Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education: Foundations [1st ed.] 9783030449384, 9783030449391

Citation preview

Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education Foundations Edited by Laura Parson · C. Casey Ozaki

Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education

Laura Parson · C. Casey Ozaki Editors

Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education Foundations

Editors Laura Parson North Dakota State University Fargo, ND, USA

C. Casey Ozaki University of North Dakota Grand Forks, ND, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-44938-4 ISBN 978-3-030-44939-1  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Maram_shutterstock.com This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Introduction 1 C. Casey Ozaki and Laura Parson 2

Learning Theory Through a Social Justice Lens 7 Laura Parson and Claire Major

3

Beyond Behaviorism: Engaging Students in the Age of Neoliberalism 39 Jeffery L. Jackson Jr. and Patrick White

4

Persistent Myths About the Psychology of Education: Implications for Social Justice and Equity 53 Wilson S. Lester, Kamden K. Strunk and Payton D. Hoover

5

A Framework for Social Justice Education: Combining Content, Process, and Holistic Development 73 Jessica Belue Buckley, Stephen John Quaye, Stephanie H. Chang and Aileen N. Hentz

6

Postcolonial Approach to Curriculum Design 93 Laura Parson and Jessica Weise

7

Creating Inclusive College Classroom: Granting Epistemic Credibility to Learners 117 Karla I. Loya

v

vi  

CONTENTS

8

Engagement with Diversity Experiences: A Self-Regulated Learning Perspective 137 Christy M. Byrd, Ritika Rastogi and Erin R. Elliot

9

Critical Teacher Responsibility in Tumultuous Times: Engaging in a Community of Practice 157 Hannah Carson Baggett, Alyssa Hadley Dunn and Beth L. Sondel

10 A New Narrative About Emotions and Their Connection to Learning 179 Sarah E. Schoper and Elijah C. Amelse 11 Critical Culturally Relevant Synergism in Higher Education: Equitable Educational Experiences Through Neuroscientific Curricula 199 Christopher J. Kazanjian and Cesar A. Rossatto 12 Understanding the Failure to Help Marginalized Students Succeed in Higher Education: A Social Theory Perspective of the Science of Teaching and Learning 219 Stefan A. Perun 13 Association Awareness: Pedagogically Reframing Difficult Dialogues 239 Addrain Conyers, Christina Wright Fields, Martha Lucia Garcia, Michele Rivas, Daria Hanssen and Stacy A. S. Williams 14 Adult Learning and Critical Contemplative Pedagogy in Higher Education 259 Maryann Krikorian 15 Establishing Equitable Graduate Mentoring in Higher Education 279 Lindsey Almond, Eric Hall and Elizabeth Devore 16 Decolonizing Knowledge and Fostering Critical Allyship Elizabeth Laura Yomantas

303

17 Conclusion 329 Laura Parson and C. Casey Ozaki Index

333

Notes

on

Contributors

Lindsey Almond (she/her/hers) received her Bachelor’s degree in Child Development from Appalachian State University with a minor in Psychology and Master’s degree in Human Development and Family Science from East Carolina University. She is a Ph.D. student in the Human Development and Family Studies program at Auburn University where she works with the Alabama Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Initiative. Lindsey is also pursuing two certificate programs at Auburn University in College and University Teaching and Advanced Research Methods. Her research interests include romantic relationships, technology, teaching practices, mentoring, and emerging adulthood. Elijah C. Amelse, M.S. (he/him/his) is a hall director at Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota. Elijah earned his Bachelor’s degree in human development from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay and Master’s degree in college student personnel from Western Illinois University. Elijah’s interests include reading, learning about learning, exploring queer theory, and enjoying the outdoors. Hannah Carson Baggett, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is a former high school teacher and current Assistant Professor of Educational Research in the College of Education at Auburn University. Her research interests include critical theories, race and education, and educator beliefs. She also has particular interest in qualitative and participatory methods. Her work has been published in journals such as the American Educational Research Journal, Teaching and Teacher Education, Whiteness and Education, and Qualitative Inquiry. Jessica Belue Buckley, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Higher Education Administration Program at the University of Louisville. She is a Teaching Fellow in the Master Educator Course, a vii

viii  

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

partnership program with US Army Cadet Command, and the Director of the Recruiting and Retention College Advanced Instructor Course with the US Army Recruiting and Retention Command. Her research interests include campus climate, students’ experience of diversity in higher education, and the intersection of environmental sustainability and higher education. Her work is published in journals including the Journal of College Student Development, Race Ethnicity and Education, and The Review of Higher Education. Christy M. Byrd, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) research examines how students make sense of race and culture in their school environments. She uses quantitative and qualitative methods to explore topics such as racial discrimination, multicultural education, and culturally relevant teaching. One area of research focuses on adolescents’ perceptions of school climate for diversity, which includes intergroup interactions and school ethnic-racial socialization, and how perceptions are shaped by identity development and contextual factors. A second area of research considers the motivational factors that promote student engagement in diversity workshops, courses, and programs. Stephanie H. Chang, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is the Director of Student Diversity & inclusion in the Division of Student Life at the University of Delaware. She is responsible for deepening Student Life’s engagement around equity, diversity, and inclusion. She leads the Division’s efforts in the development of new curricular and co-curricular learning related to diversity. Her research interests include campus culture, critical theories, Asian and Asian American student experiences, leadership development, and social justice education. Addrain Conyers, Ph.D.  (he/him/his) is an Associate Professor and Chair of Criminal Justice at Marist College. He is also the Director of Academic Diversity and Inclusion. His teaching and research interests center on criminology, deviant behavior, corrections, social psychology, and race relations. He has authored and edited numerous articles, chapters, and readers in the areas of deviance and criminology, and is the recipient of multiple teaching and mentorship awards. Dr. Conyers is a member of several professional organizations, including the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS) and Criminal Justice Educators Association of New York State (CJEANYS). Elizabeth Devore (she/her/hers) received her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Electrical Engineering from Auburn University. She is a Woltosz Fellow and PhD student in Electrical Engineering specializing in power systems at Auburn University. She holds a graduate teaching assistantship, serving as an instructor for undergraduate level courses in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Ms. Devore also holds a graduate certificate in College and University Teaching from Auburn University. Her research interests lie in mentoring, STEM education, and retention of minoritized students in STEM.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS  

ix

Erin R. Elliot (she/her/hers) is a P.h.D. student in Educational Studies at University of Michigan. Her research interests include the experiences of Black girls and imagining a Black girl epistemology in education. Christina Wright Fields, Ph.D.  (she/her/hers) is an Assistant Professor of Education at Marist College. She is a higher education scholar whose research agenda focuses on historically marginalized students’ experiences both in K-12 and postsecondary education contexts, social justice, and the influence of teacher and student cultural identities within the classroom. Fields possesses over a decade of experience with supervising student and professional staff, developing student affairs and academic affairs partnerships, overseeing college preparation programs, creating innovative multicultural and international initiatives, and developing cultural competency courses and workshops. She has presented at the Association for Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA), College Student Educators International (ACPA), and National Council on Race & Ethnicity (NCORE) conferences. Fields has been recognized by the NASPA’s Region II for Distinguished Excellence in Diversity Award, ACPA Supporting Latino/a Student Success Award, and NASPA’s African American Knowledge KUUMBA New Professionals Award. Martha Lucia Garcia, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) teaches in the Social Work Program at Marist College. At Pacific University, she helped create and taught in the Master in Social Work Program. She was previously at CUNY School of Law in the Clinical Program where she co-developed an innovative interdisciplinary program, training legal interns in the practice of community lawyering, collaboration, and client-focused legal representation. Before acquiring her Ph.D., she practiced in a variety of capacities, settings, and issue areas including gender violence, trauma and recovery, immigrant rights, culturally relevant and appropriate practices, managing conflict, and interdisciplinary collaboration. She has been program developer, executive director, grants officer, clinician in private practice, clinical supervisor to social workers, and an organizational consultant. She brings this experience to her teaching, providing her a wide range of contexts from which to draw to teach the practice of inclusive, socially conscious social work. Alyssa Hadley Dunn, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. A former high school English teacher, she now researches justice, race, and equity in urban education; teacher preparation; and educational policy. In addition to publishing in journals such as the American Educational Research Journal, Teachers College Record, Journal of Teacher Education, and Urban Education, she is the author of Teachers Without Borders? The Hidden Consequences of International Teachers in U.S. Schools (Teachers College Press, 2013).

x 

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Eric Hall (he/him/his) received his Bachelor’s degree in Accounting and Master’s degree in Higher Education and Administration from the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. Mr. Hall is a Ph.D. student in the Administration of Higher Education Program at Auburn University. He possesses student affairs experience in housing, student conduct, career services, and diversity initiatives. Currently, Eric serves as the Program Coordinator for Engineering Academic Excellence Program at Auburn University. In this role, he focuses on recruiting, retaining, and advising minoritized students pursuing an engineering degree. His research interests lie in formal mentorship programs for marginalized students, the relationship between career readiness competencies and higher education’s core curriculum, and the experiences of minoritized STEM students at flagship institutions. Daria Hanssen (she/her/hers) joined the BSW program at Marist College in 1996 as a part-time faculty member and field liaison, as well as coordinating the adult BSW programs on Marist’s Goshen and Fishkill campuses. In 2001, Daria was offered a tenure track position as Director of the BSW program and has held this position since. Prior to teaching at Marist, she taught at Lyndon State College in Lyndonville, Vermont, as well as at SUNY New Paltz. Daria practiced in the fields of mental health with children and families, family preservation, hospice, and corrections. Currently, Daria continues to consult with community agencies and serves on local boards of directors for Hudson River Housing and the New York State Social Work Education Association. She held committee positions on the national board of the National Association of Social Workers and serves as an accreditation site visitor for the Council on Social Work Education. Aileen N. Hentz, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is the Program Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Maryland. She is responsible for all aspects of student services for the department. She also helps lead departmental assessment efforts and curriculum development for non-technical courses. Her research interests include multiracial student experiences and identity development, leadership development in engineering students, and diversity and inclusion in engineering. Payton D. Hoover (she/her/hers) is a Ph.D. student in the Educational Psychology Program at Auburn University. She earned her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Hanover College. Her research interests focus on social justice and equity in education. Jeffery L. Jackson Jr. (he/him/his) is a professional and creative writer with research interests in teaching strategies and methods, curriculum and instruction, critical pedagogy, diversity, usability testing, rhetoric, digital rhetoric, and entrepreneurship. He teaches first-year English composition and serves as both instructor and writing coach in higher education. In addition to co-writing this book chapter, Jeffery has created an academic plan for an

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS  

xi

Introduction to Technical and Professional Communication course and is currently working on research centered around student learning. Lastly, Jeffery has earned a Master’s in Technical and Professional Communication (MTPC) and a Graduate Certificate in College and University Teaching in the Administration of Higher Education, and served as an Instructor and Graduate Teaching Assistant during his time at Auburn University. Christopher J. Kazanjian, Ph.D. (he/him/his) is Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology at El Paso Community College. Dr. Kazanjian focuses his research on fashioning culturally responsive pedagogies for primary and secondary educators. His research focuses on culturally relevant pedagogies and humanistic psychological methods for facilitating the growth of youth in diversifying educational settings. Maryann Krikorian, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) serves as a Clinical Assistant Professor at Loyola Marymount University (LMU) School of Education in the Department of Teaching and Learning. In 2016, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy in Education from Chapman University with an emphasis on Culture and Curricular Studies as a first-generation student. In 2011, she received her Master of Arts in Guidance and Counseling at LMU where she was named Student of the Year for the LMU School of Education and in 2008, earned her Bachelor of Arts in Psychology and Philosophy from California State University, Long Beach. Dr. Krikorian comes from a multiracial family unit and strives to deepen understandings of diverse perspectives, different forms of knowledge, and holistic approaches to education. Her personal and professional experiences position her well to advocate for students as integrated whole beings and pedagogical philosophies that unionize the mind, body, and inner-self. Wilson S. Lester (he/him/his) is a graduate research assistant, student director of the Educational Psychology Student Committee, and third-year graduate student in the Educational Psychology Ph.D. program at Auburn University. His research interests are in academic behaviors, identity formation, and motivation among the student-athlete population in higher education. He has earned his Bachelor’s and Master’s in Psychology from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Karla I. Loya, Ph.D.  (she/her/ella) is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership in Higher Education at the University of Hartford. She has a M.S. in Higher Education Administration from the University of Kansas and a Ph.D. in Higher Education with a minor in Women’s Studies from Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests focus on higher education issues and agents, in three areas: (1) faculty and student experiences and success in colleges and universities, with particular attention to how identity, social justice, and equity issues might play a role; (2) college teaching and learning; and (3) research methods and assessment. Broadly, she is interested in finding ways for colleges and universities to be more inclusive places for

xii  

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

everyone. At the University of Hartford, Karla teaches instructional development, diversity in higher education, the professoriate, research methods, and dissertation preparation courses. She also supervises doctoral dissertations in Educational Leadership. Claire Major, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is a Professor of Higher Education at the University of Alabama. Her teaching and research interests center on instructional approaches and instructional technology. She has authored and co-authored ten books, including four with Elizabeth Barkley: interactive lecturing, learning assessment techniques, collaborative learning techniques, and student engagement techniques. In addition to these, she has published teaching for learning: 101 intentionally designed instructional activities to put students on the path to success, with Michael Harris and Todd Zakrajsek, and online learning: a guide to theory, research, and practice, as well as several books on qualitative research methods. She has published her research in ­top-tier journals and presented it at national and international conferences. Major has also presented public lectures and faculty workshops, as well as online workshops and webinars, for dozens of colleges and universities in the United States and abroad. C. Casey Ozaki, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Education, Health, and Behavior Studies at the University of North Dakota. She has a M.Ed. in Student Affairs from the University of Southern California and a Ph.D. in Higher Education from Michigan State University. Her research bisects both the student affairs and teaching and learning areas of college campus with a shared focus on diverse students, their outcomes, and factors that influence those outcomes. As part of this focus, she has explored the role of student affairs professionals at community colleges—the institutions that serve the most diverse and high-risk college students. Dr. Ozaki also researches assessment of learning across creative arts and a range of disciplines and professional fields. Her recent focus has been on the integration of diversity, inclusion, and equity as a critical perspective and framework in college teaching and learning. Dr. Ozaki also serves UND as a Faculty Fellow for Inclusive Excellence where her role is to provide education and consultation for faculty and departments on the development and integration of inclusive and equitable practices in their teaching, curriculum, programs, and overall relationships with students. She teaches courses related to college teaching, learning, and student diversity and practices in higher education. Laura Parson, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at North Dakota State University. Her Ph.D. is in Teaching and Learning, Higher Education, from the University of North Dakota. She has a M.Ed., Adult Education from Westminster College with a certification in teaching English as a second language. Her research interests focus on effective teaching and learning in higher education, explored through a critical

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS  

xiii

lens. Laura’s recent research has focused on the institutional factors that disempower undergraduate women in STEM education. Additionally, she has conducted research on the use of instructional technologies to validate and empower women students, rigor in the curriculum design process, and critical discourse analysis in STEM in higher education. Dr. Parson has eight years of teaching diverse student populations at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and in face-to-face and online formats. In her current role, she teaches graduate students and faculty how to effectively teach in higher education settings, with a focus on critical pedagogy, effective curriculum and program design, and authentic assessment. Laura has facilitated workshops on active learning at Auburn University, the University of Louisville School of Medicine, and the Delphi Center for Teaching and Learning. Stefan A. Perun, Ph.D.  (he/him/his) is an Assistant Teaching Professor of Public Administration at Villanova University. He earned a Ph.D. in Higher Education Leadership, Management, and Policy from Seton Hall University and his research interests include understanding how the learning experiences of students who are deemed underprepared for college shape their success or failure in developmental English. Dr. Perun’s research is aimed at informing pedagogical and organizational development to achieve more equitable outcomes in higher education. He has published his findings in Community College Review and Community College Journal of Research and Practice. Stephen John Quaye, Ph.D.  (he/him/his) is an Associate Professor in the Higher Education and Student Affairs Program at the Ohio State University. His research concentrates on engaging students in difficult dialogues about privilege, power, and oppression, and the strategies educators use to facilitate productive dialogues about these topics. Most recently, his current work focuses on student and scholar activism, as well as the strategies Black student affairs educators use to heal from racial battle fatigue. His work is published in different venues, including Teachers College Record, Journal of College Student Development, and The Review of Higher Education. Ritika Rastogi (she/her/hers) is a Ph.D. student in the Developmental Psychology program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She earned her B.A. from Northwestern University in 2016. Her research examines the various roles that youth of Color play in their school communities, with a focus on the interpersonal, psychosocial, and academic outcomes associated with their peer relationships. Michele Rivas, Ph.D.  (she/her/hers) is a New York State Licensed Mental Health Counselor with a Ph.D. in Counseling and Counselor Education from Syracuse University and a Master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling from Long Island University. She also has a Certificate of Advanced Studies in Disability Studies from Syracuse University. Dr. Rivas is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Counseling in the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Marist College. Dr. Rivas is committed

xiv  

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

to professional engagement that strengthens counseling, counselor education, and clinical supervision of counselors. Her scholarly interests include multicultural counseling competencies, disability counseling competencies, counselor development, and disability rhetoric within the counseling discourse. Cesar A. Rossatto, Ph.D. (he/him/his) is an Associate Professor at the University of Texas at El Paso. His main research interests are the US and Mexican border within the context of globalization and neoliberalism, social relations and Brazilian identity formation in the United States and its implications to schooling, the phenomenon of fatalism and optimism in contrast to social classes’ differences, the application of critical pedagogy, and the effects of whiteness in Brazil and in the United States. Sarah E. Schoper, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is an instructor of higher education at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, MO. Sarah has been a student affairs practitioner within the areas of new student programming, first-year experience, leadership development, fraternity and sorority life, and student government advising, or a faculty member within a student affairs preparation program for over 18 years. Sarah’s research focus includes the development of emerging professionals, first-generation students, the experiences of students with disabilities, and transformative learning. Furthermore, she has published and presented in these areas numerous times. Sarah also serves as a consultant and speaker to institutions, organizations, and groups regarding how to put transformative learning into practice. Beth L. Sondel, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) is the Director of Education at the Women and Girls Foundation. In this position, she runs GirlGov, a civic engagement and social justice advocacy program for high school-aged young women from 62 high schools across Southwest Pennsylvania. She is passionate about facilitating experiences for people to better understand their role in disrupting systems of racism, sexism, and oppression; amplifying youth voice; creating community; dancing; bright and bold colors; and being a mother. Kamden K. Strunk, Ph.D. (he/him/his) is an Associate Professor of Educational Research, coordinator of the Educational Psychology Ph.D. program, and coordinator of the graduate minor in Critical Studies in Education at Auburn University. At present, he teaches quantitative methodologies and critical studies courses. His research focuses on intersections of sexual, gender, and racial identities in education, particularly in higher education. He earned his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Oklahoma State University. He is an author of Design and Analysis in Educational Research: ANOVA Designs in SPSS and Oppression and Resistance in Southern Higher and Adult Education, and editor of Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education and three volumes of Queering the Deep South.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS  

xv

Jessica Weise (she/her/hers) is a doctoral student in the Administration of Higher Education program at Auburn University. She is a graduate research assistant working with Air University on Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. She has an M.Ed. in Higher Education Administration and a minor in Sport Management from Auburn University and a B.S. in Sociology from Northern Arizona University. Her research interests focus on critical queer studies and examining inequitable power structures in higher education that reinforce hetero-cisnormativity affecting campus climate and LGBTQ student sense of belonging. Patrick White (he/him/his) is the University Risk Manager at Auburn University. He completed Masters of Education in Administration of Higher Education from Auburn University in addition to receiving a Bachelor of Business Administration in Risk Management and Insurance from the University of Georgia. Patrick also holds the highest professional designation in the commercial insurance industry, the Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriter (CPCU) designation. Patrick’s research and professional interest include workforce development, mentoring and apprenticeship programs, and the efficacy of servant leadership in contemporary organizational models. Stacy A. S. Williams, Ph.D.  is an Associate Professor at Marist College. She is also a Licensed Psychologist and Certified School Psychologist in New York State. At the national level, Dr. Williams serves on the Trainers of School Psychologists (TSP) executive board, where she co-chairs the Social Justice Task Force and serves as membership coordinator. In addition, Dr. Williams mentors students and early career faculty of color through the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) mentoring program. At the state level, Dr. Williams has mentored school psychology candidates, and created and managed content for the state association annual conference. At the last conference (NYASP 2017), Dr. Williams and her students organized a Social Justice Student strand. Dr. Williams provides training in social justice, inclusive classrooms, academic and behavioral interventions, data-based decision making, and university/school partnerships. Elizabeth Laura Yomantas, Ph.D. (she/her/hers) earned a Ph.D. in Education with an emphasis on cultural and curricular studies from Chapman University. Currently, she is an Assistant Professor in the Teacher Preparation Program at Pepperdine University in Malibu, CA. Elizabeth enjoys working alongside pre-service teachers, particularly in the context of professional development schools. Elizabeth serves on the board of the Fiji Kinde Project, a nonprofit organization that aims to equip Fijian educators and provide essential resources to strengthen early childhood education in Fiji. Her research interests include indigenous Fijian education, culturally responsive experiential education, and core reflection in teacher education.

List of Figures

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 12.1 Fig. 13.1 Fig. 15.1 Fig. 15.2

A learning environments framework for social justice education  84 Stage one of the postcolonial competency-based curriculum design framework  111 Process model of learning and resistance in diversity experiences  138 Enacting lesson plans that meet the needs of students in diverse settings  230 Race pedagogy and faculty preparation  244 Mentoring structure for student  297 Mentoring structure for faculty  297

xvii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 6.1 Table 12.1 Table 12.2 Table 12.3 Table 13.1 Table 14.1 Table 15.1

Comparative lesson plan: Behaviorist vs Engaged pedagogy  48 Learning environments in social justice education  86 Structuring holistic content and process through learning outcomes 90 Stage one steps: Postcolonial approach to competency-based curriculum design  108 Sample lesson plan helping students develop mathematical literacy 231 Sample lesson plan using student texts alongside typical college-level texts  232 Guiding questions to develop learner-centered lesson plans  233 Workshop outline to explore the hidden associations and biases  254 Syllabi Exemplar  274 Outstanding Graduate Mentor Award rubric  298

xix

CHAPTER 1

Introduction C. Casey Ozaki and Laura Parson

As awareness of social inequity grows, higher education is often touted as a way to promote social justice and equity in society. Research suggests that higher education may reinforce societal inequity through teaching and learning practices that promote dominant ways of viewing and thinking about the world, practices that are formalized and reinforced in a neoliberal environment (Giroux, 2005, 2010; Hager, Peyrefitte, & Davis, 2018; Lynch, 2006). Similarly, the field of learning sciences (e.g., cognitive psychology, motivation research) has advanced significantly in the last decade, yet many teaching and learning practices are rooted in an outdated or incorrect understanding of how learning occurs (e.g., learning styles, andragogy vs pedagogy, personality tests). These outdated practices create a higher education environment that struggles to promote learning equitably and may extend as far as to be harmful to marginalized and underrepresented students (Howell & Tuitt, 2003). This environment has led to calls for actionable approaches to teaching and learning in higher education that promote social justice (Hager, Peyrefitte, & Davis, 2018). Building on the work of scholars who have called for critical pedagogical approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL; Hager, Peyrefitte, & Davis, 2018; Howell & Tuitt, 2003), the goal of this ­three-volume series is to provide a meaningful exploration of teaching and C. C. Ozaki  University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA e-mail: [email protected] L. Parson (*)  North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_1

1

2  C. C. OZAKI AND L. PARSON

learning for social justice and equity specifically in current classroom and co-curricular contexts in higher education (see Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007). Our experience in teaching courses in and designing curriculum for college/ university teaching courses has illustrated that faculty and graduate students lack understanding about current research on effective teaching and learning (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010; Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014; Carey & Bourret, 2014), how to apply teaching and learning to promote social justice and equity (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007; hooks, 1994, 2009; Howell & Tuitt, 2003; Pulliam, Wininger, Derryberry, & Redifer, 2017) in content-specific ways in the classroom, and the application of SoTL in higher education but in co-curricular contexts to maximize the effectiveness of student affairs programming. This series is designed to address all three. While Laura and I have had different walks through our education, we have shared similar observations and disappointments about the presence of higher education theory in our graduate programs and teaching. We both have experienced graduate education that was theoretically grounded and taught us how to apply theory and think theoretically. We also share experiences where we were underwhelmed by a lack of theory in a program’s curriculum and approach, feeling that perhaps the educational preparation we were engaged in was strong in its focus on practice but hollow because of a lack of critical, theoretical foundation. As a result, our belief in the importance of theory for graduate education in higher education was reinforced and the desire to provide a resource that promotes and examines theory for higher education in the current era of social justice and shedding light on educational inequities. Volume One: Theory and Foundations is our response to that desire. The purpose of this volume is to appraise the scholarship of teaching and learning historically in the context of the modern university, and present and promote theory that is advancing understanding of college teaching and learning for diverse students, varied teaching modalities, and ­institutional settings with a goal of socially just education. We believe that Volume One will be useful for a range of purposes. Higher education and other educational program curricula would benefit from having a text that can help students understand where we have theoretically been and what current scholars are theoretically advocating for advancement of teaching and learning. While faculty, instructors, and students are the most obvious audience for this text, there are other professionals on the college campus that both should and need to be current on the theoretical scholarship undergirding their work. Faculty development professionals, administrators who provide faculty leadership (e.g., provosts, deans, chairs), and, similarly, those accountable for student success are also responsible to understand how teaching is tied to equitable success and the theoretical underpinnings for best practice. Finally, many student services and student affairs professionals span the work of co-curricular and academic services

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

in their work with students. Advising, tutoring, career services, and other campus units rely on teaching and learning strategies without knowledge of or access to their literatures. The first three chapters of Volume One examine the history of teaching and learning theory, its interdisciplinary character, and use a social justice lens to critique its current application to higher education today. In Chapter 2, Parson and Major review the theoretical biography of teaching and learning in higher education, arguing that they were both insufficient to explain learning and concurrently contributors to a reproduction of inequities in education. Similarly, in Chapter 3, White and Jackson examine behaviorism, an early learning theory, in the context of a neoliberal society. And, Lester, Strunk, and Hoover (Chapter 4) debunk myths about learning, grounded in psychological theories, that are often pervasive in education. These chapters lay the groundwork for the remainder of the book by demystifying the reader’s understanding of traditional teaching and learning theories. In the remainder of the chapters, the authors present and propose theoretical approaches to teaching and learning through critical and justice-oriented perspectives. While not in chronological order, the chapters fall into two categories—diversity education and pedagogy and curriculum. First, four chapters focus on models and theories that can (and often should) be part of efforts to build and support students’ cultural competence. In Chapter 5, Buckley et al. use a case study of intergroup dialogue (IGD) to propose a theoretical framework for learning environments within social justice education that can serve as heuristic for educators who work to facilitate well-designed learning opportunities for students, rooted in fostering holistic development and learning for social justice. Chapter 13 also takes up diversity education as Conyers et al. describe a faculty-led workshop designed to uncover students’ biases in hopes of proactively changing their perspectives and advancing cultural awareness. Not focused on a course but on learning through and from diversity experiences, Byrd, Rastogi, and Elliot, in Chapter 8, propose the use of a ­self-regulated learning perspective to examine how students respond to the cognitive and emotional challenges of diversity experiences. Finally, Yomantas (Chapter 16) describes an undergraduate elective course taught in rural Fiji as an application of critical pedagogy coupled with an experiential education framework for the purpose of fostering critical allyship. The remaining chapters in the book are grouped by a shared focus on pedagogy and curriculum. Parson and Weise advocate for a postcolonial approach to competency-based curriculum (re)design and propose a framework that centers the knowledges and voices of marginalized people as a way to dismantle oppressive systems in higher education in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, Loya examines how faculty members might create classrooms that include some voices and exclude others from a shared creation of knowledge and learning in the classroom, asserting that classrooms can become more inclusive through the authentic granting of epistemic credibility, or the recognition

4  C. C. OZAKI AND L. PARSON

that students are both receivers and producers of knowledge. Baggatt et al. (Chapter 9) use data from K-12 educators’ practices, drawing on the concept of community of practice to articulate a critical responsibility in higher education as part of our efforts as teachers for social justice. Chapters 10 and 11 discuss the role of emotions in teaching and learning. Schoper and Amelse use the current cognitive and neuroscience research, to explore the important role emotions and feelings play in the learning process through deconstructing the myth that the learning process should feel easy with particular attention on gendered and racialized conceptions of emotions. However, Kanzanjian and Rossatto argue that incorporating the emotions of culturally diverse students as pedagogical resources facilitate improved academic performance, socio-emotional intelligence, and brain development. Specifically, they show how critical culturally relevant pedagogies that utilize students’ daily life experiences are highly effective in stimulating the brain’s emotional centers. Perun, in Chapter 12, takes a critical perspective and draws on Bourdieu’s theory of practice to illuminate how course designs and pedagogies can help students from diverse backgrounds learn and practice the knowledge required for success in higher education and beyond. Similar to Chapter 7, Chapter 14, from Krikorian, addresses the role of epistemic ideologies advocating for the adoption of critical contemplative pedagogy to better serve holistic human development and transformative adult learning. Finally, in Chapter 15, Almond and Hall explore graduate-level mentoring and propose a mentoring program using social justice and equity lenses so that the process of mentoring practices becomes one of critical consciousness. Volume One: Theory and Foundations is a collection of critical and ­equity-focused theories that the authors have cultivated and advanced theoretically and through examples in specific teaching and learning contexts. We hope this book provides fodder to examine theories of the past used to build knowledge and best practices for teaching and learning in higher education, while advancing theories and perspectives that are more suited to today’s higher education and college student learning. We implore the reader to delve into the theory, while continuing to draw on the practical examples and artifacts to create more socially just and equitable learning environments.

References Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge and Taylor & Francis. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: 7 Research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

Carey, M.-K., & Bourret, J. C. (2014). Effects of data sampling on graphical depictions of learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(4), 749–764. https:// doi.org/10.1002/jaba.153. Giroux, H. A. (2005). Against the new authoritarianism: Politics after Abu Ghraib. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Pub. Giroux, H. A. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010.8.6.715. Hager, T., Peyrefitte, M., & Davis, C. (2018). The politics of neoliberalism and social justice: Towards a pedagogy of critical locational encounter. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 13(3), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1746197918793069. hooks, bell. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. hooks, bell. (2009). Belonging: A culture of place. New York: Routledge. Howell, A., & Tuitt, F. (2003). Race and higher education: Rethinking pedagogy in diverse college classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1. Mayer, R. E., & Ambrose, S. A. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pulliam, D., Wininger, S., Derryberry, P., & Redifer, J. (2017). Effect of student classroom cell phone usage on teachers. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.3439517.

CHAPTER 2

Learning Theory Through a Social Justice Lens Laura Parson and Claire Major

Key Terms and Definitions Behaviorism: Learning is when students can generalize and apply their newly acquired skills, knowledge, and understandings to new situations (Bryant, Vincent, Shaqlaih, & Moss, 2013). Cognitivism: Learning is complex and consists of contextual internal processes. Constructivism: Knowledge lies in the minds of individuals who construct what they know on the basis of their own experiences and do so within a social context (Barkley & Major, 2020). Andragogy: Learning in adults is different from learning of children (“ped” in pedagogy). Transformative Learning Theory: Learning is a process where one’s mind-sets become more open and reflective and, therefore, better at guiding action (Alfred, Cherrstrom, Robinson, & Friday, 2013; Mezirow, 2000, 2003). The question of what constitutes learning has intrigued scholars for centuries, and today, there are many different opinions about what learning is and how it happens. Scholars hold different ideas about the nature of knowledge, knowledge acquisition, catalysts for learning, conditions that must be met L. Parson (*)  North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. Major  University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_2

7

8  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

in order for learning to occur, and the criteria by which one may judge that learning has happened. Despite the variability in opinion, most scholars agree that learning involves acquiring new or modifying existing knowledge, behavior, skills, attitudes, or values. At its most fundamental level, then, learning is change. The following definition of learning reflects this idea, “Learning is an enduring change in behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or other forms of experience” (Schunk, 1991, p. 2). Learning theories, for the most part devised by psychologists, offer a simple, succinct description of what learning is and suggest how it is possible to recognize whether learning has happened or not. Because of these functions, learning theories have the potential to help educators in two critical ways. First, they provide a vocabulary and framework for understanding observed learning. Second, they suggest where to look for solutions to practical problems that higher education instructors encounter. Both of these purposes have implications for pedagogical theory and research as well as the practice of instructional design, instructional delivery, and learning assessment. These theories, however, are not perfect. At best, they offer only partial and incomplete descriptions of how humans learn. Generally, they do not paint a picture of the whole person as a unique individual existing within a system of academic and social constructs. At worst, learning theories can be misapplied in given context or situation and lead educators down the wrong pedagogical path. Thus, while they point to useful understandings of learning, none of them offer a single comprehensive view about how individuals learn. Thus, they have the potential not only to help but also to hinder the learning of individuals.

Chapter Purpose Learning theory is and can be a useful tool for teaching and learning in higher education, but there is much to challenge and problematize about many of the traditional learning theories, from the epistemological lens that frames theories to the ways they conceptualize the ideal learner. Most of these theories were not created with social justice in mind, but even those that are critically oriented, such as conscientization and transformative learning theory, are used to maximize learning Western knowledges in the classroom setting. Altogether, there is room to do more. Much more. Perhaps the eventual outcome from a critical review of learning theories, such as our overview in this chapter, will be a new theory of learning in higher education, but we suggest that any work toward an overarching theory should begin with a review of current and existing theories as they are applied to higher education. There is value in these theories, not only as a foundation for teaching and learning decision-making but also because there are applications to their use in the traditional higher education classroom. There is, however, significant risk of using any of these theories without an attention to them as

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

9

colonizing learning theories designed to replicate existing social structures. Indeed, without such problematization, higher education instructors will also replicate inequities in their classroom and risk not meeting the learning needs of their students. As such, in this chapter, we begin by reviewing traditional learning theories, discussing the core concepts of the theory, and, then, exploring the potential for each theory to be used in higher education to promote equity and diversity in the classroom, before concluding with a critique of each theory through a critical lens. Second, we review theories from the field of education that developed in an attempt to address the shortcoming of earlier foundational theories when applied to education settings. We also explore the potential for each of those theories to be used in higher education. Finally, we conclude with a synthesis of learning theory and provide what we hope is a comprehensive overview of the strengths of different theories to guide teaching and learning decision-making in the higher education classroom.

Organization Our first goal in this chapter is to explore learning theories through a critical lens and to consider how those theories inform teaching in higher education in ways that promote equity and diversity in the classroom. As Jarvis suggests: Profound doubt is cast on many contemporary theories of learning as providing logical understanding of human learning, including behaviorism, information processing, and all forms of cognitive theory. This is not to say that they are not valid in as far as they go, simply that they do not go far enough: they all have an incomplete theory of the person. (Jarvis, 2018, p. 26)

As we explore each predominant theory, we identify who was the theory was for (i.e., who was the learner), who were the participants in research conducted to validate the theory (and the identities of the researchers), and what interests the theory promote(d) (e.g., educated workforce, lifelong learner). Finally, we explore the theory through a critical lens, seeking to understand the theory from a social justice perspective. Specifically, for each theory we asked: 1. How/why/for whom was the theory created? What is the research base for the theory? 2. What does research suggest about the validity of the theory (and who has been the sample in those studies)? 3. What knowledge is assumed to be “normal” or accepted as valid forms of knowledge in this theory? What outcomes are viewed as valuable? 4. How are differences in background taken into account (or not) in the application of the theory? Who is left out? 5. How can the theory be used to promote equity and diversity through pedagogical decisions?

10  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

First, we begin by exploring traditional learning theories as they are most often organized. Second, we explore education theories, asking the same questions. For each predominant theory we review, we also include a briefer discussion of theories that built on or were developed from that theory. Finally, we make suggestions for future theorizing and research.

Learning Theories from the Field of Psychology Behaviorism One of the oldest and most familiar learning theories is behaviorism, an approach devised to aid in understanding the learned behavior of animals and humans. Many people have heard of behaviorism in large part due to the work of early behaviorists, such as Pavlov, who investigated stimulus and response behavior of dogs that were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell in expectation of food, an experiment leading to the theory known as classical conditioning. Likewise, Skinner (1991), another well-known behaviorist, studied rats (along with pigeons) to determine whether they could be conditioned to push a lever to receive food, an experiment that led to the theory known as operant conditioning. The work of these early behaviorists has often been generalized to humans and extended, by more recent behaviorists, in an attempt to explain human learning. Position on knowledge and learning.  Behaviorists see knowledge as a collection of behaviors. In a similar vein, they view learning as an outward and demonstrable change in behavior. This change, behaviorists believe, occurs as a result of positive and negative reinforcement individuals receive from their actions and experiences (Bryant et al., 2013). Behaviorists believe that all behaviors can be measured, trained, and changed. Core assumptions of behaviorism are as follows: • Behaviors are “observable and measurable”; • Behaviors can be “predicted and controlled”; and • Behaviors are a product of individuals working within the context of their environments (Bryant et al., 2013, p. 92). Behaviorists believe that learning has happened when students can generalize and apply their newly acquired skills, knowledge, and understandings to new situations (Bryant et al., 2013). The entire United States educational system reflects the influence of behaviorism, largely through reward systems related to demonstration of learning (e.g., high grades, bonus points, praise, recognition strategies for the best work, and so forth). Application to teaching in higher education.  In higher education, instructors who have views of learning that align with behaviorist theories believe

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

11

that they can help students learn by reinforcing desired learning behavior (such as attentiveness in class, careful and thorough work on assignments, thoughtful and frequent contributions to discussion, and so forth), thereby encouraging students to continue these behaviors. If students are not able to engage in these behaviors immediately, behaviorists believe that students will gradually improve if the correct behaviors are reinforced and less effective behaviors are extinguished through non-reinforcement or, if necessary, suppressed through disincentives or even punishment. According to behaviorists, learning activities should be organized to leverage acquisition of content knowledge and skills. The instructor is centered in the learning environment and effective teaching strategies include providing students with reinforcement, whether positive (grade bonuses) or negative (point penalties), to encourage desired behaviors or discourage undesirable behaviors. Behaviorists also believe that frequency and repetition reinforce learning, and hence, they believe that students benefit from multiple opportunities to practice new skills and demonstrate understandings. Moreover, the student’s key responsibility is to learn to make the best responses to assigned learning activities and assignments (Barkley & Major, 2020). Application to higher education research.  While behaviorism is no longer as prominent in education research as it once was, it is still present. Examination of task-based English language teaching (Ahmad & Farrukh, 2015), influence of delayed learning feedback (Polat, Doğan, & Demir, 2015), and student perspectives of learning (Smith & Kimball, 2010) are current examples for how education researchers continue to acknowledge the presence of behaviorism in higher education settings and to study student learning through this lens. Behaviorist principles have been applied to student learning and teaching since nearly the inception of their study; however, because behaviorist principles do not fully explain the acquisition of ­higher-order skills or level of processing, research does not trend in this direction. Critique.  Despite its influence on higher education research and practice, behaviorism has its challenges. Among these challenges is the focus on behaviors as manifestation of learning rather than examination of cognitive process. In short, treating behavior as the only evidence of internal states does not present a full picture of learning. Some educators argue that simply considering behaviors as the only evidence of learning in essence means conflating humans with animals rather than seeing humans as complex, evolving, and occurring within their environment and, therefore, contextual beings (Bryant et al., 2013). Moreover, behaviorism’s assertion that continued behavior may be understood simply as a stimulus followed by a response fails to take into account human development, disposition, motivation, and social and cultural interaction as factors (Bryant et al., 2013).

12  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

The process of learning in the behaviorist tradition also has some challenges. Behaviorism, for example, suggests that the instructor is fully in charge of the classroom and administering rewards and punishments (Bryant et al., 2013), which does not allow for sharing authority and control; shared authority and control can be motivating to students. Moreover, the behaviorist promotes direct instruction, which can be useful, but more research (see, for example, Freeman et al., 2014) indicates that active learning can be beneficial to learning. Behaviorism suggests that there is a “correct” answer to be rewarded, which does not support a contextual view of knowledge or apply in subjects where answers are not clear or there is no one correct answer. In addition, behaviorist theory does not consider that individuals with different backgrounds might react differently or find “reasonable explanations” for differences in behaviors for individuals from different cultures (Bryant et al., 2013, p. 98). In sum, behaviorism persists in higher education and, as a result, even though it has largely been abandoned as a theory to guide pedagogical decisions, behaviorism is written into the structure, practices, and procedures of higher education. This not only creates problems because humans are not reducible to action and responses but also raises questions about how punishments and rewards are distributed in higher education. As researchers have pointed out, humans do not operate within a simple reward-repetition paradigm, so even in higher education things that might be viewed as rewards might not mitigate the challenges of being a minoritized individual in higher education. Similarly, punishments might also be a deterrent beyond what was intended if those punishments are interpreted as further evidence that one does not belong or cannot be successful in higher education settings. It is important to understand behaviorism as it is a historic and dominant framework of higher education but critical thought needs to occur about how to dismantle behaviorist systems that are not leading to results that maximize learning for all students (see additional discussion of behaviorism in Chapter 3). Cognitivism The second major category of theories from psychology, cognitivism, grew as a direct reaction to the behaviorist tradition, springing from the idea that “learning takes place through unobservable mental actions within the mind/ brain that are influenced by the learner’s own thoughts and experiences” (Paciotti, 2013, p. 105). Cognitivism began with the concept that learning is complex and consists of contextual internal processes; this theory was revolutionary in its approach because it suggested learning might occur without external evidence (Paciotti, 2013). While early behaviorists focused on external measures of learning (behavior), early cognitivists believed that learning occurs through mental internal processing of information. Early cognitivist scholars also were interested in complex cognitive processes such as thinking, problem-solving, language, and concept formation (Snelbecker, 1983).

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

13

Cognitivists believe that the “black box” of the mind can and should be opened, studied, and understood. Their work focuses on the conceptualization of student learning processes. There are several well-known underpinning cognitive theories that indicate this focus including cognitive development theory, schemata theory, and the information-processing model. Piaget’s (1936) cognitive developmental theory is one of the more famous of these models; it suggests that children construct their understanding of the world and go through specific stages of cognitive development: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational period. A key concept within cognitivism is schemata. While British psychologist Sir Frederic Bartlett (1932) first introduced the idea of schemata, it was Anderson (1977) who introduced schemata theory to education. A schema is a cognitive structure that consists of facts and ideas organized into a meaningful system of relationships. The idea behind schema theory is that individuals have existing knowledge and, when they learn, they add to their existing mental models. Thus, cognitivists see learning as a relatively permanent change in a learner’s schema or, in plural form, schemata. Human brains have schemata for events, places, procedures, and people. Each learner’s schema is the organized collection of bits of information that has gone into constructing their unique and individual concept of the college. Schemata change and grow as new events, filtered by perception into the schema, are organized and connected to the existing structure to create meaning. Thus, new information results in meaningful learning only when it connects with what already exists in the mind of the learner, resulting in change in the networks that represent our understandings. Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) advanced information-processing theories that individuals manipulate information, monitor it, and strategize about it. In this view, “learners attempt to build meaningful connections between words and pictures and that they learn more deeply than they could have with words or pictures along” (Sorden, 2013, p. 155). Meaningful learning occurs when “learner engages in five cognitive processes: 1) Selecting relevant words for processing in verbal working memory; 2) Selecting relevant images for processing in working memory; 3) Organizing selected words into a verbal model; 4) Organizing selected images into a pictorial model; and 5) Integrating the verbal and pictorial representations with each other and with prior knowledge” (Sorden, 2013, p. 157). Cognitive overload occurs when working memory capacity is exceeded. The three types of cognitive overload are intrinsic—when the content exceeds the knowledge/expertise of the learner; extraneous—when the methods and content are too split between multiple sources; and germane—when material is delivered at an inappropriate rate for working memory to process (Sorden, 2013). Cognitivist theories applied to education. Cognitivism is the foundation for several theories of teaching and learning, some that are still widely used to guide teaching and learning decisions in higher education. An example is

14  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

Gardner’s (1991) theory of multiple intelligences. While the theory of multiple intelligences is still widely used, it has also been widely criticized (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4). For Gardner (2018), the theory of multiple intelligences informs teaching and learning decisions as a tool for assessing deep learning, “a concept can only be well understood – and can only give rise to convincing performances of understanding – if an individual is capable of representing that core in more than one way, indeed, in several ways” (Gardner, 2018, p. 134). This informs teaching and learning decisions by directing teachers to spend a lot of time on a topic, to present the topic in multiple ways, and those approaches need to call on a range of “intelligences” (Gardner, 2018). The concept of “intelligences,” the most controversial portion of the theory, suggests that topics have different intelligences associated with it and those topics should be presented to incorporate those intelligences. However, many have taken the theory of multiple intelligences to mean that individual learners also have intelligences and therefore teachers must identify a learner’s intelligence and then teach every topic using a variety of methods that address every intelligence in the room. Despite that misconceptualization, the theory of multiple intelligences has contributed positively to teaching and learning in higher education by reinforcing that multiple representations of content are important and that even in a large classroom, individualized instruction is possible and necessary. Building on and from the theory of multiple intelligences, experiential learning theory (ELT; Kolb, 1984) emphasizes that knowledge is constructed through experience and that learning occurs through adaptations that happen as a result of interactions with the environment (Zijdemans-Boudreau, Moss, & Lee, 2013). According to Kolb (1984), learning consists of four stages: 1. Concrete experience; 2. Reflective observation; 3. Abstract conceptualization; 4. Active experimentation (Zijdemans-Boudreau et al., 2013). Through ELT, learning experiences in the classrooms should facilitate these four stages through the following steps: (1) introduce the topic through a real-world experience to students that results in some sort of disorienting emotion or question; (2) prompt students to reflect on that experience and possible responses; (3) provide direct instruction on how to respond to or conceptualize the experience; and (4) facilitate an opportunity for students to practice or apply what they learned. Critics of ELT point to differences according to gender in validation research (Zijdemans-Boudreau et al., 2013) and ask if ELT is a theory or a practice. As a practice, critics find the ELT model reductionist and inflexible (Zijdemans-Boudreau et al., 2013) and suggest that a more representative model must consider context, power, and learner differences (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007).

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

15

Instead, experience and reaction to experience are not fixed, but dynamic and evolving (Merriam et al., 2007). In addition to the ELT model, Kolb (1984) built on the theory of multiple intelligences to suggest that individuals would develop preferred ways to learn, which he called learning styles (Zijdemans-Boudreau et al., 2013). His Learning Style Inventory (LSI) purported to tell learners and educators their preferred learning styles organized into four styles: Divergers, Assimilators, Convergers, and Accommodators ­(Zijdemans-Boudreau et  al., 2013). Similar to criticisms of multiple intelligences, there have been mixed results validating LSI and of the use of the LSI to guide or predict career choices (Zijdemans-Boudreau et al., 2013). The use of learning styles as a theory to guide instructional decisions and learner behaviors is controversial, not the least because of limited research supporting its use: “there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice” (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008, p. 1). However, learning styles assessments are still widely used across higher education and learning styles are widely referenced in curriculum design faculty development sessions and texts. While students may well have preferred ways of learning, the research suggests that teaching to these particular preferences does not improve learning outcomes (see a fuller critique of learning styles in Chapter 4). Finally, an important contribution of cognitive learning theory is the multimedia learning theory (Sorden, 2013). Building on ­information-processing theory, through multimedia learning theory, learners learn more deeply when they are presented with the opportunity to connect word and pictures (Sorden, 2013). Through the multimedia learning theory model, learning consists of five cognitive processes: “1. Selecting relevant words for processing in verbal working memory; 2. Selecting relevant images for processing in working memory; 3. Organizing selected words into a verbal model; 4. Organizing selected images into a pictorial model; and 5. Integrating the verbal and pictorial representations with each other and with prior knowledge” (Sorden, 2013, p. 157). Through understanding memory as consisting of sensory memory, working memory, and long-term memory, multimedia learning theory distinguishes between no learning, rote learning, and authentic meaningful learning, the latter happening when learning can be applied in real-world, authentic situations. A key contribution of multimedia learning theory is cognitive overload. Cognitive overload occurs when working memory capacity is exceeded. This can occur when course content is too advanced for a learner (intrinsic) but more often when the method of teaching is split between too many sources distracting the learner (extraneous), when material is delivered too quickly for the working memory to process (germane), or a combination of the three (Sorden, 2013). This theory further explains how Gardner’s (1991) theory of multiple intelligences can contribute to classroom decisions that harm instead of enhancing learning, because teachers focus on multiple methods of content delivery instead of focusing on selecting methods appropriate for the content,

16  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

learners, and cognitive load. Unlike multiple intelligences, ELT, and learning styles, cognitive load is not a dominant theory referenced as a guide for teaching and learning decisions in the classroom, yet we suggest that this concept has the potential for guiding instruction in a way that promotes content learning. Position on knowledge and learning.  Most cognitive approaches are based on the underlying idea that knowledge comprises symbolic mental representations. From a cognitivist view, knowledge is something that learners actively construct based on their existing cognitive structures. Knowledge acquisition requires a mental activity that entails internal coding and structuring by the learner. Cognitive theories have a rationalist underpinning (Bower & Hilgard, 1981), and they equate learning with discrete changes between states of knowledge. Learning, then, is not so much based on what learners do but instead on what they know and how they come to acquire it (Jonassen, 1991). Cognitivists, then, often see the process of learning as linear and sequenced. Core assumptions of cognitivism are: (1) Human cognition can be revealed by the scientific method; that is, individual components of mental processes can be identified and understood. (2) Internal mental processes can be described in terms of rules from the various cognitive models, such as schemata and information processing. Application to teaching in higher education.  In a higher education classroom, instructors with beliefs that align with cognitive theories focus on enabling students to move information from short-term to long-term memory. The idea is that students should encode information into memory in an organized manner for later retrieval. To accomplish this, instructors need to understand the student’s stage of development and intellectual framework and target instruction to that stage. Instructors are responsible for assisting learners in efficient ways of coding, transforming, storing, and retrieving information and helping student to develop appropriate and effective mental strategies. This responsibility involves organizing information in a useful way and scaffolding instruction. Cognitive-based instruction can involve use of demonstrations as well as graphic organizers, such as concept maps, that allow instructors to see how learners map content. According to cognitivist theories, learners should be prepared to process information. The learner is viewed as an active participant in the learning process and, as such, should be responsible for their own entry into the learning setting (Paciotti, 2013). Application to higher education research. While information processing is an older form of cognitive theory, it is still frequently used to ground higher education research, particularly in the area of online learning or educational technology and multimedia (see, for example, Lange, Costley, & Han 2017; Stiller, Petzold, & Zinnbauer, 2011; Yang, Chang, Chien, Chien, & Tseng, 2013). It has also been employed to examine student

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

17

career d ­ ecision-making processes (see Bullock-Yowell, Katz, Reardon, & Peterson, 2012; Haase et al., 2014) and detecting and managing learning disabilities (Georgiou & Das, 2015; Zheng, Smith, Luptak, Hill, Hill, & Rupper, 2016). Researchers also often draw upon schemata theory and seek to identify changes in student’s mental models (see, for example, Bongers, Northoff, & Flynn, 2019; Ndlovu & Brijlall, 2015). Researchers who use cognitive theories, then, are interested in understanding the series of steps involved in the mind receiving, processing, and storing information, including how inputs initially managed in short-term memory are committed to long-term memory as well as mental models of this process. Research on cognitivism is seen as “additive” (Paciotti, 2013). That is, new theory and research add to new understanding of how the brain works or works differently in different individuals, and as new information is added, they integrate previous theories to provide more understanding to help individuals learn how to learn. Critique.  One of the criticisms of cognitive theories focuses on work conducted by early researchers, such as Piaget. Critics note that much of the research was conducted on children and cite problems with the assumption that all children go through the same stages of development linearly and provide evidence of development in the same way. Many of the criticisms of cognitivism, however, center around the information-processing model. Those criticisms challenge the notion of thinking being described as computation, which does not describe the full picture of mental processes, which has led to the conclusion that early cognitivist theories do not describe what they purport to. Critics also note that given its almost singular focus on mental processes, cognitivism as a set of theories does not consider social and cultural differences and their connection to learning (Paciotti, 2013; Tareilo, 2013). Constructivism The third major learning theory in psychology, constructivism, developed from cognitivism and is sometimes seen as a variation of cognitivism. Like cognitivists, most constructivists acknowledge that learning requires changes in mental states; however, constructivists emphasize the collaborative nature of learning. At its most fundamental level, constructivism is the notion that knowledge lies in the minds of individuals, who construct what they know on the basis of their own experiences and do so within a social context (Barkley & Major, 2020). There are several variations of constructivism, including social constructivism, radical constructivism, and constructionism. Social constructivism was developed by Lev Vygotsky, himself a cognitivist, who rejected the cognitivist assumption that it was possible to separate learning from its social context. Vygotsky argued instead that all cognitive functions originate in and thus are products of social interactions. Vygotsky’s sociocultural cognitive theory emphasizes the ways in which culture and

18  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

social interaction guide cognitive development (Barkley & Major, 2020). He is perhaps best known for the notion of a zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). In ZPD, Vygotsky distinguished between two developmental levels: The level of actual development is the level of development that the learner has already reached, and is the level at which the learner is capable of solving problems independently. The level of potential development (the “zone of proximal development”) is the level of development that the learner is capable of reaching under the guidance of teachers or in collaboration with peers. The learner is capable of solving problems and understanding material at this level that they are not capable of solving or understanding at their level of actual development; the level of potential development is the level at which learning takes place. It comprises cognitive structures that are still in the process of maturing, but which can only mature under the guidance of or in collaboration with others. (1978, p. 85)

ZPD is the difference between what a learner can do without help and what they can do with help. There are four principles of constructivism (Narayan, Rodriguez, Araujo, Shaqlaih, & Moss, 2013, p. 171): 1. Learning and development is a social, cognitive activity; 2. The ZPD can serve as a guide to curricular development; 3. Learning extends beyond the school to home; and 4. Classroom activities should always be related to real life. Vygotsky’s theories emphasized importance of social interaction and culture and importance of collaboration to maximize learning (Narayan et al., 2013). Another form of constructivism is radical constructivism, introduced by von Glasersfeld, which is the idea that all learning must be constructed and there is no utility or meaning in instruction that is instructor or textbook driven. That is, the learner does not construct knowledge of a real world (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). Instead, knowledge is a self-organized cognitive process. Radical constructivism can be difficult to understand and put to work in a college or university classroom. Constructionism, another variation of constructivism, suggests that, “learning is effective when it is a reconstruction rather than a transmission of knowledge and when the learner is constructing a meaningful product” (Narayan et al., 2013, p. 173). This theory was developed by one of Piaget’s students, Papert, who suggests that learning occurred best when constructing an object “whether a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” (Papert, 1990, p. 1). Papert believed that, by constructing something that other people can see and possibly critique, students are more likely to become intensely caught up in learning. The process of construction prompts students

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

19

to become highly motivated and driven to problem solve and learn competently. Papert argued: We understand ‘constructionism’ as including, but going beyond, what Piaget would call ‘constructivism.’ The word with the v expresses the theory that knowledge is built by the learner, not supplied by the teacher. The word with the n expresses the further idea that this happens especially felicitously when the learner is engaged in the construction of something external or at least shareable … a sand castle, a machine, a computer program, a book. This leads us to a model using a cycle of internalization of what is outside, then externalization of what is inside and so on. (Papert, 1990, p. 3)

Additionally, responding to criticisms of constructivism, social constructivism (Jaworski, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978) emphasizes the importance of social interaction and culture and the importance of collaboration to maximize learning (Narayan et al., 2013). This informed the development of collaborative learning (Bruffee, 1984), cooperative learning, and problem-based learning, which are more accurately called practices or teaching methods than theories of learning. Position on knowledge and learning.  Constructivism suggests that knowledge is not an absolute but rather is constructed by learners as learners seek to understand their experiences (Driscoll, 2000). From this perspective, knowledge is contextual, constructed by each individual, and subjective (Narayan et al., 2013). Learning happens as individuals construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world; learning is a change in an individual’s internal reality as they interact with others in their environments, gathering and filtering information, so it makes sense within their own, personal reality (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Learning is also a personal endeavor in which internalized concepts, rules, and general principles are applied in a practical, real-world context. Implications for this conception of learning are that it is a process in which learners actively construct or create their own subjective representations of objective reality by linking new information to prior knowledge. As such, these mental representations are necessarily subjective. Learners construct knowledge actively based on their experiences through a process of assimilation or accommodation and learn through experience and their reflections on these experiences (Narayan et al., 2013). Constructivists, like cognitivists, then, believe that knowledge resides in the mind, so learning occurs in the mind. A key difference between cognitivist perspectives and constructivism is constructivist’s focus on the social and contextual nature of learning. Constructivists believe that not only is learning a mental process, but it is also a social and collaborative one. That is, knowledge is socially constructed. It is also constructed within social contexts through interactions with a knowledge

20  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

community. Learning, then, happens when students are integrated into a knowledge community (Barkley & Major, 2020). Application to teaching in higher education. Constructivists argue that since knowledge is constructed individually, albeit through a social process, it cannot be transmitted from the instructor directly to the learner (i.e., the banking method of teaching is flawed) (Narayan et al., 2013). The instructor’s role is to facilitate learning rather than delivering information. Constructivist instructors strive to facilitate learning by structuring and sequencing activities that emulate real-life experiences and which require the learner to take an active role in selecting, interpreting, and owning information from the learning environment. Instructors focus on helping students create meaning from experience. Applying ZPD to the teaching process, constructivist instructors often seek scaffold information, a process of guiding learners within their relative zone of proximal development to construct content knowledge (Narayan et al., 2013). In the constructivist view, the learner is not a blank slate (tabula rasa) but instead brings experiences and cultural context to a situation. Learning happens when a student completes an authentic task that has significance for the learner. Driscoll’s (1994) conditions for effective constructivist teaching and learning are: • Authentic learning activities; • Social interaction and negotiation; • Content provided and explored through multiple modes and varied perspectives; • Reflexivity; and, • Student-centered learning. Students are encouraged to discover principles for themselves, solve realistic problems, and apply classroom knowledge in new contexts. Students engage in free exploration within a given framework or structure. Application to higher education research.  Constructivism, particularly social constructivism, appears frequently in higher education research. Because of the theory’s focus on social construction of knowledge, it is unsurprising that one of the main research areas drawing on social constructivism is collaborative learning and student interaction in academic environments ­ (see, for example, Khoza & Nyamupangedengu, 2018; Knapp, 2019). Given Vygotsky’s focus on language and language learning, it is also unsurprising that many researchers use the theory as a lens for understanding language learning (see, for example, Güler & Özkan, 2018; Mercer, 2013). In addition, several researchers who focus on online learning or technology use in

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

21

the classroom have also drawn upon social constructivism (see, for example, Churcher, Downs, & Tweksbury, 2014; Wang, Yu, & Wu, 2013). Critique.  Constructivist learning theory promotes active learning, which may mean that some students are more active than others. Moreover, this approach can require students to reinvent the wheel, while they engage in active or discovery learning, and thus, it is not efficient. Moreover, the way that the theory is implied leads instructors to seek to engage students behaviorally but not necessarily cognitively. Some researchers find that translating the ideas of constructivism to instructional practice is difficult, unstructured, and imprecise (Narayan et al., 2013). Indeed, some scholars have argued, “the constructivist description of learning is accurate, but the instructional consequences suggested by constructivists do not necessarily follow” (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006, p. 78). That is, unguided instruction may not always be the best approach and can be harmful to student learning. This view is in keeping with the idea that it is critical to, “deconstruct and scrutinize cultural assumptions that underlie various interpretations of constructivism to expose how social beliefs have influenced the development of theory and practices” (Narayan et al., 2013, p. 174). If not, inequality and oppression could be perpetuated, in opposition to the goal; effective learning activities sometimes may require structure as well as effective facilitation.

Learning Theories from the Field of Adult Education In addition to, and often building on the foundations learning theories discussed previously, the field of adult education has provided additional theories for consideration when thinking about teaching and learning. Andragogy The first and most commonly referenced learning theory in adult education is andragogy, popularized and theorized by Malcolm Knowles. Knowles (1988) built a theory of andragogy based on several European education scholars, notably Lindeman’s (1961) work that found adult education to be “situation-motivated, and experience-centered” (Merriam & Bierema, 2014, p. 46). Andragogy asserts that there is a clear difference between learning of children (“ped” in pedagogy) and adults and, as a result, Knowles espoused that using pedagogical practices for adults was insufficient to maximize learning (Knowles, 1988; Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005). Instead, the premise of andragogy is that adult education should to be distinct and different from children’s education. The distinction between pedagogy and andragogy is founded on beliefs about the learner and, importantly, the adult learner’s ability to be self-directed (Knowles, 1988). Therefore, the key difference between a classroom framed through andragogical practices and

22  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

one framed through pedagogical practices, according to Knowles, was the dependence of the learner on the instructor for direct instruction through pedagogical models (Knowles, 1988; Knowles et  al., 2005). Through andragogy, the instructor is conceptualized as a facilitator that allows a ­self-directed and motivated adult learner to learn in a classroom where content is tailored to their interests and needs (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). Position on knowledge and learning. Adult learning is premised on six assumptions about the adult learner (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007): 1. Adults are self-directed; 2. Adults have experiences that can contribute to learning; 3. Adults readiness to learn relates to their social roles; 4. Adults have a problem-centered need for education; 5. Adults are internally motivated to learn; and, 6. Adults need to know why they need to learn something. Knowles (1988) presumes that these six characteristics are developed as a part of the normal maturation process and asserted that most adults would reach “adulthood” after graduating from college (Knowles et al., 2005). The theory of andragogy asserts that most effective adult learning occurs for learners that meet the six characteristics of the successful adult learner (Knowles et al., 2005; Merriam et al., 2007). Importantly, these six assumptions have also been used to describe how learning as an adult is different from learning as a child; as such, they are both descriptive of the adult learner and prescriptive for adult educators (Parson, 2019). Application to higher education teaching. While adult education is often considered to be distinct from higher education, and adults are differentiated from “college-age” learners, calls to apply andragogy in higher education settings have focused on reaching “non-traditional” or, more appropriately, “older than average” students (Malik, 2016). Non-traditional learners, or those over the age of the “typical” college student (defined by adult learning theorists as over 25; Malik, 2016; Yarbrough, 2018), have been referred to as adult learners. As such, andragogy has been seen by those that subscribe to its principles as a way to reach those students. Knowles (1988) outlined five key ways in which learning in adulthood should differ in practice: (1) The learning climate should be physically suited for the adult learner and inclusive; (2) learner needs should be assessed and used to direct learning activities and processes; (3) learners and teachers should work together to plan learning processes including content, activities, and learning outcomes; (4) the educator should act as a facilitator of the learning process instead of the director; and (5) the evaluation process should rely on self-evaluation instead of an instructor’s subjective and context-neutral assessment of a learner’s

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

23

progress. Further, these six assumptions can be seen as a way to prescriptively construct a learning environment that seeks to identify and then address each of the unique motivations of the adult learner. For example, Knowles (1988) prioritizes the importance of using instructional techniques, such as problem-based learning and other experiential and practical applications of knowledge, that allow for real-world applications of course content. In the neoliberal higher education climate where preparation for professional careers is considered a primary measure of the success of higher education, incorporating practical, real-world applications of content knowledge is a salient addition to the higher education classroom. More importantly, considering motivation and applying learning to the individual’s learner’s needs is something we suggest as valuable for all learners in higher education, whether or not they are considered adults. Application to higher education research. Andragogy, in general, is not well validated as a theory (Knowles et al., 2005; Merriam et al., 2007). As with much of the theoretical research in higher education, most of Knowles research was conducted with white, middle-class participants (Alford, 2013). For example, in my (Laura) (2019) research where I utilized andragogy as a methodological tool, I explored learner readiness for higher education settings according to Andragogical characteristics of the adult learner. However, I did not attempt to define whether or not a learner would be successful in higher education according to those characteristics. To do so would have ascribed deficiency to any learner who did not meet the six characteristics of the successful adult learner. Because andragogy has not been validated as descriptive of learners or learning environments, its application in higher education research is limited. Scholarly literature has, however, explored how andragogical practices could be applied to library education, museum education, and medical education. Those applications have highlighted the importance of self-direction and personalized learning in course design (Malik, 2016; McCray, 2016; Roberts, Gustavs, & Mach, 2012), but they did not explore the effectiveness of those applications in those contexts. Similarly, Morris (2019) explored the application of Knowles’s definition of self-directed learning theory in professional adult education re-training environments to prioritize learning opportunities that allow for adaptive performance, cross-application of knowledge and skills learned, and critical feedback. However, like Malik (2016) and McCray (2016), this study did not explore the effectiveness of these changes but rested on the assumption that implementing andragogical practices was a good practice for instructors to adopt. Critiques.  There are many critiques of andragogy. First, critics of andragogy assert that it should not be called a theory of learning at all but perhaps a theory of teaching or even principles of good practice (Merriam et al., 2007). Knowles acknowledged this criticism and, in his later work, moved from calling andragogy a learning theory to a model of assumptions in which

24  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

learning occurs on a continuum between children and adults (Knowles, 1988; Knowles et al., 2005). More importantly, however, critics point out that adult learning is not actually cognitively different from child learning (Alford, 2013). Second, andragogy as descriptive of the ideal adult learner rests on a set of assumptions about the adult learner that is based on a white, masculine, middle-class ideal (Humphries & Martin, 2000; Parson, 2019) that values “objective” ways of knowing (Merriam et al., 2007). For example, andragogy presumes that adults are the same across time, situation, and context, and does not consider structural and systemic oppression or the impact of culture on learning (Alford, 2013; Merriam & Bierema, 2014; Merriam et al., 2007). Further, the ideal of an independent self-concept is a Western value that reinforces a masculine ideal (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Third, because the knowledge to be learned by the adult learner is unproblematized and it equally values learning in a value-neutral approach, the nature of the knowledge to be learned is assumed to be static, unchanging, and university (Humphries & Martin, 2000). As a result, andragogy serves to reinforce and replicate systems of oppression (Merriam et al., 2007). Transformative Learning Theory A constructivist approach, transformative learning theory views learning as a process that influences a learner’s mind-sets to make them more open and reflective and, therefore, better at guiding action (Alfred et al., 2013; Mezirow, 2000, 2003). Transformative learning theory is a critical pedagogy where through pedagogical choices, learners become more aware of societal injustices and adjust those mind-sets to be more socially aware (Mezirow, 2003). Transformative learning is individualistic and occurs through a learner’s frame of reference, or the perspectives through which one views the world such as relationships, ideology, attitudes, ethics, and aesthetic values (Alfred et al., 2013; Mezirow, 2000, 2003). Transformative learning methods seek to help the learner expand and shift their worldviews in ways that lead to action that is social justice oriented. When that occurs, learning is said to be transformative. Transformative learning requires changes that lead to a decision to act, whether or not the action itself occurs immediately (Mezirow, 1996). Position on knowledge and learning.  Transformative learning occurs when one’s point of view or sets of beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes are transformed and/or with the transformation of one’s habit or mind, or one’s entire perspective (Alfred et al., 2013; Merriam et al., 2007; Mezirow, 2000). The transformative learning process consists of ten steps: 1. Disorienting dilemma; 2. Self-examination with negative emotions (fear, anger, guilt, or shame); 3. A critical assessment of assumptions; 4. Realization that discomfort/discontent and process of transformation are shared;

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 



25

5. Exploration of new roles, relationships, and/or options; 6. Planning a new course of action; 7. Acquiring needed knowledge, skills, and attitudes to pursue new plan; 8. Testing/trying new role; 9. Building competence in new role; and, 10. Reintegration of new role and perspectives into life (Alfred et al., 2013; Mezirow, 2000).

According to transformative learning theory, transformation can be sudden or gradual and begins with changes in points of view or meaning schemas that can lead to changes in habits of mind (Merriam et al., 2007). The theory differentiates between instrumental and communicative learning, where instrumental learning is the ability to evaluate whether or not something is true and communicative learning is the ability to understand what someone is attempting to communicate (Mezirow, 2003). The key to communicative learning is discourse, specifically reflective discourse that seeks common understanding through dialogue that critically evaluates assumptions and beliefs in pursuit of a more complete assessment of one’s point of view or meaning scheme (Mezirow, 2000). Finally, context is a strong influential factor in understanding transformative learning and how it works in different settings. However, transformative learning theory has not always considered context except to reinforce that transformative learning occurs outside of the classroom and that actions resulting from a transformative process are also likely to occur outside of the classroom. As transformative learning theory has developed, methods for considering context have emerged (see Chapter 7 for applications of transformative learning that consider context). Application to higher education teaching. To guide teaching through a transformative lens, an instructor’s role is to facilitate opportunities for authentic discourse to allow learners to understand a variety of perspectives in order to develop the best possible habit of mind (Merriam et al., 2007). To do that, instructors should provide ample opportunities for reflective dialogue after disorienting dilemmas. Disorienting dilemmas occur when a learner’s habit of mind or point of view is challenged in meaningful and authentic ways. Critical reflection consists of content reflection, process reflection, and premise reflection; a learner’s frame of reference acts as a filter to organize disorienting dilemmas and reflection is key to that process (Alfred et al., 2013, p. 134). Because power and inequity can influence the process of reaching mutual agreement, Mezirow (2003) discusses the importance of a critical-dialectical frame of reference that prioritizes critical self-reflection and real-world problem-solving. Through a transformative approach to teaching and learning, an instructor plays a critical role in providing opportunities for disorienting dilemmas to occur in supported and safe spaces. This requires multiple opportunities for reflection and discussion that allow a learner to expand or shift their

26  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

worldview and that the instructor provides insight into the “source, structure, and history of a frame of reference, as well as judging its relevance, appropriateness, and consequences” (Mezirow, 2003, p. 61). For example, practitioners have implemented transformative learning practices in the classroom through the use of reflective journaling (instrumental learning) and small- and ­large-group discussions that promote in-depth assessment of various points of view (communicative learning) (Yarbrough, 2018). Similarly, Walter (2019) explored the implementation of a curriculum framed through transformative learning to learning adult education theory, which used living history experiences as a culminating assessment to create learning experiences that were bodily, emotional, experiential, and creative. Finally, Brigham (2011) explored the potential for transformative learning to enhance teacher preparation programs through arts-informed activities that required learners to incorporate multiple different viewpoints, conduct research, critically reflect, and create new approaches to K-12 teaching. Application to higher education research. The original research supporting transformative learning was conducted with women and their experiences returning to college after stopping out (Merriam et al., 2007). The research participants were white, middle-class women but the findings were presented as uncontextual; as a result, transformations described in the findings still reinforced dominant views of society (Merriam et al., 2007). As acknowledged but not addressed by Mezirow (1996), power, emotion, social interaction, identity, and culture impact the transformative learning process. These factors are being explored in current research but were not often considered in applications of the theory early on (Alfred et al., 2013). Third, transformative learning requires learners be able to think critically and reflect on their own points of view and habits of mind as well as those of others. Transformative learning in correlation with andragogy was found to have a positive impact on spiritual development in Christian higher education (Beard, 2017). Other applications have focused on the learner. For example, Yildirim and Yelken (2019) developed a scale to measure a learner’s readiness for transformative learners in information and communication technologies (referred to as the TLC-ICT) that focuses on learner’s competence in meaning perspectives, critical reflection, use of experiences, and transformative acts. Scholarly literature on the application of transformative learning theory has often focused on implementation instructions instead of the impact on learning after implementation of a transformative lens (see Walter, 2019); we suggest this gap is room for future research. Notably, Jaafar and Schwartz’s (2018) pilot study found a positive impact of implementing holistic adult learning theory, a form of transformative learning theory, in the higher education mathematics classroom. These findings indicate that while there is work exploring the effectiveness of transformative learning theory, there is room for future research to explore how contextual factors influence the transformative learning process and are areas for future research.

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

27

Critique.  First, while transformative learning is presented as a theory of learning, not all learning is transformative. Significantly, there is more to transformation than just reflection; transformation can occur without critical reflection (Merriam et al., 2007). Second, even if transformative learning has occurred, the final step of the transformative learning process requires action, and this raises the question if learning is transformative if no action occurs or is required. Third, emotion, social interaction, identity, and culture also impact the transformative learning process and its effectiveness in leading to lasting changes (Alfred et al., 2013). Fourth, transformative learning is often presented as uncontextual. As a result, transformative learning theory focuses on individual change instead of societal change, which does not consider the role of relationships (Merriam et al., 2007). This raises the question about if and how transformative learning can lead to social change despite being rooted in critical theory. Finally, the key consideration when applying transformative learning to practice is the ethics of teachers creating transformative experiences. Some have questioned if instructors have the right to create disorienting experiences that may reflect the instructor’s biases (Merriam et al., 2007). Further, creating opportunities for critical and reflective discourse implies that the setting, environment, and climate is a safe one; if learners do not feel safe and supported, it represents a significant potential harm to force them to be open and vulnerable (Humphries & Martin, 2000). These critiques are considered in the critical theory of adult education. Critical Theory of Adult Education The field of adult education has articulated, in recent years, a critical approach to adult education in response to modernist and post-modernist conceptualizations of higher education that either reduce education to a reproducer of inequality (modernism) or fail to provide instruction on how colonizer’s impact on ideology can lead to revised action and epistemologies ­(post-modernism) (Stanage, 1994). As discussed by Merriam et al. (2007), a critical approach to adult education, “should have at its core an understanding of how adults learn to recognize the predominance of ideology in their everyday thoughts and actions and in the institutions of civil society” (p. 257). The goal of a critical adult education theory, then, is to create a coherent set of values, practices, and ideals that direct teaching and learning practices that promote social justice and equity (Stanage, 1994). With those goals in mind, the components of a critical theory of adult education include: 1. Challenge ideology; 2. Contest hegemony; 3. Unmask power; 4. Overcome alienation; 5. Learn liberation;

28  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

6. Reclaim reason; and, 7. Practice democracy (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 257). The critical theory of adult education is premised in Marxist thought. Position on knowledge and learning. The roots of critical adult learning theory are found in conscientization. Conscientization emerged from the context of oppression and considers individual empowerment as inseparable from social change (Merriam et al., 2007). Developed by Freire (1968, published in English in 1970), learning for social change should occur through problem-posing education, where teachers and learners are coinvestigators and discourse is a key to the learning process (Humphries & Martin, 2000). In this framework, the goal of education is praxis, where learners reflect and act to transform the world (Merriam et al., 2007). This form of education is critically different from traditional models of education, called banking education, which is teacher-centered and centers the teacher as the source of knowledge and authority—banking education reifies dominant forms of knowledge and, therefore, oppression, in part because it resists discourse (Merriam et al., 2007). Application to higher education teaching.  Critical adult education approaches seek to explicate the relationship between the everyday existence and consciousness for instructors and learners, which Carpenter (2012) argued should be explored through dialectical conceptualization as a frame and method to inform understanding of “social relations, ideology, and praxis” (Carpenter, 2012, p. 21). Dialectical conceptualization attempts to reveal how race, gender, and class are intrinsically interrelated to social phenomena and individual behavior (Carpenter, 2012). Further, Stanage (1994) suggests that a critical approach to teaching and learning requires an instructor help students learn how to learn and how to evaluate knowledge to counter post-modernist instincts toward nihilism and, instead, to help learners assess and choose epistemological frameworks that inform their worldview and emancipatory aims. Specific pedagogical approaches include democratic and participatory approaches to making decisions about learning goals, content, and assessment including the learner and teacher in the co-construction of learning outcomes (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Application to higher education research. Critical approaches to education through the lens of critical adult theory have been used to direct learning programs that promote diversity and inclusion. For example, Taylor (2017) used a critical adult learning theory and transformative learning theory as an approach to a museum education program to promote inclusion. Using critical adult learning theory, the program that resulted incorporated learning motivation, critical reflective discourse, and self-directed learning. Anecdotal evidence from the program suggested that it had been successful in promoting a more inclusionary approach to museum education (Taylor, 2017).

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

29

Second, Coryell (2011) explored the effectiveness of implementing one element of critical adult pedagogies, communities of practice (CoP), into a study abroad course and found them to be imperative in facilitating adult learning because of increased flexibility and the community supported by a CoP approach. Further, feminist critical theorists have cited the success of critical approaches to education settings, specifically those that promote democratic and participatory processes to feelings of inclusion that maximize comfort in education settings (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Conscientization represents a key opportunity for an approach to higher education that promotes social justice and equity in the classroom. It has been a focus on K-12 and, to some extent, adult education, but has not been often discussed as a teaching and learning framework in higher education. We consider that to be a key opportunity for higher education to apply this framework to promote individual and societal change in higher education. Critique.  One critique of critical pedagogy in general is the assumption that both critical pedagogy and critical adult pedagogy have a homogenizing impulse that assumes, as an association with the call to include all in the learning process that, “all voices should be heard and all contributions are legitimate” (Humphries & Martin, 2000, p. 282). This assumes equality of experiences and fails to take into account how the struggles of one group might silence another group, perpetuate the oppression of another group, and reproduce problematic notions of colonization (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Further, feminist critics of critical pedagogy critique an approach to education that only opens up for critique epistemological beliefs but does not similarly critique and expand teaching methods (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Feminists argued that adult education theorists, even critical theorists, did not take into account the experiences of women as they differed from men, such as the needs of a single, working mother (Humphries & Martin, 2000). Taking these critiques into account, the potential of critical adult education theory as a lens to promote social justice in higher education is clear. As such, the practices of critical adult education helped to inform and frame our recommendations for a critical theory of higher education learning.

Developing the Social Justice Lens These teaching and learning theories, especially traditional theories and andragogy, have been used to construct higher education in a way that reinforces the existing inequalities in society instead of challenging them. Indeed, the purpose of higher education and education in general was, at least in part, to educate a civil society. This education, by definition, was intended to educate a group of people, initially white, middle-class men, to be participators in society as it existed. Participation, then, was limited by the strictures of

30  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

what was considered acceptable and positive at society at that place in time. While higher education now accepts a more diverse populace and, overall, graduates more women than men from undergraduate programs (although that statistic requires unpacking, because the preponderance of women graduates is from two-year colleges), the structure of higher education has not significantly changed since it was created to educate the elite, white, man. As a result, higher education has replicated existing societal inequities even as it promotes itself as the emancipator of many (Carpenter, 2012). Traditional learning theories, by replicating higher education in the way it has always been, have sought to reinforce those inequities all the while stating that it was doing the opposite. As a result, if higher education did, indeed, allow more women and minoritized persons to be empowered as defined by finding and accepting a white-collar job, it did so by asking the individual student to remodel themselves against a white, masculine mold. Of course, one can never perfectly replicate a model. As a result, women and minoritized students have been forever defined as less than, while being told that they had the power to perfectly embody the racialized, gendered, and classed ideal. Then, when they could not, they were told or made to feel like it was their fault and not the fault of a system built around a flawed ideal. Indeed, the traditional learning theories defined how learning should occur and how a learner should act and behave against these biased norms and then, insidiously, told that it was their own responsibility and, therefore, their own failing if they could not learn as successfully as their white peers (a concept popularized as “grit;” Duckworth, 2016). Specifically, we see this happening with all of the theories reviewed previously, if only because they define success and successful behavior within the structures of the institution, a classroom with walls and chairs, and learning knowledge defined within a Western paradigm. The theories addressed above, with the exception of the critical theory of adult education, did not consider the context learning occurred in and the impact of power on the learning and content selection process. Further, these theories largely did not consider individual differences like culture, identity, and background. And even those theories did not consider emotion with the exception of new evolutions of cognitivism, specifically cognitive theories of learning. Finally, all of these theories are largely Western theories of learning that promote Western forms of learning and Western knowledge, leaving out the possibility of indigenous and non-Western knowledges, learning methods, and structures that support learners with different needs, cultures, and values. Higher education needs to not only consider how traditional learning theories should and should not be applied in higher education but also explore further theories to consider how they might contribute to a broader conceptualization of teaching and learning in higher education to truly promote equity and diversity. Several recommendations for how to approach teaching and learning for practitioners are implicated in our review and critique of existing theories. First, we suggest that cognitive theories of learning and recent research on the role of emotion provide a solid foundation for

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

31

understanding how the process of learning occurs. This information allows for instructors to understand how to construct learning experiences and assess whether learning has occurred. Second, guided by our recommendations above, a theory of teaching and learning in higher education should consider the context in which classes take place locally, nationally, internationally, as well as historically. This requires educators to understand the current environment for our students, including political or media rhetoric that may make our students feel uncomfortable or unsafe. Third, understanding context requires understanding of the current and historical context of the setting education takes place in, which requires understanding how our institutions have historically silenced or harmed persons of color. Some examples of theories and approaches to teaching and learning in higher education that begin to reflect these recommendations suggest how this might look in practice. Cultural-spiritual.  A growing framework in teaching and learning is a c­ ulturalspiritual approach. This approach is seen as a critical orientation to teaching and learning—with a focus on meaning-making (Merriam et al., 2007). Through a cultural-spiritual lens, spirituality is different from religion: a “more personal belief and experience of a divine spirit of higher purpose, about how we construct meaning, and what we individually and communally experience and attend to and honor as the sacred in our lives” (Tisdell, 2003 as quoted in Merriam et al., 2007, p. 200). Approaching teaching decisions through this lens sees spirituality and learning as embedded in a cultural context; in research that applied the cultural-spiritual framework, the goal was social justice-oriented and promoted understanding of diversity. The ­cultural-spiritual lens informs educational practices by directing instructors to be aware of spirituality seek to create a safe environment, promote authentic discourse, and allow for reflection (Merriam et al., 2007). Embodied/somatic.  Embodied/somatic learning, or learning through experience, is an additional important theory to consider. Somatic learning considers the “immediate, physical, emotional” (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 192) and is connected to experiential learning. Embodied learning extends experiential learning by considering how learning occurs in noncognitive dimensions as well as cognitive ones (Merriam et al., 2007). Somatic learning requires a focus on emotion: “Reclaiming the body in learning contributes to a broader theory of learning, one that recognizes the body as a source of knowledge. This recognition along challenges the dominant culture’s claims to knowledge based predominately on reason. Legitimizing somatic knowing can also lead to developing empathy … finally, embodied knowing is linked to adult learning through its power to contribute to making sense of, or making meaning of, our lives” (Merriam et al., 2007, p. 198). This theory provides an important connection to the body, which is often discussed as unrelated to learning when learning is conceptualized as a rational process.

32  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR

Emotion/affect learning theory. Emotion/affect learning theory is a field that has developed in the last 10–15 years: “Affect influences the way students approach (or avoid) learning; levels of engagement; interactions with peers and teachers; performances on tests; interpretations of and reactions to feedback … Affect is a central yet neglected dimension of learning” (Jackson, 2018, p. 140). Emotions, then, are defined as, “‘the conventional cultural packets or prototypes for affect, e.g., anger, joy, sadness, shame, surprise’ that ‘register evaluations of events, standpoints on what is happening, and investments,’” and affect comprises “reactions that may be difficult to categorize and which many not be organized into conventional categories” (Jackson, 2018, p. 140). Since both affect and emotion are action-oriented, they are important to consider in student motivation (Jackson, 2018). Similarly, emotion and affect can also have a negative impact on student experiences and learning, such as in the case of fear and anxiety. As such emotion/affect learning theory provides important insight into how those processes occur and how instructors can consider and tap into the power of emotion in the classroom (see Chapters 10 and 11 for discussions of potential for emotion to guide higher education pedagogical decisions). Eastern and Indigenous theories. Finally, it is critical to consider nonWestern theories of learning. Although there are a diverse range of nonWestern theories, Merriam et al. (2007) highlighted a these theories as important to consider: (1) The Confucian way of thinking which emphasizes a holistic approach to learning as continuous, committed, and complex; (2) Hinduism, which sees a connection between the mind and body and emphasizes a sacred relationship between teacher and student; (3) Maori concepts, which emphasize the importance of the community and culture; (4) an Islamic approach, which considers the rational, spiritual, and social; and (5) African indigenous education, which values informal and oral modes of instruction and participatory education. These theories consider the importance of interdependence in learning and are often holistic, collaborative, and consider the entire person in collaboration with their community and environment (Merriam et al., 2007). Feminist pedagogy. We conclude by recommending that a comprehensive higher education learning theory follows the precepts of feminist pedagogy. The goal of feminist pedagogy is to provide a safe place for students to share their experiences, to validate them as co-creators of knowledge, and to empower them as teachers and leaders so that they know how to work toward a more equitable society (Tisdell, 2003). A critical feminist pedagogy is characterized by a focus on how knowledge is constructed; learning activities and assignments that promote the development of voice; attention to how methods and assessments can reduce the power differential between teacher and students; and, instructional methods that acknowledge and consider differences and the impact of differences on learning (Humphries & Martin, 2000; Merriam et al., 2007). Therefore, a feminist approach to higher education teaching and learning requires deconstructing and renaming discourses of

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

33

power, identifying the role of social relations in local and global power structures, and viewing the individual as both an organizer and subject of systems of power and oppression (Carpenter, 2012). To implement a feminist pedagogy requires considering individual and societal development in learning practices and processes, and so we recommend instructional methods that focus on community building and collaborative learning. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is critical to consider how our teaching and learning practices acknowledge and validate the knowledges our students bring to the classroom as well as the knowledges of indigenous and marginalized knowledges. This begins, at a minimum, with program and class discussions of the subjectivity of knowledges, continues with a de-centering of our syllabi, and culminates with the full inclusion of diverse knowledges as core content in our courses and program. In sum, a comprehensive higher education learning theory should consider the following: 1. Cognitive learning theory including the role of emotion; 2. Local, global, and historical context; 3. Community; 4. Empowerment and voice; 5. Activism (individual and society); 6. Indigenous and marginalized knowledges; 7. Learning spaces; 8. Individual learner characteristics; and 9. The importance of individual and community differences. While it might not be possible for a theory to comprehensively fit every higher education setting, content area, and learner (and, indeed, a theory requires research and validation), we propose these characteristics both as a foundation for future work and as a list of considerations for the higher education instructor as they approach course development, lesson planning, and philosophies of education.

Conclusion There are a range of perspectives about learning that include what it is, how it happens, and what influences its ultimate success. Understanding the theoretical framework that informs various pedagogical choices can help instructors understand learning and point them in the direction of solutions for teaching and learning challenges. These theories should not, however, be accepted in the absence of critical reflection and thought of where they fall short and of whom they are leaving out of the models. The psychologist traces the arrows out from the person to the external, objectified culture, while the sociologist starts with the objectified culture and points inward to the individual person. A person’s learning must be seen from both

34  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR perspectives! … we need to start with an understanding of the person – the learner – which is a philosophical perspective that has been sadly lack from studies of learning, and thereafter, begin to explore the psychological and the sociological aspect of the learning process in tandem. But standing in the middle is the person – and analysis of the person calls for a philosophical anthropology. This leads us to recognizing the intersubjectivity of social living and human learning … although, it is impossible to have a theory that explains the learning process in every detail. (Jarvis, 2018, pp. 26–27)

References Ahmad, A., & Farrukh, F. (2015). Significance of social applications on a mobile phone for English task-based language learning. Teaching English with Technology, 15(2), 94–105. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1140589. Alford, B. J. (2013). Adult learning theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecia, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Alfred, M. V., Cherrstrom, C. A., Robinson, P. A., & Friday, A. R. (2013). Transformative learning theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecia, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Anderson, R. C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion of the conference. In R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, & W. E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York: Academic Press. Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2020). Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college faculty (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Wiley/Jossey-Bass. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Beard, C. B. (2017). Connecting spiritual formation and adult learning theory: An examination of common principles. Christian Education Journal, 14(2), 247–269. Bongers, A., Northoff, G., & Flynn, A. B. (2019). Working with mental models to learn and visualize a new reaction mechanism. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(3), 554–569. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00060g. Bower, G. H., & Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of learning (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brigham, S. M. (2011). Braided stories and bricolaged symbols: Critical reflection and transformative learning theory for teachers. McGill Journal of Education, 46(1), 41–54. Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635–652. https://www.jstor.org/stable/376924. Bryan, L. C., Vincent, R., Shaqlaih, A., & Moss, G. (2013). Behaviorism and behavioral learning theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecia, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

35

Bullock-Yowell, E., Katz, S., Reardon, R., & Gary, P. (2012). The roles of negative career thinking and career problem-solving self-efficacy in career exploratory behavior. The Professional Counselor, 2, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.15241/ eby.2.2.102. Carpenter, S. (2012). Centering Marxist-Feminist theory in adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 62(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713510392767. Churcher, K. M. A., Downs, E., & Tweksbury, D. (2014). “Friending” Vygotsky: A social constructivist pedagogy of knowledge building through classroom social media use. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1), 33–50. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=EJ1060440. Coryell, J. E. (2011). The foreign city as classroom: Adult learning in study abroad. Adult Learning, 22(3), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/104515951102200301. Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York: Scribner/Simon & Schuster. Freeman, S. L., Eddy, S. M. D., Smtih, M. K., Okoroafor, M., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books Inc. Gardner, H. (2018). Multiple approaches to understanding. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists … in their own words (2nd ed., pp. 129–138). New York: Routledge. Georgiou, G. K., & Das, J. P. (2015). University students with poor reading comprehension: The hidden cognitive processing deficit. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(5), 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413513924. Güler, S., & Özkan, Y. (2018). Podcast applications in pre-service language teacher education from a constructivist perspective. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 10(3), 131–141. Haase, R. F., Jome, L. M., Ferreira, J. A., Santos, E. J. R., Connacher, C. C., & Sendrowitz, K. (2014). Individual differences in capacity for tolerating information overload are related to differences in culture and temperament. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(5), 728–751. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022022113519852. Humphries, B., & Martin, M. (2000). Unsettling the ‘learning community’: From dialogue to ‘difference?’ Community, Work, & Family, 3(3), 279–295. Jackson, C. (2018). Affective dimensions of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists … in their own words (2nd ed., pp.139–152). New York: Routledge. Jaafar, R., & Schwartz, J. (2018). Applying holistic adult learning theory to the study of calculus. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 15(3). https:// ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol15/iss3/6.

36  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR Jarvis, P. (2018). Learning to be a person in society: Learning to be me. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists … in their own words (2nd ed., pp. 15–28). New York: Routledge. Jaworski, B. (1994). Investigating mathematics teaching: A constructivist enquiry. London: Falmer Press. John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31(3/4), 191– 206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3103&4_4. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology and Research and Development, 39, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296434. Khoza, H. C., & Nyamupangedengu, E. (2018). Prompts used by biology lecturers in large lecture group settings to promote student interaction. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(3), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1542553. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1. Knapp, N. F. (2019). The shape activity: Social constructivism in the psychology classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 46(1), 87–91. https://doi. org/10.1177/0098628318816181. Knowles, M. S. (1988). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge Adult Education. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. Burlington, MA: Elsevier. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. Lange, C., Costley, J., & Han, S.-L. (2017). The effects of extraneous load on the relationship between self-regulated effort and germane load within an e­-learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3028. Lindeman, E. C. (1961). The meaning of adult education. Montreal: Harvest House. Malik, M. (2016). Assessment of a professional development program on adult learning theory. Libraries and the Academy, 16(1), 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1353/ pla.2016.0007. McCray, K. H. (2016). Gallery educators as adult learners: The active application of adult learning theory. Journal of Museum Education, 41(1), 10–21. https://doi. org/10.1080/10598650.2015.1126058. Mercer, S. (2013). Working with language learner histories from three perspectives: Teachers, learners and researchers. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 161. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2013.3.2.2. Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Bridging theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 46(3), 158–173. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ 074171369604600303.

2  LEARNING THEORY THROUGH A SOCIAL JUSTICE LENS 

37

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in process (pp. 3–33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.463.1039&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(1), 58-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172.  Morris, T. H. (2019). Adaptivity through self-directed learning to meet the challenges of our ever-changing world. Adult Learning, 30(2), 56–66. https://doi. org/10.1177/1045159518814486. Narayan, R., Rodriguez, C., Araujo, J., Shaqlaih, A., & Moss, G. (2013). Constructivism—Constructivist learning theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. ­Lara-Alecia, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Ndlovu, Z., & Brijlall, D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ mental constructions of concepts in matrix algebra. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2015.1028 717. Paciotti, K. D. (2013). Cognitivism: Ways of knowing. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecia, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Papert, S. (1990). Introduction. In I. Harel (Ed.), Constructionist learning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Media Laboratory. Parson, L. (2019). Polygamy, women, and higher education – life after Mormon fundamentalism. New York, NY: Palgrave. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x. Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Polat, A., Doğan, S., & Demir, S. B. (2015). The constructivist approach? I have heard about it but I have never seen it “An example of exploratory sequential mixed design study”. International Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v5n1p62. Roberts, T. V., Gustavs, J., & Mach, H. G. (2012). Becoming an expert: A review of adult learning theory and implications for vocational training in ophthalmology. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, 40, 519–526. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2011.02716.x. Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to research and practice. London and New York: Routledge. Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2. Skinner, B. F. (1991). Behavior of organisms. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group. Smith, T. A., & Kimball, D. R. (2010). Feedback timing in semantic learning: Spacing and the delay-retention effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/e527342012-652. Snelbecker, G. E. (1983). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

38  L. PARSON AND C. MAJOR Sorden, S. D. (2013). The cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecia, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Stanage, S. M. (1994). Charles Sanders Peirce’s pragmaticism and praxis of adult learning theory: Signs, interpretation, and learning how to learn in the ­post-modern age. Thresholds in Education, 20(2–3), 10–17. Stiller, K., Petzold, K., & Zinnbauer, P. (2011). Presentation time concerning system-paced multimedia instructions and the superiority of learner pacing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 693–708. https://doi. org/10.14742/ajet.945. Tareilo, J. (2013). Stage theory of cognitive development. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecia, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Taylor, C. (2017). From systemic exclusion to systemic inclusion: A critical look at museums. Journal of Museum Education, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.10 80/10598650.2017.1305864. Tisdell, E. (2003). Exploring Spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-bass. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walter, P. (2019). Innovations in teaching adult education: Living history museums and transformative learning in the university classroom. Adult Learning, 30(3), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519826074. Wang, J., Yu, W.-C. W., & Wu, E. (2013). Empowering mobile assisted social e-learning: Students’ expectations and perceptions. World Journal of Education, ­ 3(2), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v3n2p59. Yang, F.-Y., Chang, C.-Y., Chien, W.-R., Chien, Y.-T., & Tseng, Y.-H. (2013). Tracking learners’ visual attention during a multimedia presentation in a real classroom. Computers & Education, 62, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compedu.2012.10.009. Yarbrough, J. R. (2018). Adapting adult learning theory to support innovative, advanced, online learning—WVMD Model. Research in Higher Education Journal, 35, 1-15. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1194405.pdf. Yildirim, M., & Yelken, T. Y. (2019). The development of transformative learning scale for information and communication technologies. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09424-7. Zheng, R., Smith, D., Luptak, M., Hill, R., Hill, J., & Rupper, R. (2016). Does visual redundancy inhibit older persons’ information processing in learning? Educational Gerontology, 42(9), 635–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2016.1205365. Zijdemans-Boudreau, A., Moss, G., & Lee, C. G. (2013). Experiential learning theory. In B. J. Irby, G. Brown, R. Lara-Alecia, & S. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of educational theories. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

CHAPTER 3

Beyond Behaviorism: Engaging Students in the Age of Neoliberalism Jeffery L. Jackson Jr. and Patrick White

Key Terms and Definitions Behaviorism: learning theory that incorporates the psychological approach emphasizing objective methods of investigation and utilizing techniques such as conditioning and repetition to reinforce positive behavior and punish negative responses to stimuli. Conditioning: the process of training someone to behave a certain way when posed with sets of similar circumstances. Neoliberalism: a social paradigm based on the tenets of free-market capitalism driven by results and objectively quantifiable outcomes. Engagement: the level of continued commitment and participation exhibited throughout the course of one’s own learning process. Equity: making sure every student has what he/she needs to be successful. Social justice: a stance against the systematic and problematic issues of access, race, class, income, and gender. Many learning theories have developed over the years to guide the activities of instructors attempting to teach their students. One of the first of these theories, and perhaps the nexus for all other relevant teaching and learning J. L. Jackson Jr. (*) · P. White  Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA e-mail: [email protected] P. White e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_3

39

40  J. L. JACKSON Jr. AND P. WHITE

theories, is behaviorism. Behaviorism is a learning theory that focuses on objectively observable behaviors, therefore neglecting the impact of any independent activities of the mind on learning (Moore, 2013). Behaviorism’s beginnings as an objective alternative to quantifying learning outcomes have had a lasting impact on educational delivery in the United States. Giving rise to the results-driven culture of an increasingly capitalistic paradigm, behaviorism’s beginnings and subsequent influence cannot be separated from the rise of neoliberalism as a powerful social ideology espoused by many Americans and reflected in many of America’s institutional structures. As a result, behaviorism has reinforced and emphasized neoliberal impulses in higher education that negatively impact learning, especially for those traditionally minoritized by American higher education. Higher education is, at best, an unlevel playing field for diverse students. Created by and for white, middle-class men, higher education is an environment where minoritized students are treated as deficient inside and outside of the classroom. In this chapter, we describe how neoliberalism and behaviorism contribute to replicating higher education’s systems of power and privilege by limiting the student’s ability to relate to and apply what they learn in the classroom to real-world applications. We argue that neoliberalism and behaviorism create a society of conformity as opposed to free thinkers. First, we propose a framework for how behaviorism has been used to educate students. Our focus is on how behaviorism and neoliberalism impacts student learning and faculty development in terms of equity and social justice. From there, we discuss how behaviorism has left higher education vulnerable to the establishment of neoliberal aspirations as the foremost considerations for educational attainment. Third, we describe how Engaged Pedagogy can provide a framework to remedy some of the problems created by a behavioristic or neoliberal approach to course planning. The inclusion of Engaged Pedagogy focuses on specific techniques for both faculty development and student learning that looks within itself to find the necessary methods to equip learners with a critical understanding of how to engage themselves in the classroom and, ultimately, the world around them. Finