engeström, 2000, 2001; Schwartz, 2012). Commonly
known as the first generation, his work sought to understand the mediated action between
individuals and their environments. Vygotsky did not consider the subject, mediating
artifact/tool, and the object as contradictory. According to Yamagata-Lynch (2007), Vygotsky
explained, “the mediated action as a semiotic process between subjects/individuals, mediating
artifact/tools, and the object/goal of an activity” (p. 454). Ultimately, Vygotsky sought to assist
in making meaning of a phenomenon (Yamagata-Lynch, 2007).
Later, CHAT theorist Aleksei N. Lenot’ev would introduce the second generation of
Vygotsky’s work by including “human behavior and mental processes” (Yamagata-lynch, 2007,
p. 455). Lenot’ev work viewed an activity as a holistic unit of analysis that is self-regulated by
individuals or groups of individuals with a shared goal. Lenot’ev and his colleagues focused on
psychological explanations for understanding and activity but challenges were evident in how
they captured, analyzed and presented activity based-data” (Yamagata-Lynch, 2007, p. 456).
Engeström (1987) contributed to the development of this theory by introducing a description
model of activity systems (Figure 9).

41

Figure 9
CUE’s Equity-Minded Syllabus Review Workshop*

Note. From Engaging the “race question”: Accountability and equity in U.S. higher education
by A. C. Dowd & E. M. Bensimon, 2015, Teachers College Press. Copyright 2015 by Teachers
College Press.

42

As a theoretical framework, the activity system assists in “how learning occurs in social
interaction and context” (Ogawa et al., 2008). Activity setting acknowledges that environments
and social content are connected to a complex setting that holds social, cultural, and historical
aspects. Rather than isolating the six components of an activity system, the framework seeks to
understand the interconnections of each of the elements. To illustrate an activity system, I will
outline how I applied this framework to professional development training for CSU practitioners.
I applied CHAT to understand how practitioners involved in the CUE’s inquiry-based
intervention sought to create new meaning of their course syllabus. Along with CUE’s action
research design, CHAT allowed participants to analyze institutional, academic departments, and
spoken and unspoken faculty practices. Through a guided inquiry cycle, I sought to challenge
participants’ beliefs through a series of self-reflection activities that centered their syllabi as
artifacts of practice (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). The goal was to introduce the six equity-minded
syllabi practices to see if and how instructors would incorporate new knowledge in their course
syllabi. In the following section, I will illustrate how I applied an activity system to CUE’s
professional development training to show how I designed the workshop to center CUE’s six
equity-minded practices.
The objective of the CUE’s equity-minded workshop training was to provide an
opportunity for instructors to make sense of racial inequities within their course artifacts. The
professional development training sought to challenge practitioners’ cognitive frames
(Bensimon, 2005, 2007, 2012), which requires individuals to reflect on their historical and
cultural knowledge of how course syllabi have been and are currently being used. To disrupt
traditional notions of thinking, I sought to introduce instructors to CUE’s equity-mindedness
practices (e.g., welcoming, demystifying, creating a partnership, validating, representing, and
43

deconstructing) by using CUE’s syllabus review protocol as a strategy for making the unfamiliar
familiar. The following section will illustrate how practitioners at CSU sought to transform their
course syllabi through CUE’s professional development training.
The Activity Setting Design of CUE’s Syllabus Review Workshop
The syllabus review protocol (at the top of the triangle in Figure 9) is one of the many
artifacts of the inquiry-based intervention. Artifacts are defined as written or verbal
communication techniques used to connect faculty members to carry out the objective. The
artifacts of this study included all of CUE’s material, such as the meeting agenda, participants’
workshop binder, PowerPoint presentation, and each instructor’s pre-syllabus. Moving down to
the left-hand side of the triangle in the middle, there are images of two faculty scientists who
represent the subjects. Subjects were the 12 STEM faculty members who sought to create new
meaning using CUE’s syllabus review protocol. As the training facilitator, I asked the subjects to
reflect on their personal experiences as students to assist them in critically reflecting on the
language they used in their pre-syllabus. The right side of the syllabus review protocol is the
objective. The objective of the training was for faculty to illustrate their learning of race-
conscious language by creating equity-minded post-syllabi, which could impact the outcome.
The workshop’s outcome was designed to address racial inequities among Latinx and African
American students enrolled in STEM education at CSU. In the image above, I used an equal sign
to symbolize the shared outcome of the study among faculty participants. The bottom row of the
triangle focuses on rules, community, and division of labor.
On the bottom left-hand side, I placed CUE’s ideas for community engagement for rules.
I provide an image of agreed-upon norms that I used to guide the discussion among subjects in
the room. The rules ensured that subjects were able to communicate in a manner that was
44

respectful to the community. The community (bottom center) consisted of all participants in the
room. This would include CUE staff and participants. Lastly, the division of labor (bottom far
right-hand corner) showcases the shared responsibility between the facilitator and faculty
members. While each element of the activity triangle setting served an intentional purpose, the
idea of the framework enforced that a change in one element would impact the entire ecosystem.
To better understand what learning and change occurred as a result of the inquiry-based
intervention, I sought to apply a document analysis research design to interpret the meaning of
written text and images found in subjects pre-and post-syllabi. Document analysis allowed me to
provide insight and illustrate the characteristics of equity or anti-equity-minded language. The
oval shape image above illustrates the tools that I used for my analysis.
In the next chapter, I will explain the methodology I used for this study.

45

Chapter Three: Methodology
To understand the process by which STEM faculty communicate new knowledge, I
applied a qualitative research design that centers on how individuals make sense of a particular
experience (Merriam, 2016). Qualitative methodology seeks to understand a phenomenon in
which individuals interpret and make sense of their surrounding environments (Merriam, 2016;
Crotty, 1998). As mentioned in Chapter One, this study sought to understand how faculty at a 4-
year HSI changed the content of their post-syllabi after participating in a workshop training
centered on racial equity. This chapter is organized into five main sections: research method
design, description of the partnership and institution, data collection, data analysis, and findings.
Qualitative Methods
Qualitative research seeks to understand individuals, groups, events, or social interactions
and the resulting processes that may explain a particular educational phenomenon or experience
(Agee, 2009; Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Patton, 1990). Qualitative methods as an inquiry
model allow the researcher to examine an experience “in depth and detail” (Patton, 1990, p. 13),
but qualitative research is not informed by “one theory or paradigm that is distinctly its own”
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 6). While the history and definition of qualitative research vary
depending on the discipline of study, there are many methodological approaches to qualitative
research. For this study, I used document analysis to understand how STEM faculty included
race-conscious language in their post-syllabus after participating in professional development
training. Next, I will provide the history of document analysis.
Document Analysis
Document or content analysis is a qualitative research method used to interpret the
meaning of written text or visual images (Bowen, 2009; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Content
46

analysis originated in the 18th century in Scandinavia and was used in the United States in the
20th century “as an analytic technique” (Barcus, 1959, as cited in Hsieh & Shannon, 2005,
p. 1278). In qualitative studies, researchers use content analysis to focus on the characteristics of
how language is used to communicate and how the surrounding environment informs the text
being used (Budd et al., 1967; Lindkvist, 1981; McTavish & Pirro, 1990; Tesch, 1990; Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005).
Content analysis allows researchers to provide historical insight and illustrate how the
characteristics of language are used to communicate the norms and content of a particular
phenomenon (Bowen, 2009; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). While qualitative content analysis can be
combined with varying research methods such as interviews or observations, it can also be
applied as a stand-alone method. Despite the different ways in which content analysis can be
used, Rapley (2007) argued that text should be examined by what is and is not stated. Hsieh and
Shannon (2005) defined content analysis “as a research method for the subjective interpretation
of the content of text data through the systematic classifications process of coding and
identifying themes or patterns” (p. 1278). Hsieh and Shannon’s (2005) definition of qualitative
content analysis allowed me to focus on how practices, policies, and procedures emerge and
transform learning into relevant documents for students of color (Rapley, 2007).
According to Bogdan and Biklen (2007), document analysis can consist of personal (e.g.,
letters, diaries, autobiographies), official (e.g., agendas, meeting minutes, memos, teaching
philosophy statements), or popular culture documents (e.g., newsletters, and news releases).
Documents can provide rich information on how individuals or groups of people make sense of
their surrounding environment (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Specifically, external documents help
researchers understand how organizations such as school systems’ institutional and departmental
47

policies influence a staple artifact within postsecondary education (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). For
this study, I applied a document analysis approach to understand how faculty members used
written language and images to communicate policies and practices to Black/African American
and Latinx students in their pre- and post-course syllabus.
In the following section, I will describe the partnership with CUE along with the
institution and my positionality as it relates to the syllabus review workshop training. Second, I
will outline the data collection as well as the data analyses.
The Partnership With CUE
In Fall 2018, Professor Lawson at CSU, along with several of his colleagues, submitted a
grant proposal to the Inclusion Competition (pseudonym). The proposal described the problem at
CSU in which faculty members viewed students as lacking the scientific foundation needed to
compete in STEM fields. To address racial equity gaps among Black and Latinx students, the
proposal sought to transform learning for faculty by examining how their own practices and
policies impacted student success. The grant focused on six professional development workshops
for faculty who were willing to critically examine their own pedagogy, scientific literacy, and
identity to better understand how their biases impacted student success.
To address the racial equity gap in STEM fields at CSU, Professor Lawson, the principal
investigator of the grant, collaborated with the University of Southern California’s CUE to put
forth a 6-month equity-focused plan based on CUE’s theory of change. The professional
development program consisted of six 5-hour workshops on the following topics: (a) the
foundation of equity and equity-mindedness to increase participants’ understanding of student
success based on CUE’s concept of practitioner responsibility; (b) identifying equity gaps while
setting equity goals by drawing on classroom, departmental, and institutional disaggregated data
48

by race and ethnicity; (c) embedding equity-mindedness into course syllabi by centering on
CUE’s six equity-minded practices that help faculty examine their syllabi through a race
awareness lens; (d) learning CUE’s observation protocol to examine classroom practices and
policies through a student lens; and (e) promoting equity and inclusion in STEM through
individual agency. For this study, I solely focused on the syllabus review workshop and tool
(Bensimon et al., 2016). Based on my experience as a facilitator, I sought to learn how these
participants used written language and images to close racial equity gaps in their classrooms. By
focusing on one of the six professional development workshops, I had the ability to interpret the
meaning of words based on each faculty member’s understanding of racial equity.
Description of the Institution
Located in the western United States, CSU is an HSI with at least 25% Hispanic full-time
undergraduate students enrolled (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). The university is part of
the nation’s largest public 4-year university system. The student population is 67% Latinx, 13%
Asian American, 6% White, 3% African American, 1% Pacific Islander and American Indian.
More than 85.6% of the student body is composed of local county residents. Undergraduate
students comprise 86.7% who are full-time, 7.5% part-time, and 6% who have limited status.
Graduate students comprise 3,735 out of the 26,361 students at CSU. Full-time graduate students
make up 63.1%, 6% are part-time, and 30.9% have limited enrollment. Faculty demographics
included 43% White, 28% Asian, 13% Latino, 6% Black, 9% unknown, and less than one
percent for two or more races, Native American, and Pacific Islander. Within CSU, STEM
faculty from the College of Social Science (CSS, pseudonym) sought to participate in this study
to understand how their teaching practices impacted Black and Latinx students.
49

The College of Social Science
The CSS comprises 12 departments for undergraduate and graduate students ranging
from anthropology to Latinx American studies. In CSS, undergraduate STEM students have
three educational trajectories to choose from, which include (a) an interdisciplinary science
degree that centers their major in their last 2 years, (b) a teaching certificate program for
secondary education, and (c) an applied science degree that bridges health science and clinical
work. A team of 12 faculty members from the CSS sought to examine the racial disparities
among Latinx and African American students enrolled in lower division chemistry and biology
courses. To accomplish this inquiry, they invited USC’s CUE to convene a series of participatory
action research (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000) workshops to assist faculty members in studying
their teaching practices through the lens of racial equity.
Positionality and Access
As a Black woman facilitator who centered conversations on racial equity for higher
education institutions, I sought to build individual relations with each instructor to gain their
trust. Throughout the study, I acknowledged my privilege in gaining access to CSU faculty
through my affiliation with CUE as an employee. As the lead project specialist, I worked closely
with Anthony Lawson, the primary investigator and CUE’s director, to ensure that I met our
center’s contractual obligations of our grant partnership while also being attentive to faculty and
staff participants’ needs. As a part of the project, I asked faculty to share their pre- and post-
course syllabi.
Data Collection
Creswell (2009) defined data collection “as a series of interrelated activities aimed at
gathering good information to answer emerging research questions” (p. 118). As previously
50

stated, I gained access to my site location based on my employment with CUE. My position as a
staff employee with the center allowed me access to instructional faculty who sought to address
inequitable racial outcomes among African American and Latinx students enrolled in their lower
division biological science courses. As a result, I built rapport with each participant prior to data
collection. For my data collection method, I sent emails to faculty participants between Spring
2019 and Fall 2021 as my primary communication method.
Prior to the syllabus review workshop, I asked 12 faculty members to submit their pre-
syllabus documents to me via email. In the initial email, I informed participants that I would
collect their pre-syllabus for my study and asked instructors to bring a printed or electronic copy
to the syllabus review workshop. Eleven of them willingly shared their pre-syllabus with me via
email. Each pre-syllabus had a designated prefix code to indicate the department and a four-digit
number to differentiate between lower and upper division courses (e.g., BIO 1200). As a
preliminary step in the analysis, I looked up each course prefix code by semester and year on
CSU’s course catalog website to better understand the intended audience for each course. Table
2 outlines each participant, their discipline, reported numbers of years teaching, their perceived
racial identity, and the number of pre-course syllabi they submitted.

51

Table 2
CUE’s Syllabus Review Training and Pre-Syllabus Submissions
Participants (pseudonyms) Discipline Years
at CSU
Race Number of pre-
syllabi submitted
Professor Arnold Chemistry 19 Black 1
Professor Calloway Biology 17 White 1
Professor Kumar Business 17 Asian 1
Professor Lawson Geosciences 19 International 1
Professor Marin Psychology 17 International 1
Professor Rivera Mechanical
engineering
26 White 1
Associate Professor Garcia Biology 12 Latino 2
Associate Professor Meyer Biology 11 White 1
Assistant Professor Jefferson Political science 3 Black 0
Assistant Professor Romero Chemistry 5 Chicano 4
Assistant Professor Singleton Kinesiology 2 Indian 1
Assistant Professor Williams Curriculum and
instruction
2 Black 1

As seen in Table 2, six professors from the biology, business, chemistry, geosciences,
mechanical engineering, and psychology departments submitted one pre-syllabus each from
Spring 2019. The lower division pre-syllabi were from chemistry, mechanical engineering, and
biology. The upper-division courses included the biology, business, chemistry, geosciences,
kinesiology, and psychology departments.
Associate Professor Garcia submitted two introductory pre-syllabi for different semesters
(Spring 2018 and Spring 2019), while Associate Professor Meyer submitted an upper-division
course from Fall 2017. Assistant Professor Williams’s pre-syllabus focused on educating
students on how to teach mathematics. However, Instructor Williams’ pre-syllabus did not
52

mention the specific semester for which it was used. Assistant Professor Romero from the
chemistry department submitted four biochemistry pre-syllabi from Fall 2015 when the
institution was still on a quarter system. The remaining three pre-syllabi reflected upper-division
courses: Biochemistry II for Spring 2016, Molecular Sciences Capstone for Fall 2018, and
Protein Structure from Spring 2019. Lastly, Assistant Professor Singleton submitted Disease and
Plasticity in Neuromuscular Systems from Spring 2019. Instructor Singleton’s pre-syllabus could
also fulfill a graduate course requirement.
After facilitating the professional development training, I sent emails from Spring 2019
to Fall 2021 requesting faculty to send me their revised post-course syllabi. I informed each
faculty member that I would analyze their post-syllabus using a racial equity lens. In Table 3, I
list the faculty participants who submitted pre- and post-syllabus or syllabi for the same course
after participating in CUE’s professional development training.

Table 3
Faculty Participants’ Post-Syllabi Submissions
Position title Department
Number of post-
syllabus
Course offered
Professor Arnold Chemistry 1 Spring 2021
Professor Marin Psychology 1 Spring 2019
Professor Rivera Mechanical engineering 1 Spring 2021
Associate Professor Garcia Biology 2 Spring 2019
Associate Professor Meyer Biology 1 Spring 2019
Assistant Professor Romero Chemistry 2 Spring 2019

53

In total, I collected eight post-syllabi from six participants from Spring 2019 to Spring
2021. Next, I will explain my data analysis process.
Data Analysis
Researchers have shown that analysis can be theoretically differentiated from the design
of a study, yet Maxwell (2013) argued that analysis could also be a part of the design that allows
researchers to think about how data will inform their study (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Maxwell,
2013). I selected coding as one of my data analysis choices. In qualitative research, coding
allows researchers to rearrange the data “into categories that facilitate comparison between
things in the same category and that aid in the development of theoretical concepts” (Maxwell,
2013, p. 107). Creswell (2009) affirms that coding seeks to investigate text and image data while
also arguing that there are various strategies in the types of coding procedures that can be applied
to qualitative studies.
Following these steps of qualitative research methodology, I first analyzed pre-syllabi
using CUE’s six equity-minded practices and definitions as predetermined codes. Based on my
research questions, I sought to understand what existing and new knowledge exhibited the
characteristics of racial equity. By using CUE’s six equity-minded syllabi practices, I approached
document analysis from a racial equity lens by prompting myself to consider sample questions
regarding how the instructor’s use of language seeks to provide guidance or opportunity to
students of color inside and outside the classroom, extend support and assistance to racially
minoritized students outside of their formal responsibilities, and communicate their own
educational experiences as a tool to address the lack of racial diversity in STEM curriculum and
workforce outcomes.
54

Equity-Mindedness
I described content from the pre-syllabi as equity-minded when the instructor sought to
outline their expectations of students (“I do not expect everyone to agree on everything, however
we can challenge and critique differing viewpoints without demanding or disrespecting an
individual.”); create a partnership that affirms a thoughtful classroom culture (“I expect you to
participate by asking questions and responding to questions. Note: I do not expect you to know
the answers – the questions are meant to get you thinking in a certain direction.”); and reveal the
hidden rules that students should know for their own success (“If you have difficulty with the
solution, you can seek help from your lab or lecture instructor by: 1) bringing the work you have
done to that point or; 2) taking a picture of the partial solution (using your phone and emailing
that picture of your work”).
Anti-Equity-Mindedness
Initially, I organized the analyses of pre-syllabi as representing deficit or equity-minded
stances; however, the definition of deficit-minded provided by McNair and colleagues (2020)
was too constraining. In particular, an instructor could have a contractual agreement that requires
students to agree to the terms and conditions outlined in their syllabus. Telling students that the
syllabus is a contract could be considered a way of demystifying, but the way the text is framed
does not make the instructor appear to be a caring person. Thus, I introduced the concept of anti-
equity-mindedness to provide a more expansive spectrum to accommodate the various ways in
which pre-syllabus content reflected faculty members’ ability to speak to students in genuinely
caring and respectful ways, accompanied by a legalistic language or punitive tone. This ability
made clear the instructors’ investment in the success of students generally and racially
minoritized students more specifically.
55

An anti-equity-minded lens views written language on a spectrum rather than labeling a
section or the entire document as equity or deficit-minded. It acknowledges that a continuum
exists within course syllabi that allow instructors to meet the expectations of various audiences.
Lawson’s environmental geochemistry syllabus, entitled “Oral Presentation and Abstracts,”
stated, “Students will format [report] it based on a reputed peer-reviewed journal publication.
Submission will be in stages: Introduction, Methods & Observations, Discussions & Conclusion,
final paper.” Describing the expected format of the paper as “peer-reviewed” can confuse
students. The term “peer-reviewed journal publication” reflects insider jargon that reflects the
research culture of universities but may sound like a foreign language to students. Instructor
Lawson’s syllabus did not tell students the meaning of the phrase “peer-reviewed” nor explained
how they could access “peer-reviewed journal publications.” This notwithstanding, Professor
Lawson’s scaffolding approach reflects aspects of “creating a partnership in addition to terms
that may be confusing to students” (i.e., insider language).
Table 4 outlines the six anti-equity-minded practices I used to analyze faculty members’
pre- and post-course syllabi. While the predetermined codes of equity-minded were applied to
both pre- and post-syllabi using CUE’s syllabus review practices, I had to create new codes and
definitions that were evidenced by my data analysis. The middle column in Table 4 outlines
criteria questions that reflect an anti-equity-minded perspective. After coding all pre- and post-
syllabi, I used memos to organize my findings for each faculty participant.

56

Table 4
Six Anti-Equity-Minded Practices
Practices Reflection questions Definitions
Unwelcoming classroom
environment
How does the instructor bring
attention to what students
need to know?
Does the instructor capitalize,
bold, or underline words or
phrases to bring attention to
a certain section? If so,
whose needs are being
served? (e.g., institution,
department, faculty, or the
student)
Written language that
communicates institutional
rules, policies, and
procedures in a hostile and
unfriendly tone. The
syllabus is presented as a
contractual agreement
rather than centering on the
students’ needs.
Upholding college policies
and practices
How does the instructor
communicate important
deadlines? Are they stated
in the document, or does
the student need additional
information, such as the
student handbook manual,
for further assistance?
What tone does the instructor
use to communicate
classroom norms, student
support services, and
resources?
Provides information in the
form of rules and highly
technical language and in a
tone that feels like
“screaming.”
Imposes strict standards that
fail to acknowledge
unforeseen circumstances
that impact student success
57

Practices Reflection questions Definitions
Maintaining a transactional
relationship
Does the instructor state that
their syllabus serves as a
contractual agreement
between the student and
instructor?
Does the instructor translate
academic jargon into
student-friendly language
that provides additional
assistance to students of
color?
Does the instructor explain or
provide examples of what
constitutes an excused
absence or provide aids on
how students should go
about contacting the
appropriate party for an
excused absence?
A one-way contractual
agreement that strictly binds
students and instructors to
the rules and policies that
govern the classroom.
These policies and practices
can be changed at any time
based on the instructor’s
desires.
Invalidating students’ ability
to succeed
How does the instructor
communicate what students
of color need to know to
succeed in the class?
What resources does the
instructor provide to assist
students who may fall
behind?
How does the instructor hold
themselves accountable for
student success among
Black and Latinx
populations?
A tone that implies an
expectation that students
will fail. There is no
indication of affirming
students as capable of
success.
58

Practices Reflection questions Definitions
Maintaining the status quo of
whiteness in course
materials
Where are scholars of color
represented in the course
syllabus?
How do course assignments
disrupt and dismantle
White dominant norms?
Does the instructor include
people of color in a
performative manner
through visual illustration
and quotes?
Assignments, readings,
activities, or images that fail
to acknowledge scholars of
color, first-generation, or
diverse perspectives within
a field or discipline
Constructing and maintaining
whiteness
How does the instructor
engage the classroom and
outside community in
conversations that require
students to reflect on how
their social and personal
identities impact STEM
education?
Are students challenged to
adopt a different
perspective that makes
them consider who holds
power in STEM education
and the workforce?
How can students use their
voice to create change in
and outside the classroom?
A historical awareness that
allows dominant norms to
inform who holds power
and privilege within various
organizational structures in
higher education

Memos
According to Maxwell (2013), memos are another analytic choice that allows researchers
to make connections between their research questions, theoretical framework(s), and methods (p.
105). Corbin and Strauss (2008) argued that memos are a type of written record that “contain the
product of [a researcher’s] analyses” (p. 2). After I coded the data, I wrote a reflection memo for
59

each faculty member who submitted a syllabus. In the memo, I reflected on the following
questions that are outlined in Table 5.

Table 5
Memo Reflection Criteria for Equity and Anti-Equity-Mindedness
Pre-Syllabi Post-Syllabi
In what ways does the syllabus of this
individual reflect each of the features of the
syllabus review practice?
In what ways does the syllabus of this
individual reflect changes to the six
elements of the syllabus review tool?
How does this individual’s syllabus compare
to everyone else?

60

Based on the questions outlined in Table 5, I wrote a memo for each participant after I
coded the data using Microsoft Excel. I then revised my initial memos as I continued to make
sense of the data. The memos allowed me to view the data in an organized manner that assisted
me in developing themes and subthemes for my findings. After I organized my findings, I
decided to present the data based on equity and anti-equity-minded perspectives. In the next
section, I will provide an overview of my findings for pre- and post-syllabi.
General Findings of Pre-Syllabi
In this study, I sought to understand how STEM faculty members’ syllabi reflect or omit
CUE’s six equity-minded syllabus practices and reflect or omit six anti-equity-minded syllabi
practices. I also examined how STEM faculty who participated in CUE’s professional
development training changed their post-syllabus to reflect CUE’s six equity-minded practices
and how I, as the facilitator, could improve the professional development training based on the
faculty members’ illustrations of CUE’s six equity-minded syllabi practices? In this section, I
provide results for how I defined content as equity- or anti-equity-minded.
None of the 15 pre-syllabi exhibited all six equity-mindedness practices delineated in the
syllabus review protocol, and none could be characterized as predominantly equity-minded.
However, I did find elements of equity-mindedness. Two of the 15 pre-syllabi course
descriptions began with a “Welcoming” (Practice 1 in the protocol) short greeting that differed
from the standard course description format used in other pre-syllabi. Two other pre-syllabi
illustrated a welcoming tone under the instructor email policy and classroom protocol sections.
Demystifying (Practice 2 in the protocol) was the most commonly used practice through which
instructors communicated standard information such as office hours, course description, and
student learning outcomes. Four pre-syllabi exhibited Creating a Partnership (Practice 3 in the
61

protocol) by either outlining instructors’ expectations of students or stating what students could
do to effectively study for their course. Most of the examples that did exhibit creating a
partnership overlapped with a welcoming tone. Three pre-syllabi provided a roadmap to
academic success by “validating” (Practice 4 in the protocol) students’ ability to complete the
course. There was one example of “Representing” (Practice 5 in the protocol) and only two
examples of “Deconstructing” (Practice 6 in the protocol). The few examples of representing and
deconstructing (both practices are race-conscious) suggest that the pre-syllabi were race-evasive.
This finding is not surprising given that the common assumption among STEM faculty in the
professional development training was that the field is race- and gender-neutral.
Anti-Equity-Mindedness in Pre-Syllabi
To illustrate the practice of anti-equity-mindedness, Table 6 focuses on one practice of an
anti-equity-mindedness lens. Upholding college policies and practices was the most dominant
theme among all 15 pre-syllabi.

62

Table 6
Pre-Syllabi Slices that Reflect an Anti-Equity-Minded Stance
Upholding college policies and practices Pre-syllabi experts
Contractual/legalistic language “Contract: Please read this syllabus
carefully, as I consider it a ‘contract’
between you and me. If you remain in the
class you are agreeing to the terms of the
contract. Terms of the contract are subject
to change at the discretion of the instructor,
although such changes are rare and only
made in the interest of student learning.”

“DROP POLICY: The drop policy
established by the university will be strictly
followed. After the no record drop deadline,
students may drop a course only for
‘serious and compelling reasons.’ Failing a
course is not an acceptable reason for
withdrawal. Acceptable documentation is
required verifying the reason for the
withdrawal.”
Anticipating negative behaviors and actions
from students

“Students are required to conduct themselves
in a professional manner during class.”

“In short, cheating and plagiarism will not be
tolerated and will affect your course grade.”

“Late arrival, side discussions and other
unprofessional behavior will be addressed
at the instructor’s discretion.”
Insider language “Students will format it based on a reputed
peer-reviewed journal publication.”

“As a course fulfilling the GE requirement,
students are particularly expected to engage
in writing assignments.”

My initial analysis of the pre-training syllabi was guided by questions such as, “How
does the instructor provide information? Is the language friendly? Does the language
63

communicate care?” Overall, as shown in the selection of excerpts in Table 6, the 15 pre-training
syllabi exhibited what I have characterized as anti-equity-mindedness. These excerpts qualify as
anti-equity-minded in that they provide clear information about ways in which students can fail
the course (“In short, cheating and plagiarism will not be tolerated and will affect your course
grade”); how they must behave (“Late arrival, side discussions and other unprofessional behavior
will be addressed at the instructor’s discretion”); the repercussions they will suffer if they violate
rules (“If you fail either the lecture or the laboratory, you will not pass the class!”); and use
academic rhetoric that no undergraduate is likely to know without additional clarity (“reputed
peer-reviewed journal”). While these statements provide information that the instructors deem
important and let students know what is expected of them, the language is authoritarian and
hierarchical. In particular, statements that anticipate negative behaviors from students, such as
those provided in the table, paint students not as learners but as potential violators of classroom
etiquette. Thus, I described content as anti-equity-minded when instructors prioritized rules,
regulations, and policies over an inviting tone.
Five pre-syllabi, which I labeled “anti-equity-mindedness” were identical to the course
catalog descriptions provided by CSU. These course descriptions were heavy in delineating
policies and procedures and light on information that would engage students with the course or
help them see connections to their career goals. Second, all 11 instructors upheld college policies
and practices that provided information in the form of rules or standards that students needed to
know. Three instructors’ classroom policies were written in a manner that outlined rules that
dictated how students should behave in class. Instructors upheld whiteness through assigned or
required readings. Four instructors did not specify the text required for their course in their pre-
syllabus, but the majority of required readings were written by White men. Only two pre-syllabi
64

include Black or Latinx authors. Four out of the 11 instructors did not list their assigned
readings. Rather they asked students to visit the instructor’s Canvas website.
In the next section, I will focus on data collection for post-syllabi following evidence of
learning and change among STEM faculty participants.
Data Collection for Post-Syllabi
During CUE’s Equity-Minded Syllabus Review workshop, I informed faculty
participants that I would be collecting their post-syllabi at the closure of their professional
development training. Various faculty members expressed concerns about submitting their post-
syllabus. First, Professor Marin stated that she would like additional support and feedback from
me regarding her pre-syllabus. Therefore, I agreed to annotate an electronic copy of Professor
Marin’s pre-syllabus, and in return, she would submit her post-syllabus. Second, other faculty
members expressed that their pre-syllabus would not be identical to their post-syllabus due to
changes in their teaching assignments. I agreed and stated that each participant could submit a
different post-syllabus since the focus of my study was to understand their learning and how
their learning was evidenced in their syllabi. A few participants voiced that they needed more
time after the conclusion of CUE’s training to make changes to their syllabus. Consequently, I
accepted post-syllabi course submissions from Spring 2019 to Spring 2021.
I analyzed a total of nine post-syllabi submissions; however, to compare pre- and post-
syllabi. I only focused on the syllabi of the six faculty members for whom I have both syllabus
versions. Table 7 lists the six STEM instructors by professorial ranks (e.g., professor, associate,
and assistant) and the course they taught.

65

Table 7
Faculty Participants’ Pre- and Post-Syllabi Submissions
Faculty participant Pre-syllabus course Post-syllabus course
Professor Arnold* General Chemistry I General Chemistry II
Professor Marin Psychology of Emotion and
Motivation
Psychology of Emotion
and Motivation
Professor Rivera Embedded System
Programming I
Embedded System
Programming I
Associate Professor Garcia Principles of Biology II Principles of Biology II
Associate Professor Meyer Plant Systematics Plant Systematics
Assistant Professor Romero* Biochemistry Biochemistry I

Note. *Professor Arnold submitted a pre- and post-syllabi in which two other instructors were
listed. The other two instructors did not participate in CUE’s professional development training.
*Assistant Professor Romero submitted biochemistry, but her pre-syllabus was designed based
on a quarter system, while her post-syllabus was designed based on a semester system. Assistant
Professor Romero noted that the switch between systems simply allowed her to incorporate more
content, but the same concepts were covered in her pre- and post-syllabus.

Equity-Minded Learning and Change
I compared the pre- and post-syllabi of six instructors in the disciplines of biology,
chemistry, mechanical engineering, and psychology. When the six instructors started out, none of
their pre-syllabi could have been characterized as critically race-conscious. All six faculty
members incorporated the practice of demystifying. Three instructors validated students’ ability
to succeed. Two of those three instructors who validated students also sought to create a
partnership by providing or outlining additional support. One pre-syllabus included a welcoming
statement, but the faculty member’s overall tone communicated rules and policies. None of the
six pre-syllabi incorporate the practices of representing or deconstructing. These two practices
66

visibly center race in materials, readings, and dialogue, yet their exclusion communicates that
their classroom spaces do not see or notice race. Table 8 showcases the equity-minded practices
illustrated in the six faculty members’ pre- and post-syllabi.

Table 8
Equity-Minded Evidence Identified in Pre- and Post-Syllabi
Equity-Mindedness
Professor Arnold
Professor Marin
Professor Rivera
Associate Professor
Meyer
Associate Professor
Garcia
Assistant Professor
Romero
Pre-syllabi
Welcoming classroom environment
✓

Demystifying college policies and practices
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Creating a partnership where faculty and students
work together
✓ ✓
Validating students’ ability to succeed
✓

✓

✓
Representing various racial/ethnic experiences
and backgrounds

Deconstructing and challenging whiteness

Post-syllabi
Welcoming classroom environment
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Demystifying college policies and practices
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Creating a partnership where faculty and students
work together
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Validating students’ ability to succeed
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Representing various racial/ethnic experiences
and backgrounds

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Deconstructing and challenging whiteness
✓ ✓

67

All six faculty members made changes to their post-syllabus. Four instructors
incorporated a welcoming statement or tone. Professor Rivera and Assistant Professor Romero’s
post-syllabi also directly stated that students should respect their classmates. However, neither of
their classroom rules sought to communicate the instructor’s commitment to addressing racist or
discriminatory comments. All six instructors incorporated demystifying by connecting students
to resources such as the dream and writing/tutor centers and the food pantry. All instructors
sought to provide students with clear information about college policies and practices by
removing contractual and legalistic language. Three additional instructors incorporated the
practice of creating a partnership and the two from the pre-syllabi findings. Five instructors
validated students’ ability to succeed but to varying degrees. Four instructors included racial
representation through images and quotes. Professor Rivera and Assistant Professor Garcia
mention the application of course concepts to solve real-world problems, yet, both failed to
mention race or scholars of color. For these two instructors, their learning was incomplete;
otherwise, they would have been more intentional about centering Black and Latinx scholars.
Only Assistant Professor Romero directly connected the practice of representation to her course
curriculum. While there was evidence of each equity-minded practice, the value of representing
and deconstructing was not effectively communicated in post-syllabi. I perceived the inclusion of
racial representation via well-known individuals as a weak example of representation.
Anti-Equity-Minded Learning and Change
All six instructors upheld college or departmental policies and practices. Table 9 outlines
a visual image of the anti-equity-minded practices found in six faculty members pre- and post-
syllabi.
68

Table 9
Anti-Equity-Minded Evidence Identified in Pre- and Post-Syllabi
Anti-equity-mindedness
Professor Arnold
Professor Marin
Professor Rivera
Associate Professor
Meyer
Associate Professor
Garcia
Assistant Professor
Romero
Pre-syllabi
Unwelcoming classroom environment
✓
✓ ✓

Upholding college policies and practices ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Maintaining a transactional relationship ✓
Invalidating students’ ability to succeed
Maintaining the status quo of whiteness in
course materials

Constructing and maintaining whiteness

Anti-Equity-Mindedness
Professor Arnold
Professor Marin
Professor Rivera
Associate Professor
Meyer
Associate Professor
Garcia
Assistant Professor
Romero
Post-Syllabi
Unwelcoming classroom environment
✓
Upholding college policies and practices ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Maintaining a transactional relationship
✓
✓
✓
Invalidating students’ ability to succeed ✓
Maintaining the status quo of whiteness in course
materials
✓
✓
✓
✓
Constructing and maintaining whiteness
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

69

Evidence of anti-equity-minded language was found in post-syllabi. One instructor
communicated an unwelcoming tone (“Proof of reason for absence MUST be presented
within one week of the exam”). Four instructors incorporated the practice of upholding college
policies and practices that communicated university or department academic honesty statements
in a way that did not help students know what violations could result in disciplinary action,
(“Dropping the class without the instructor’s approval will be considered an ‘unauthorized
withdrawal”). Two instructors provided an example of maintaining a transactional relationship,
(“If you remain in the class you are agreeing to these expectations”). All instructors maintained
Whiteness in their course post-syllabi by not incorporating readings, assignments, or activities
that center on racial discrimination, privileges, or disadvantages that connect to the race-neutral
climate embedded in STEM. Five instructors required texts written by White authors. In
particular, the required textbook for psychology was published by two White-appearing women.
The low range of racial representation indicates that the professional development training was
ineffective in advocating for instructors to diversify their curriculum.
Trustworthiness
I sought to analyze and interpret pre- and post-course syllabi to understand how faculty
participants illustrated equity-mindedness. While course syllabi are publicly available
documents, I sought to ensure that each participant was aware of the data I would need to collect.
Therefore, I solely only analyze faculty participants who willingly submitted their documents.
Ethically, I thought that this would be the best option for each faculty participant who willingly
wanted assistance in their efforts to address racial equity in their artifacts.
70

Limitations
A course syllabus is an artifact that is “a product of the context in which they were
produced and therefore grounded in the real world” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 183). These
artifacts are typically easily accessible and are a great source for learning how faculty use
language to communicate with students. While course syllabi are easy to access, they only
provide a glimpse of the historical context of an institution and an instructor.
Summary
In this chapter, I described how a document analysis approach sought to answer my
research questions. The next chapter will outline equity and anti-equity-minded findings taken
from faculty participants’ pre-syllabi.
71

Chapter Four: Pre-Syllabi Findings
In this chapter, I focus on the analysis of 15 syllabi submitted by the participants before
the start of the professional development sessions on creating an equity-minded syllabus. From
here on, I will refer to the syllabi submitted prior to the workshop as pre-syllabus or pre-syllabi.
In the first section of this chapter, I present the findings based on six equity-minded practices
found in the Equity-Minded Inquiry Series: Syllabus Review. In the second section, I discuss
how language in the pre-syllabi reflected the opposite of equity-mindedness, which I labeled as
“anti-equity-mindedness.”
Welcoming
Professor Lawson’s Environmental Geochemistry syllabus set the tone for how students
should engage with each other. His classroom protocol’ section stated, “I expect you to
participate by asking and responding to questions.” His use of the first-person created a
welcoming environment in which he invited students to actively engage in class discussions. The
classroom protocol section also states, “Note: I do not expect you to know the answers - the
questions are meant to get you thinking in a certain direction.” This sentence seeks to affirm
students’ ability to engage in classroom discussions in a positive manner by challenging what
they know or do not know. Regardless of any specified outcome, the instructor asserts every
student’s thought or experience, both of which are valued in his classroom.
Professor Marin’s Psychology of Emotion and Motivation pre-syllabus course description
started with, “Welcome to the class!” Assistant Professor Romero’s overview section stated,
“Welcome to the biochemistry laboratory!” Both instructors’ short greetings represent their
attempt to connect with students. They were the only two pre-syllabi that sought to include
enthusiasm in regard to their course description. While course descriptions are designed to fulfill
course requirements, they typically fail to center equity and outline how the course relates to
72

students’ professional careers or life goals. It is important for faculty to translate course
descriptions into language that makes students feel valued. Instructor Marin and Romero’s pre-
syllabi failed to design class norms that establish respect and outline language to address
discriminatory comments or behavior among students.
Assistant Professor Williams’ special note under his statement of reasonable
accommodation was eye-catching. It included bolded, underlined, and italicized text to call
attention to important sections. Under the statement of reasonable accommodation, the text read,
“Special Note: If you have a disability that may impact your learning in this course, you are
encouraged to make an appointment with me as soon as possible so that we can discuss your
needs and accommodations.” While not a major change, Professor Williams attempted to
translate a statement written in dry and legal language to make it more accessible to students,
thus showing care. In addition, the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) statement above the
special note section in Assistant Professor Williams’ statement is specifically customized by the
College of Education’s faculty members. The entire university’s ADA statements varied based
on my findings, but Instructor Williams defined reasonable accommodations as practices that can
be implemented during his classes or examination periods. The ADA section concludes by
stating that, “The intent of the ADA in requiring reasonable accommodation is not to give a
particular student an unfair advantage over other students, but simply to allow a student with a
disability to have an equal opportunity to be successful.” This sentence appears to be compliance
focused in comparison to his previous sentence. Assistant Professor William expresses
compassion by promoting a shared understanding among learning is fundamental to all students.
73

Demystifying
Professor Lawson’s environmental geochemistry course description evidenced the
practice of demystifying by elaborating on what his students should gain from the course. He
begins with, “This course covers geochemical and environmental processes/tools and technical
writing. Topics include basic principles and applications of geochemistry to solve environmental
problems including surface and groundwater studies.” This quote mirrors exactly what is
outlined in the university’s course catalog. Yet, the instructor goes a step further by reframing
the goal of the course in his own words. Professor Lawson begins with, “This course will
introduce you to geochemical processes and tools that help us better understand our environment
and how we interact with it.” Instructor Lawson places the responsibility of learning as a
collaborative endeavor that both the teacher and students can learn from each other. The course
description goes on to state, “The first part of the course will focus on basic principles of
environmental geochemistry and isotope geochemistry.” By introducing his students to studies
“that apply geochemical tools to solve environmental problems,” he is co-building students’
awareness of current problems within the field. Ultimately, students have the opportunity to see
how their own actions play a role in providing potential solutions to environmental processes. By
explaining the course description in his own words, Instructor Lawson formatted his syllabus in a
manner that highlights what students should know (Figure 10).

74

Figure 10
Excerpt From Geoscience Pre-Syllabus

Professor Lawson’s classroom protocol stated, “make sure to keep up with some of the
latest news (TV/newspapers) especially those that are related to the course - geology, climate,
environment, etc.” He then provided a roadmap for resources students should access to meet the
course’s learning objectives. Instructor Lawson articulated a willingness to learn from students
by incorporating reflection exercises. By allowing students to respond to informally written
responses throughout the semester, both the student and instructor are able to reflect on academic
successes and challenges. In short, the activity served as an informal evaluation tool that sought
to help the instructor understand what was learned and what may need to be revisited based on
student feedback.
When examining course overview statements, grading policies, learning objectives, and
classroom norms in all 15 pre-syllabi for themes, one course syllabus stood out. Professor
Marin’s pre-syllabus stated, “by studying emotions from different perspectives, you have the
opportunity to reflect on the universality (our ‘shared heritage’) and specificity (our unique
cultural understanding) of emotions: and learn how emotions can be used to both create and
eliminate prejudice, xenophobia, suspicion, and inter- and intra-group conflict.” Professor
Marin’s pre-syllabus connects the course to real-world problems and experiences that could
impact students differently. She also intentionally defined key words clearly to assist students in
75

their understanding of the course. Instructor Marin goes on to speak to students directly by
describing her expectation for their participation: “The ‘discussion’ component of the lecture-
discussion format involves YOU; without your questions and comments, this will not be an
effective class.” Professor Marin seeks to encourage students to engage in class discussion while
eliminating the usage of academic jargon. Capitalizing “you” could come off as screaming;
however, in the context of the full syllabus, “you” in all capitals can also convey the importance
of student voices in making the course successful.
Creating a Partnership
Assistant Professor Romero welcomed students in her biochemistry laboratory overview.
She went a step further by connecting the course material to students’ professional interests by
stating, “The techniques that you learn in a biochemistry lab are applicable to all life sciences
across a broad range of professional interests including but not limited to microbiology, health,
chemistry, forensics, pharmacy, botany zoology, food science and nutrition.” This sentence
connects students’ academic experiences to their professional goals. It is important to note that
the instructor sought to create an inclusive environment that allowed students to see the endless
possibilities of their academic journey.
Two designed a section in their pre-syllabus that sought to assist students in achieving
academic success. Professor Arnold’s chemistry pre-syllabus expressed the qualities of “creating
a partnership” in two ways: a bullet list guiding students on how to seek assistance from her or
the lab instructor and information for on-campus resources and where to go or whom to contact.
Figure 11 illustrates how Professor Arnold asked students to complete their assignments to the
best of their ability.

76

Figure 11
Excerpt from CHEM 1110 Pre-Syllabus

By instructing students to contact their lecture or lab instructor, students can choose who
they are more comfortable with, but the illustration can also be viewed as a way for students to
establish relationships. Furthermore, students are encouraged to build relationships while also
utilizing campus resources (e.g., writing center, math lab, computer lab, etc.). The study
suggestion section also recommends that students form small groups that can also assist in being
an additional support system outside the classroom.
Assistant Professor Romero designed a section in her biochemistry pre-syllabus called
Keep up with the course! Read the chapters ahead of time. Review your notes and read
the book a minimum of 9 hours a week (3 hours for every 1 hour of lecture). Do the
problems at the end of the chapters – use these to better prepare for quizzes/exams. Come
to my office hours if you are not sure about a concept.
First, Instructor Romero advises students how many hours they need to dedicate to her
course. She also encourages students to seek her help during office hours. The mention of office
hours and what they can be used for is important because students may not be sure how to seek
advice. However, simply saying to students to go to her office when they are having difficulties,
despite the intent of being helpful, by itself it may not be sufficient. She could have expressed
her enthusiasm for students’ visits just to talk or to ask questions.
77

Validating
Three instructors incorporated the practice of validating by outlining what students need
to do to be successful in their course. Associate Professor Meyer illustrated this practice for
students by stating, “Laboratory notebook: To succeed in this class, you will need to keep a
detailed lab notebook.” This instructor then holds herself accountable for ensuring that students
are successful by providing instructions that will help them develop an effective laboratory
notebook for the course. She concludes by saying, “I will check over your notebook periodically
to check for completeness and to provide feedback, and it will be graded at the end of the term.”
Grading students’ work at the end allows students to catch up and address her feedback before
receiving their final grades.
Representing
Two pre-syllabi outlined reading reference lists, one of which reflected diverse racial
representation (Asian and Latinx) while the other mainly reflected White scholars. Specifically,
in Professor Calloway’s Applied and Environmental Microbiology course, I identified the
instructors’ use of 16 White authors, three White authors, and two unknown authors. In
comparison, Instructor Romero’s Protein Structure pre-syllabus showcased 63 White, 59 Asian,
five Black, and four unknown authors. Based on the perceived racial identities of the authors
listed in the curriculum, the readings centered the perspective of White scholars.
Professor Lawson’s Environmental Geochemistry noted a White author. Professor Rivera
required students to purchase a zyBook. Professor Kumar’s Managing Positive Employee
Relations pre-syllabus cited a Black author, but this book is optional for students to purchase.
Both Professor Arnold’s General Chemistry II and Professor Marin’s Psychology of Emotions
and Motivations require text from White authors. Associate Professor Garica’s Principles of
78

Biology II provides a link to an e-textbook. He notes that he uses the same text for Biology 1100.
Associate Professor Meyer’s Plant Systematics did not identify a required text but stated that
additional information will be provided on Canvas. Assistant Professor Romero’s biochemistry
laboratory pre-syllabus cited three White authors, while her Molecular Sciences Capstone pre-
syllabus did not have a text requirement. Assistant Professor Singleton required students to
purchase a workbook from the campus bookstore.
Deconstructing
Assistant Professor Williams was the only instructor whose syllabus included sections
that met the criteria of representing and deconstructing. Professor Williams stated: “I believe, in
order to have liberating math instruction for all students, teachers must confront issues of equity,
race, gender, culture, and disability that impacts their identity.” This quote highlights Williams’s
use of his own teaching philosophy and instructional practices to help students find themselves
and their passion and connect math issues of identity. In addition to Instructor Williams’ beliefs
and values, he also seeks to assist students in exploring their own identity in his assignments that
are labeled as follows: Reading Responses, Math Identity, “Love It or Hate It”- Exploring
Student Math Identity, and Teaching Mathematics. The language used in Assistant Professor
Williams’ course pre-syllabus assignment section has a warm tone that invites students to define
who they are and how their past experiences “from schooling, family, peers, culture, and society”
have impacted their perceived roles as a math student as well as their own perception of their
mathematical ability.
Based on the findings presented, six instructors did incorporate elements of equity-
minded language, albeit weakly. Aside from these few signs of ‘equity-mindedness,’ the pre-
79

syllabi were skewed much more toward “anti-equity-mindedness.” In the next section, I will
define “anti-equity-mindedness” accompanied by illustrations.
Unwelcoming
Instructor Marin’s Psychology of Emotion & Motivation pre-syllabus outlines five
classroom rules. Throughout these rules, the term “required” is used three times. The first rule
stated,
Class begins at the time scheduled. Attendance is required, and is part of your grade.
Missing class will result in missing important announcements, demonstrations, etc. Class
discussion will NOT be made available to students on an individual basis if a student
misses that class.
While it is logical for instructors to expect students will attend class, it is possible to convey this
expectation in a more friendly and collegial way. Professor Marin appears to punish absence by
not offering students access to the material they missed. For instance, if a student has to be
hospitalized or has a family emergency that results in missing class, the first rule does not
provide guidance on how to access the information missed. If a partnership is about
collaboration, then the language in Professor Marin’s pre-syllabus goes against mutual respect
and instructor accountability.
Unwelcoming language was also identified in Professor Arnold’s General Chemistry II
course. The grading section begins with a table that is broken into three sections along the
horizontal axis (section, activities, and total points possible). The vertical axis describes the two
sections as lecture and laboratory. Professor Arnold concluded the section by providing a letter
grading scale. This grading scale is accompanied by the following statement. “You must pass the
lecture with at least 50.0% of the points, and to pass the laboratory section you must complete
all the experiments and earn 60.0% or more of the points for the lab reports.” What students are
80

not told is how they are graded (i.e., what does it mean to pass with at least 59% of the points).
The grading section concluded, “If you fail either the lecture or the laboratory, you will not
pass the class!” The bolding, italics, and exclamation mark feel harsh and intimidating.
Upholding College Policies or Practices
Technical Language Dominated the Description of Learning Outcomes
I found that in eight pre-syllabi reviewed, learning outcomes were written in highly
specialized scientific language that could be difficult for students to understand. One pre-
syllabus did not include student learning outcomes, while two failed to provide a detailed
description. The last student learning outcome (SLO) in Professor Rivera’s syllabus stated,
“Apply programming techniques to solve engineering-related problems.” Novice learners will
have a difficult time knowing what an engineering-related problem is.
A large portion of Associate Professor Garcia’s seven-page biology pre-syllabus
communicated institutional, departmental, or faculty rules and regulations while also clearly
stating how students could fail the course. The instructor described the course as an “introduction
to the ecology, evolution, and diversity of life; structure and function, reproduction, and energy
metabolism in plants, animals, and fungi.” This language was very technical and specialized and
would only make sense to students who understood the principles of evolution. It is important for
students to understand the specialized language and learn its foundational concepts, but an
explanation that would make this language more accessible to novice biologists was not
provided. This course overview failed to describe what students would actually be doing in the
class. There was also an absence of any indication of the instructor working toward establishing
a welcoming environment that could have nurtured students’ entering skills levels. The instructor
81

did not communicate a personal teaching philosophy or a description of how the course may
have been relevant to students beyond fulfilling a major requirement.
While each learning outcome began with action words such as: “compare, analyze,
describe, interpret, and evaluate,” they were all written in scientific language. Additionally, they
were all underlined, which gave them an authoritarian tone. One outcome stated, “upon
successful completion of this course, students will be able to: Analyze the evolutionary and
biogeochemical significance of metabolic evolution in prokaryotes.” The heavy usage of
scientific language could potentially discourage or intimidate students. The instructor could have
explained many of the concepts in everyday language, illustrated with examples that could have
made students feel more confident and engaged. The learning outcomes could have also been
presented in ways that would make students feel that they would learn useful skills. But as
presented, the learning outcomes were not accessible and did not make the subject matter come
alive. The SLOs did not make the subject matter clear. Moreover, the use of “required”
repeatedly conveyed an authoritarianism that could be intimidating. For example, the document
stated “required” nine times, especially in the sections about grading, add/drop, participation and
attendance policies. The use of ‘required’ makes the syllabus more like a contract than a tool to
mediate learning.
Contractual and Authoritarian Tone
Professor Garcia’s biology syllabus enforces the drop policy mandated by the university.
The example stated, “The drop policy established by the university will be strictly followed.” It
is evident that the university rules and regulations are legal agreements between students and the
professor. This language fails to remove academic arrogance that creates environments in which
students are held responsible for translating and following the strict rules implemented at all
levels (e.g., faculty, department, college, and institution). The description then states that
82

students need to have a “compelling reason” to drop the class, yet this vague statement allows for
bias to inform what is and what is not acceptable. The arbitrary wording does not assist students
in learning how to make an informed decision that would ultimately impact their degree
attainment status. Instructor Garcia concluded the drop policy statement by stating, “Acceptable
documentation is required verifying the reason for the withdrawal.” This example signals that the
instructor does not trust students to explain their rationale. Again, the instructor appears to care
more about enforcing the rules than about creating a classroom environment that is a place to
learn. Ultimately, the drop policy lacks a sense of generosity and care for students’ well-being.
Another example includes Instructor Garcia’s missed exam policy. The policy stated,
MISSED EXAMS: Make-up exams will not be offered for any mid-term
exams or the final. Students who miss a midterm will receive a zero for
the entire test unless they provide documentation for one of two
acceptable excuses:
-Incapacitating illness or accident--requires a note from student’s
physician (not a family member) or from a professional health service
provider
-Death or serious illness of an immediate family member—requires proper
documentation.
Instructor Garcia’s missed exams statement above does not take into account students who may
not have access to health care insurance. While medical healthcare may be offered to all
students, that does not mean that all students can afford to pay or that the services are easily
accessible to them. Sohn (2017) argued that health insurance coverage among African American
and Hispanic populations of all ages is consistently lower than Whites. While many factors
contribute to the health disparities between racial groups, research highlights that socioeconomic
83

characteristics, such as income, citizenship status, language, and employment, are also associated
with the barriers that impact insurance rates among people of color (Sohn, 2017). The missed
exam policy reads as a one-rule-fits-all and could result in discouraging students, particularly
those from historically marginalized communities, because acceptable excuses are defined as
needing “required” documentation from a healthcare provider.
Professor Marin’s syllabus stated, “Contract: Please read this syllabus carefully, as I
consider it a ‘contract’ between you and me. If you remain in the class you are agreeing to the
terms of the contract.” One of the distinguishing features of academic organizations is that they
are characterized as professional organizations that function according to norms of collegiality,
autonomy, and shared governance (Birnbaum & Edelson, 1989); accordingly, representing the
syllabus as a contract seems jarring. The language of contracts is more consistent with the
hierarchical organization of bureaucracies than with educational organizations. Faculty are
embedded in a social hierarchy that defines the course syllabus as a contractual agreement that
communicates rules and regulations. The lack of race consciousness and awareness contributes
to assisting faculty in becoming aware of what they do not know.
Professor Arnold’s general chemistry course description stated, “Chemistry 1110 is a
rigorous 5-unit course that demands approximately 20 hours of study per week in addition to
required lectures and laboratory meetings.” The instructor neither provided insight into how
students could structure their time; nor did the syllabus share what resources were available to
them to assist in developing their study skills. Finally, the professor failed to explain what
students would learn in the course or what real-world opportunities aligned with the course
content and lacked language that would make them feel as though they belonged in the class.
The syllabus indicated that “prerequisite knowledge for this course includes an understanding of
the fundamental concepts in chemistry, including chemical bonding and deduction of and
84

ramification of molecular structures.” The instructor’s use of scientific language could intimidate
students who might not remember everything that was covered in the prerequisite course or who
might be ambivalent about their likelihood of success. The use of words such as “rigorous,”
“demands,” and “required” communicate that students are solely responsible for their own
success. It is important for faculty members to critically examine the language used within their
syllabi to understand the racial consequences of their syllabi.
In conclusion, the examples illustrated in this chapter highlighted how faculty are
embedded in a profession that does not know how to support racially minoritized students. Thus,
instructors lack an awareness of how to communicate with students of color, which could result
in a more supportive and inclusive classroom culture. It is critical for practitioners to develop
equity-minded competency to enforce institutional and departmental rules and regulations in a
manner that demonstrates care and students’ overall well-being. It is important for first-
generation equity practitioners to learn how to communicate care and support in learning
environments in hopes of bringing about system-wide change. Chapter Five focuses on how six
faculty members included race-conscious language in their post-syllabi after participating in
CUE’s professional development training.

85

Chapter Five: Findings of Post-Syllabi
I present the analysis of six post-syllabi from STEM instructors. I used “pre-syllabus” or
“pre-syllabi” to indicate course curriculum submission before CUE’s professional development
training, and I will use “post-syllabus” or “post-syllabi” for any course curriculum submissions
that were accepted after the workshop. In this chapter, I will provide an overview of how I
collected post-syllabi, followed by general findings of both pre- and post-syllabi. I will then
focus my analysis on post-syllabi based on two categories: equity and anti-equity-mindedness.
Welcoming
Dowd and Bensimon (2015) identify three standards of justice: care, fairness, and
transformation. Justice as care requires practitioners to ensure that every student feels valued,
that their personal and cultural needs are affirmed, and that each student is respected inside and
outside the classroom (CUE, 2018). The practice of welcoming is an example of justice as care
in that it positions the instructor as someone who is sensitive to students and not cloaked in the
trappings of authority and power. Through a racial equity lens, welcoming seeks to establish an
environment that nurtures students’ abilities and increases the likelihood that students of color
will feel comfortable in the classroom. Expressing welcoming in a genuine tone can lighten the
doubts that students of color may feel when they encounter faculty members who appear distant
and unreachable. The following examples will illuminate how STEM faculty sought to bring
about the practice of welcoming in their post-syllabi.
Assistant Professor Romero added the following text box: “Dear Biochemistry Major,
Welcome to CHEM 4310!” The usage of a personal salutation may make students feel that the
professor is speaking directly to them. The instructor goes on to state, “Together, we will learn
86

how these components work together to give rise to more organized structures such as cells,
multicellular tissues like muscles, and ultimately, organisms.” The instructor is communicating
that they, too, are willing and able to learn with their students. The following three sentences
enforce this notion by beginning with phrases like: “We will learn,” “We will get an overview
of,” and “We will understand.” Figure 12 provides the excerpt that illustrates the practice of
welcoming.

Figure 12
Excerpt of “Welcoming” in Biochemistry I

87

Associate Professor Garcia’s biology post-syllabus stated, “In this class, we will explore
the origins and biodiversity of life on our planet. I will introduce the basic ecological principles
that determine where species are found and why certain organisms are more abundant than
others.” Through an equity lens, the instructor is communicating what students can expect of
him. While demonstrating the practice of creating a partnership, he states, “We will explore the
evolutionary processes that have generated life on earth as we know it today.” The instructor’s
use of “I/we” statements allows students to create a classroom culture in which their opinions,
thoughts, and questions are addressed. Throughout the syllabus, the instructor was intentional
about reframing traditional ways of thinking by centering the student perspective. For example,
the use of “when and where” as opposed to “office hours” suggests that the instructor is
welcoming students by finding creative ways to communicate basic information.
Demystifying
Justice as fairness states that every student has equal rights to learning opportunities and
resources that would advance their academic success (CUE, 2018; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015).
Dowd and Bensimon (2015) reimagined Rawls’s (1971) principle of equal rights as the critical
and accountability dimensions of racial equity, which hold institutional structures, systems, and
faculty responsible for “outcome equity” (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Through a racial equity
lens, demystifying seeks to provide clearly written policies, practices, and procedures that
communicate standard information such as course description, class location, and support
services offered by the institution. Demystifying works towards cultivating clear expectations of
students to maximize their learning experiences. Three instructors incorporated demystifying
into their post-syllabus in a manner that reflected learning opportunities that would advance
academic success.
88

Nurturing Students’ Curiosity to Scientific Language
Assistant Professor Romero’s Biochemistry I post-syllabus provides 17 SLOs. The
instructor begins by stating, “upon completion of this course, you will be able to: “1. Further
develop quantitative skills in the use of equations for pH and buffer.” The example presented
above highlights the instructor’s awareness of demystifying because she intentionally limits her
usage of academic jargon. Her SLOs are presented in a friendly manner that centers around the
students’ needs rather than being presented in a manner solely designed for instructors. Assistant
Professor Romero does incorporate words or phrases that may not be familiar to students, but she
is intentional in providing additional assistance. In all 17 learning outcomes, the instructor
underlined 15 words or phrases that may not be common knowledge to students. At the bottom
of the page, under the last SLO, the instructor incorporated a footnote that read, “*For definition
of any of the underlined terms, see our Canvas course site.” The instructor’s incorporation of
various modes of engagement allows her to present the learning outcomes in a manner that
prioritizes student learning while also introducing students to Canvas, an online course resource.
Caring For Students’ Wellbeing
Professor Rivera designed a section in her post-syllabus titled “Helpful Student
Resources.” She lists hyperlinks to technical, student support, and academic resources. Her post-
syllabi differed from other instructors because she sought to describe the university dream center.
The section reads, “A Family Dreamers Resource Center promotes the success of undocumented
students and students from mixed-status families at [CSU] through a variety of resources,
services, and community engagement opportunities.” As a predominantly HSI, Professor Rivera
demonstrates a caring tone but also names the student population she is targeting. While race is
89

not explicitly stated, the instructor calls attention to a community that has historically been
attacked and continues to be targeted by systems and structures that uphold whiteness. The
instructor goes a step further by linking the center’s name to the website, which prevents a
possible access roadblock. Professor Rivera addresses demystifying by explaining the purpose of
the dream resource center to all students while directly targeting a specific population. Lastly,
including the center also illustrates the practice of representing by directly targeting
undocumented student resources rarely promoted by college and university course syllabi.
Assistant Professor Romero included a frequently asked questions section in her post-
syllabus that highlights links to the chemistry and biochemistry club, career development, food
pantry, cross-cultural center, the student health and counseling center, and psychological
services. Instructor Romero took a holistic approach to ensure students also had the opportunity
to explore resources that may not be apparent to incoming students or those who are new to the
processes within university or college systems.
Associate Professor Garcia designed a section titled, “What resources are available to
assist you?” He explains the importance of his role. He stated, “Me - Dr. Garcia. I am here to
help you at all phases of this class. If you have questions, PLEASE send them my way. Ask
during lecture, ask before or after lecture, ask during office hours, ask over email”. He then calls
attention to his lab instructor and additional support system that are in place. Associate Professor
Garcia concluded this section by offering support by extending an invitation to connect directly
with him, the lab instructor or support services. He exemplified demystifying by stating what
students can gain from seeking help. His post-syllabus noted, “The Writing Center is a critical
resource that can assist you in writing assignments from any of your courses. Definitely try to
90

take advantage of this. You have two lab reports for BIOL1200 that they can provide you
constructive feedback on.” The instructor explains why students should take advantage of the
writing center and also designed a similar message for the office of students with disabilities.
Associate Professor Garcia takes the time to document the time, location, and email and provides
direct links instead of copying and pasting college policies for these student support services.
Creating a Partnership
This equity-minded practice is designed for faculty and students to work together to
ensure academic success. Dowd and Bensimon (2015) demonstrate that creating a partnership
requires both parties to manifest a non-oppressive learning environment, bring awareness to
stereotypical student-faculty interactions, such as the banking system in which faculty lecture
and fail to seek students as “producers of knowledge” (CUE, 2018, p. 5), and emphasize the
importance of students’ abilities to receive and provide feedback about their experience. Thus,
creating a partnership under justice as care empowers instructors to think outside the box in
terms of what engagement and meaningful collaboration can look like in a classroom
environment. Instructors applied this practice in the following ways: connecting to students’
career interests, communicating how, when, and why students should seek help, and creating a
space in which faculty members are transparent about classroom policies.
Associate Professor Garcia visually illustrated his grading using a collection of text boxes
(similar to the one shown in Figure 13) that connect.

91

Figure 13
Reflection Essay Assignment that Reflects Creating a Partnership

One component of Instructor Garcia’s post-syllabus is the reflection essays which he
describes as opportunities that allow students to demonstrate how the course connects to them.
The instructor’s use of visual diagrams helps students understand how lectures and labs operate
and what they need to be mindful of to be successful. Thus, information is presented in writing
and enforced in various sections through visual images. For example, the percentage of graded
material is presented more than once.
Associate Professor Romero’s post-syllabus designed a section titled, “What can you do
with biochemistry?” In her illustration, she provides examples of career opportunities in various
fields (Figure 14).

92

Figure 14
Excerpt From Biochemistry I

Throughout her post-syllabus, Associate Professor Romero expressed her commitment to
helping students learn how her course could apply to 11 different professions. The careers she
highlights also communicate that she has high expectations of her students which can go a long
way in making them confident about what is possible for them to achieve.
Validating
Validating is the last practice that aligns with Dowd and Bensimon’s (2015) equity as
care perspective. This practice ensures that instructors communicate that each student can fulfill
their educational goals regardless of their intentions or barriers that may impact their success.
93

Faculty members can offer different forms of assessments as a strategy for students to
demonstrate their learning.
Associate Professor Romero’s post-syllabi outlined classroom rules. The first sentence
stated, “This class is based on the belief that everyone can learn biochemistry.” This example
asserts that the instructor believes in her students. Another example can be found under her
“Frequently Asked Questions” section. She stated, “You are expected to act positively by having
a great attitude and an open mind.” Assistant Professor Romero proclaims this statement as a rule
and expectation of her students. The following sentence further validates students by noting,
“You can excel in biochemistry!” Through these illustrations, she communicates hope and
affirms that students are capable of success.
Professor Arnold’s post-syllabus stated, “It is imperative that we work together with our
diverse backgrounds to move science forward.” The example highlighted in her chemistry course
allows for other voices and perspectives to contribute to the science field. At the same time, the
instructor could have delved deeper by explaining the historical alienation of Black, Latinx, and
other racially marginalized populations by sparking a conversation among students. For example,
the instructor could have gone a step further by promoting conversation about stereotypes,
discrimination, and inclusionary practices in STEM. This would have allowed all students to
examine how their race played a role in opportunities or disadvantages in their field.
Representing
Dowd and Bensimon’s (2015) justice as transformation refers to the power faculty
posses and how they can use it to facilitate the success of students who have not been the
beneficiaries of opportunities that are taken for granted among students from higher
94

socioeconomic status groups as well as White students. Equity as transformation calls on
practitioners to give voice and visibility to people of color by demonstrating that their cultural
experiences and scholarship matter.
Out of the 11 racial and ethnic illustrations of images found in post-syllabi, only
Assistant Professor Romero’s demonstrated a critical perspective. Her syllabus explained how
a Cuban scientist, Dr. Carlos Juan Finlay was the object of ridicule after presenting his
research on yellow fever to Havana’s Academy of Science. The instructor illustrated scientist
Carlos Juan Finlay as an individual who did not let his experience in the academy discourage
him from his research. Assistant Professor Romero shared that Dr. Finlay spent 2 decades
refining his theory until it became widely accepted in science education.
Deconstructing
This practice also falls under the equity perspective of transformation. Deconstructing
seeks to create a learning environment in which students can be critical about their
assumptions and beliefs from a race perspective. Instructors can illustrate this practice in
different ways, such as bringing attention to current problems that disadvantage or advantage
students based on race; (e.g., the unwanted procedure of gynecologist performing
hysterectomy being on detained immigrants in Georgia), problem solving real-life events or
problems that contribute to inequities experienced by students of color (e.g., low matriculation
among Black and Latinx students enrolled in science programs), and creating space for
students to share events that disproportionately impact the communities by race and ethnic
(e.g., analyzing the cause and effect of COVID-19 cases and death rates by race/ethnicity). By
centering race, the instructor allows students to be seen as individuals who can advance the
95

STEM curriculum. Associate Professor Romero’s inclusion of Dr. Carlos Juan Finlay because
she sought to share the experience of someone whose work was not valued but also
showcased that there is space for something other than the White male perspective.
The last section will highlight how faculty members failed to racial equity by
continuing to speak to an anti-equity point of view.
Unwelcoming
Unwelcoming is often communicated in language that reflects harshness, sternness, and
authoritarianism. There were a variety of ways in which unwelcoming showed up in post-syllabi.
Some instructors bolded or underlined text about rules and expectations. Assistant Professor
Romero post-syllabi stated, “You will not be allowed to exit/enter the classroom during
examinations.” The sentence’s tone comes off as harsh, and the bolding of the text sounds like
an order. The instructor could have conveyed the same sentiment without sounding militaristic or
explained why it is preferable for students to stay in the exam room. The instructor could have
said stated, for example, that the best practices during examinations are to (a) turn off your
phone; (b) use the restroom as you will not likely be able to leave once the exam starts; and (c)
let the instructor know of any special circumstances about which they should be aware (e.g.,
expecting a phone call about a sick relative). A more conversational tone humanizes the
professor and contributes to a classroom culture of mutual respect.
Unwelcoming was also shown in the articulation of policies. Professor Marin’s post-
syllabus stated, “Missing class will result in missing important announcements, demonstrations,
etc. Class discussions will NOT be made available to students on an individual basis if a student
misses that class.” This rule does not account for personal or family emergencies that may arise
96

for first-generation, working-class students or those caring for family members. The next rule
noted, “Class-readiness is required. This means reading the material before each class. The pre-
and post-class quizzes will help you stay on track with reading the material.” For sure, creating a
vibrant classroom requires readiness to engage with content. However, getting ready may not be
something that all students know how to do. In this instance, the faculty member could have
provided students with the “hidden curriculum” of getting ready. The instructor could have
shared what she/he did as a student to get ready, provided advice on how to read to gain
understanding and apply it during a test, or provided guiding questions in the course schedule to
help students test themselves through a classroom dialogue or other kind of activity. Professor
Marin could have learned about her students’ strategies for getting ready through one or more
non-threatening activities. Faculty members have experienced academic success, and they often
forget that there are key strategies for preparing for class discussions and for studying. “Getting
ready for class” or “getting ready for a test” consist of practices to which racially minoritized
students often have not had access, but faculty do not realize it. In most syllabi, there is an
assumption that students know how to study, decipher texts, and recall what they read.
Upholding College Policies or Practices
This practice presents information in the form of rules, often in academic jargon and legal
language, and evokes images of disciplining violators. The disciplining tone is often found in
statements about academic honesty and policies on adding, dropping, or missing class. Assistant
Professor Romero’s post-syllabus started on a promising note: “Academic honesty: I will try to
treat everyone equally and honestly, and I expect the same of you.” However, her elaboration
takes an authoritarian tone: “Violations of academic honesty will be treated seriously, in
97

accordance with university policy (Appendix D). If caught, students will get an F grade and will
be disciplined by the College.” Assistant Professor Romero did not provide examples that could
cause students to notice that they have violated the academic honesty statement. Assistant
Professor Romero could have added, “Many incidents of plagiarism result from students’ lack of
understanding about what constitutes plagiarism.” This example found in Professor Rivera’s
university policy section provides an opportunity for students to learn and engage with the
instructor about what they need to know and should know as students.
Professor Rivera sought to uphold college policies through her statement about adding
and dropping. She stated, “students are responsible for understanding the policies and procedures
about add/drops, academic renewal, etc. Students should be aware of the current deadlines and
penalties for adding and dropping classes by visiting the [university’s] home page.” This
sentence may seem like common knowledge to some students but could be alienating to an
entering college student. Professor Rivera places the responsibility on students to know the ins
and outs of registration. She also does not provide guidance on where to get assistance. She
could have added a hyperlink or a person to contact in the registrar’s office. Adding a phone
number, office location, and email address can help students ensure that they have all the
information on how to handle their personal add-and-drop needs.
Professor Marin’s post-syllabus stated, “Contract: This syllabus is an agreement
between you and me, and I want to make sure you understand the expectation of you as a
student in the class. If you remain in the class you are agreeing to these expectations.”
Contractual language appears to take precedence over student learning. The contractual
language forces students to agree to the terms set by the instructor, including the discretion to
98

make changes. It is very possible to express the significance of the syllabus as a document
that sets mutual expectations for the instructor and student without making it sound like a
legal transaction designed to protect the service provider.
Summary
Participants made changes to their post-syllabi, but there were qualitative differences that
seemed to indicate differences in understanding the six elements of equity-mindedness. In some
cases, the changes seemed to be more performative, while other instructors incorporated
language that shifted the tone and purpose of their post-syllabus. Course syllabi should be
viewed as tools that faculty and students can use to provide information and clarity in the
classroom. In the last chapter, I will address why some faculty members learned aspects of being
race-conscious while others did not and what it is about some faculty members that showed the
greatest change in their post-syllabus.

99

Chapter Six: Discussion
Through CUE’s inquiry-based intervention, 12 faculty members had the opportunity to
reimage how they could design their course syllabus so that they could effectively address racial
disparities in educational outcomes among Black and Latinx students. Based on CUE’s syllabus
review tool, these STEM practitioners reflected on their practices in hopes of creating an
inclusive learning culture that centered on addressing issues of racial equity. In this chapter, I
reflect on the faculty participant’s collective efforts to learn and include equity-minded language
in their syllabus, what I learned as the facilitator, and the implications of my findings.
Faculty members were given a learning opportunity to demonstrate if race-conscious
language existed in their pre-syllabus and what learning informed whether racial equity was
addressed in their post-syllabus. Most of the participants were able to incorporate the feature of
welcoming, but all faced difficulties in incorporating the deeper race-conscious features of
representing and deconstructing. All faculty members appeared to make cosmetic changes in
relation to racial representation rather than impactful changes on how they included a race
awareness lens in their curriculum (i.e., readings, assignment, lab reports). While findings varied
based on instructors, there is evidence of learning.
Course syllabi can mirror faculty assumptions, beliefs, and values. Four of six faculty
members incorporated the practice of representing in their post-syllabus. Representing illustrates
racial diversity in whose work is acknowledged in the curriculum and who is discussed in the
classroom based on an instructor’s course syllabus. The examples found in participants’ post-
syllabi were weak because they were not connected to the content, and they appeared to be
random images and efforts. Four instructors added visual representations to signal inclusivity,
but they did not intentionally connect with the lived experiences and educational backgrounds of
100

students of color. Rather, the racial representation illustrations seemed to just be there. In
retrospect, to better help faculty understand representation, I should have provided examples of
STEM course syllabi that illustrated this practice. Showing faculty participants what could have
been achieved may have better provided them with the necessary scaffolding rather than
including images as a cosmetic fix.
Only one faculty member provided an example of deconstructing, albeit weak. While
Assistant Professor Romero did connect a person of color to her curriculum, the example did not
address the race-neutral tone of her post-syllabus. The absence of deconstruction examples from
the other five instructors suggests that participants may have lacked the foundational knowledge
to understand how their discipline has contributed to racism (e.g., eugenics, Tuskegee
experiments, birth control experiments in Puerto Rico, etc.). This finding suggests that the
training failed to provide a strong foundation in the concept of how race has played out in STEM
curriculum.
The evidence of anti-equity-minded practices found in post-syllabi suggest that faculty
may have needed further assistance outside of the professional development workshop. Based on
my findings, an anti-equity-mindedness sought to address the complexity of how practitioners
can be race conscious while also conveying deficit-minded thinking in how they communicate
practices and policies. While all six faculty members-maintained Whiteness in their curriculum, I
argue that a course syllabus is only one learning tool that I sought to examine for this study. I did
not take into account what other resources or learning tools each faculty member sought to
include. Therefore, I only examined one artifact to understand how racial equity was addressed.
Parkes and Harris (2002) argued that a syllabus can serve as a contract, a permanent
record, or a learning tool. As a contract, the course syllabi that I reviewed communicated
101

legalistic language of policies and practices that all individuals must follow. The course syllabi
implicitly and explicitly communicated the history of how rules and regulation are or passed
down or designed to ensure a learning environment. However, the syllabus as a learning tool
should empower instructors to include their own philosophies about teaching and act as a bridge
to connect students to learning outside of the classroom (Parkes & Harris, 2002). For example,
Professor Garcia and Associate Professor Rivera included the skills that centered students’
wellbeing outside of the classroom.
The syllabus review tool as an artifact did provide a space in which instructors could take
the time to reflect on their practice, but this also appeared to present discomfort. During the
professional development work, faculty members had a difficult time separating how they
presented their syllabus during the first week of class from the written text they used to
communicate. This presented the perfect opportunity for me to merge research with practitioner
knowledge to transform learning for Black and Latinx students. While equity-mindedness cannot
be acquired overnight, it is my hope that the professional development sparked a need for faculty
to become racial literate and continually evaluate how they served racially minoritized students
inside and outside the classroom. The syllabus review tool is just one artifact that seeks to
mediate learning.
Personal Reflection
hooks (1994) hoped for instructors to create a classroom experience that allows students
to experience pleasure, fun, and excitement. hooks further argued that there is a false notion that
faculty treat their students equally when special bonds are formed through lived experiences. She
noted that instructors should ensure that students are viewed as individuals who contribute
knowledge to the classroom and should always feel cared for. Dowd and Bensimon (2015)
102

reinforced the notion of care through the idea of institutional agents whereby instructors use their
resources, networks, and privileges to target and benefit historically minoritized students.
Institutional agents assist students in “navigating structural and interpersonal barriers” that
impact their educational trajectories (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015, p. 112). Collectively, faculty
participants took on the role of institutional agents to investigate how their course syllabi served
the needs of Black and Latinx students enrolled in lower division STEM fields. Due to their
willingness to reflect critically on their practices, this professional development session created a
learning experience centered on how practitioners can show up for students through equity-
minded language.
The syllabus review workshop relied on my ability to leverage faculty members’
expertise in STEM education. While it is important for faculty to take ownership of their
learning, I failed to consider how supplemental readings and resources could have better-
supported faculty in designing an equity-minded post-syllabus. When reflecting only on the
syllabus review training, the agenda solely focused on helping faculty understand the
components of the syllabus review tool. Furthermore, I was more focused on getting through the
materials in hopes that it would better assist them afterward when they were to work
independently. Rather, I should have allowed faculty to sit with a practice, such as representing,
to understand its definition and how it was represented in their syllabi. I could have asked what it
means regarding their discipline. Upon reflecting, I may have overwhelmed participants by not
scaffolding what I wanted them to accomplish. It may have been more helpful to have asked
participants to follow the checklist approach rather than providing two options. As the facilitator,
I should have adapted my agenda and action items to meet the team where they were rather than
rushing to get through the content of the syllabus review tool. Thus, we could have detoured and
103

looked up examples of racially inclusive language in the course syllabus together, or I could have
asked for a volunteer so that we could workshop their pre-syllabus as a team. Demonstrating that
equity-minded language had been used in the course syllabus may have assisted participants in
their reflection processes.
The reluctance of faculty to share their post-syllabi could be attributed to factors such as
my ability to build rapport with participants or a possible fear of them being outed for not
knowing what to do to explicitly speak to the needs of Latinx and Black students. For example,
my inability to provide constructive feedback after the workshop could have contributed to their
fear of not knowing what to do. In retrospect, I should have set up individual meetings to check
in on their progress. This may have assisted in my data collection.
To better assist them in designing their classrooms as exciting and fun spaces, STEM
faculty can exercise “transformation” in a variety of ways: acknowledging ways in which science
has been complicit in racist agendas (e.g., eugenics); bringing to light the discoveries and
contributions of scholars of color, particularly those whose work was stolen by White
collaborators or supervisors; highlighting how racial stereotypes translate into practices that
harm people of color, (e.g., the tendency of medical doctors to overestimate Black people’s
tolerance of pain); the abuse of people of color in medical experiments, (e.g., the
experimentation with birth control pills among Puerto Rican women).
Implications
Elmore (2002) noted that “education accountability” requires that practitioners learn new
ways of thinking and doing in order to create new ideas that serve racially minoritized students.
While Elmore (2002) speaks to post-secondary institutions, I argue that higher education faculty
need a safe space to help them learn and address the concerns, issues, and practices that hinder
104

student success among Black and Latinx students (Drago-Severson & Blum-Destefano, 2017). In
particular, Drago-Severson and Blum-Destefano (2017) asserts that to expand social justice
teaching practices, practitioners need to “expand their internal capacities by coupling safe-feeling
scaffolds with challenges that fall just outside their comfort zone” (p. 469). The syllabus review
workshop was designed for the facilitator to gain an understanding of participants’ teaching
philosophy and to help each of them reimage their post-syllabus. In retrospect, the design of the
workshop provided me the opportunity to consider what should be done differently to assist
faculty in self-reflection.
Kennedy (2016) argued that professional development workshops can foster
improvement, yet the design of my workshop failed to help faculty learn how to incorporate
racial equity authentically. Thinking back, more scaffolding should have been included in their
training to better assist learning. My inability to role model or provide specific examples of how
representing and deconstructing can be communicated in a STEM course syllabus could have
contributed to their lack of strong examples.
I assert that one stand-alone session on the syllabus review tool is not sufficient to learn
and implement equity-minded change in course syllabi. The inquiry-based intervention helped
Professor Garcia and Assistant Professor Romero, two Latinx faculty members, in that they
showed the greatest change in their syllabi revision, followed by Professor Rivera. These three
practitioners’ abilities to develop a student-centered focus were evident in their post-syllabi. For
example, Professor Rivera’s ability to focus on undocumented students can be attributed to her
awareness of other racial inequities that could hinder her students’ success. These three
instructors’ personal and professional experiences may have contributed to their ability to speak
105

to racially marginalized students’ needs. These three faculty members were able to imagine
possibilities in providing improved syllabi revisions because of the training.
The next time I facilitate professional development training on the syllabus review tool, I
will focus on the institution’s role in safeguarding the syllabus’s legal aspects. Based on the anti-
equity-minded findings, the faculty felt compelled to illustrate anti-equity-mindedness in their
academic dishonesty statements. This need to enforce code and the legal side of higher education
is designed to address the educational inequities in student success. Rather, this effort can be
seen as a tool to intimidate non-traditional students. While faculty can include more inclusive
language, I contend that higher education institutions need to provide the space and time for
faculty to have ownership of their syllabus. While participants illustrated anti-equity-
mindedness, it aligned with the notion of upholding college policies and practices through a
raceless perspective.
106

References
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: a reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390902736512
Agger, & Shelton, B. A. (2017). Time, Motion, Discipline: The Authoritarian Syllabus on
American College Campuses. Critical Sociology, 43(3), 355–369.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920515595844
American Society for Engineering Education. (2012). Going the distance: Best practices and
strategies for retaining engineering. engineering technology and computing students
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM8pBIhObjU
Bain. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.
Benjamin, E. (1999). Disparities in the salaries and appointments of academic women and Men.
Academe, 85(1), 60–62.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change,
Change, 36, 45–52.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.190
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0032
107

Bensimon, E. M. (2012). The equity scorecard: theory of change. In E. Mara & L. Malcolm
(Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in
theory and practice (pp. 17–44). Stylus Publishing.
Bensimon, E. M. (2016). The misbegotten URM as a data point. Center for Urban Education.
Bensimon, E. M. (2018). Reclaiming racial justice in equity. Change, 50(3-4), 95–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1509623
Bensimon, E. M., & Bishop, R. (2012). Why “critical”? The need for new ways of knowing. In
E. M. Bensimon & R. Bishop (Eds.), The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0046
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., & Witham, K. (2016). Five principles for enacting equity by
design. Diversity and Democracy, The Equity Imperative, 19(1).
https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2016/winter/bensimon
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., Longanecker, D., & Witham, K. (2012). We have goals. Now
what? Change, 44(6), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.728948
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dávila, B. A. (2019). The role of
institutional agents in providing institutional support to Latinx students in STEM. Review
of Higher Education, 42(4), 1689–1721. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0080
Bensimon, E. M., & Gray, J. (2020). First-generation equity practitioners: Are they part of the
problem? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 52(2), 69–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732790
Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom, L. E. (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing
the equity scorecard in theory and practice. Stylus Publishing.
108

Bensimon, M. E., Polkinghorne, E. D., Bauman, L. G., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that
makes a difference. Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104–126.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2003.0048
Birnbaum, R., & Edelson, P. J. (1989). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic
organization and leadership. Taylor & Francis.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Pearson A & B.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bray, J. N., Lee, J., Smith, L. L., & Yorks, L. (2000). Collaborative inquiry in practice: Action,
reflection, and making meaning. Sage.
Budd, R. W., Thorp, R. K., & Donohew, L. (1967). Content Analysis of Communications. New
York: Macmillan.
Bustillos, L. T., Rueda, R., & Bensimon, E. M. (2011). Faculty views of underrepresented
students in community college settings: Cultural models and cultural practices. In P. R.
Portes & S. Salas (Eds.), Vygotsky in 21st century society: Advances in cultural historical
theory and praxis with non-dominant communities (pp. 199–213). Peter Lang.
Cabrera, N. L. (2020). “Never forget” the history of racial oppression: Whiteness, White
immunity, and educational debt in higher education, Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 52(2), 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732774
Calhoon, & Becker, A. (2008). How Students Use the Course Syllabus. International Journal for
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020106
109

Canada, M. (2013). The syllabus: A place to engage students’ egos. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 2013(135), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20062
Center for Urban Education. (2018). Equity-minded inquiry series: Syllabus review. https://cue-
equitytools.usc.edu/
Ching, C. (2018). Confronting the equity “learning problem” through practitioner inquiry.
Review of Higher Education, 41(3), 387–421. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0013
Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research
strategies. Sage Publications, Inc.
Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science,
Engineering and Technology Development. (2000). Land of plenty: Diversity as
America’s competitive edge in science, engineering, and technology. U.S. Department of
Education.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
(3rd ed.). Sage.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
Research. In Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 1–30). Sage Publications, Inc.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the “race question”: Accountability and
equity in U.S. higher education. Teachers College Press.
110

Dowd, A. C., Bishop, R. M., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Critical action research on race and
equity in higher education. In A. M. Martinez-Aleman, E. M. Bensimon, & B. Pusser
(Eds.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education (pp. 174–192). Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Drago-Severson, & Blum-Destefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental lens
on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–481.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.457
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. The Imperative for
professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.
Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
research. Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work.
Ergonomics, 43(7), 960–974. https://doi.org/10.1080/001401300409143
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical
reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
Fries-Britt, S.L., Younger, T.K. and Hall, W.D. (2010), Lessons from high-achieving students of
color in physics. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 75–83.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.363
Habanek, D. V. (2005). An Examination of The Integrity Of The Syllabus. College
Teaching, 53(2), 62–64. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.2.62-64
111

Harnish, R. J., & Bridges, K. R. (2011). Effect of syllabus tone: Students’ perceptions of
instructor and course. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 319–330.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9152-4
Harper, S. R. (2010). An anti-deficit achievement framework for research on students of color in
STEM. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2010(148), 63–74.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.362
hooks. b. (2014). Teaching to transgress. Taylor and Francis.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln
(Eds)., Handbook of Qualitative Research (2
nd
ed.). Sage Publications.
Kennedy. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of Educational
Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Kivel, P. (1995). Uprooting racism: How White people can work for racial justice. New Society
Publishers.
Landivar, L. C. (2013). Disparities in STEM employment by sex, race, and Hispanic origin
(American Community Survey Reports, ACS-24).
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2013/acs/acs-24.pdf
Landreman, L. M., Rasmussen, C. J., King, P. M., & Jiang, C. X. (2007). A phenomenological
study of the development of university educators’ critical consciousness. Journal of
College Student Development, 48(3), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0027
112

Lindkvist, K. (1981). Approaches to textual analysis. In K. E. Rosengren (Ed.), Advances in
content analysis (pp. 23-41). Sage.
Ma, Y., & Liu, Y. (2017). Entry and degree attainment in STEM: The intersection of gender and
race/ethnicity. Social Sciences, 6(3), 89–. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci6030089
Malcom-Piqueux, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2017). Taking equity-minded action to close equity
gaps. Peer review: Emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate education, 19(2),
5–8.
Marcis, J.G., & Carr, D. R. (2003). A note on student views regarding the course
syllabus. Atlantic Economic Journal, 31(1), 115–31:1<115.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298467
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
McNair, T., Bensimon, E., & Malcom-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity walk
expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119428725
McTavish, D.-G., & Pirro, E.-B. (1990). Contextual content analysis. Quality and Quantity, 24,
245–265.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
4th edition.). Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Characteristics of postsecondary students.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csb
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Status dropout rates.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coj
113

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2021). Women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities in science and engineering (NSF 21-321). National Science Foundation.
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/report#about-this-report.
National Science Board. 2019. Higher education in science and engineering (NSB-2019-7).
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20197
National Science Foundation. (1990). Women and minorities in science and engineering.
Ogawa, Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward conceptualizing learning in
the context of formal organizations. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 83–95.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08316207
Packard, B. W.-L., & Fortenberry, N. L. (2016). Successful STEM mentoring initiatives for
underrepresented students: A research-based guide for faculty and administrators.
Stylus.
Palmer, C. A. (2000). Defining and studying the Modern African diaspora. The Journal of Negro
History, 85(1-2), 27–32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2649097
https://doi.org/10.1086/JNHv85n1-2p27
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Peña, E. V. (2012). Inquiry methods for critical consciousness and self-change in faculty.
[Supplement]. Review of Higher Education, 36(1S), 69–92.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0049
Peña, E. V., Bensimon, E. M., & Colyar, J. (2006). Contextual problem defining: Learning to
think and act. Liberal Education, 92(2), 48-55.
114

Perrine, R. M., Lisle, J., & Tucker, D. L. (1995). Effects of a Syllabus Offer of Help, Student
Age, and Class Size on College Students’ Willingness to Seek Support from Faculty. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 64(1), 41–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20152471
Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. SAGE Publications
Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208901.n9
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Rotermund, S., & Burke, A. (2021). Elementary and secondary STEM education (NSB-2021-1).
National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20211.
Rumore. (2016). The course syllabus: Legal contract or operator’s manual? American Journal of
Pharmaceutical Education, 80 (10), 177–177. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8010177
Schwartz, J. (2012). Faculty as undergraduate research mentors for students of color: Taking into
account the costs. Science Education, 96(3), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21004
Slattery, J. M., & Carlson, J. F. (2005). Preparing an effective syllabus: Current best practices.
College Teaching, 53(4), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.53.4.159-164
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books
Ltd. and Otago Press.
Smith, M. F., & Razzouk, N. Y. (1993). Improving Classroom Communication: The Case of the
Course Syllabus. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 215–221.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1993.10117616
Sohn, H. (2017). Racial and Ethnic disparities in health insurance coverage: Dynamics of gaining
and losing coverage over the life-course. Population Research and Policy Review, 36(2),
181–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-016-9416-y
Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. Sage.
115

Stage, F.K. & Hubbard, S.M. (2009). Undergraduate institutions that foster women and minority
scientists. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15, 77–91.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–41.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1066–
1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support
networks of US-Mexican youth. Teachers College Press.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. Falmer.
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs).
https://sites.ed.gov/hispanic-initiative/hispanic-serving-institutions-hsis/
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330970
Whitman, K., Malcolm-Piqueux, L. E., Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). America’s
unmet promise: The imperative for equity in higher education. Association of American
College and Universities.
Whitman, K. A., & Bensimon, E. M. (2012). Creating a culture of inquiry around equity and
student success. In S. D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures:
Fostering success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 46–65). Routledge.
116

Winans, A. E. (2010). Cultivating racial literacy in White, segregated settings: Emotions as Site
of ethical engagement and inquiry. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(3), 475–491.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2010.00494.x
Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2007). Confronting analytical dilemmas for understanding complex
human interactions in design-based research from a cultural-historical activity theory
(CHAT) framework. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 451–484.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701524777
Zamani-Gallaher, E. M., Yeo, H. T., Velez, A. L., Fox, H. L., & Samet, M. (2019). STEM
completion at Hispanic-serving community colleges. Hispanic-serving community
colleges STEM pipelines. Office of Community College Research and Leadership.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore how a team of science, technology, engineering, mathematics faculty at a Hispanic-serving institution sought to bring about racial equity through an inquiry-based intervention. This team of faculty participated in a professional development intervention that focused on their course syllabi. The findings illustrate that faculty participants did make changes to their post-syllabi. The professional development sought to mediate faculty learning but none of the participants post-syllabi was considered to illustrate all six elements of equity-mindedness. This study concludes by suggesting how the training on the syllabus equity-oriented tool could have been facilitated differently to better assist faculty in learning how to be more critically race conscious in language and content.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices

PDF

Faculty learning and agency for racial equity

PDF

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

PDF

Race in the class: exploring learning and the (re)production of racial meanings in doctoral coursework

PDF

The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change

PDF

Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities

PDF

Tempering transformative change: whiteness and racialized emotions in graduate leaders' implementation of equity plans

PDF

Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process

PDF

Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation

PDF

Addressing a historical mission in a performance driven system: a case study of a public historically Black university engaged in the equity scorecard process

PDF

Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM

PDF

Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents

PDF

The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college

PDF

Keyholding or gatekeeping: managing the contradictions between market pressures and equity imperatives in the modern racialized college admissions office

PDF

Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in school-level goveranance and decision making

PDF

Participation in higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion work: a relational intersectionality of organizations analysis

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

Structures for change: involving faculty in equity-based decision-making in independent schools

PDF

Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education

PDF

Embedding and embodying a Hispanic-serving consciousness: a phenomenological case study of faculty hiring experiences

Asset Metadata

Creator Greer, Jordan Anysia (author)

Core Title Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 12/28/2022

Defense Date 04/21/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag CHAT,faculty,inquiry-based intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,syllabus equity-oriented tool

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Bensimon, Estela Mara (committee chair), Chase, Megan (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email jordang@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112666208

Unique identifier UC112666208

Identifier etd-GreerJorda-11396.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GreerJorda-11396

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Greer, Jordan Anysia

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230104-usctheses-batch-999 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu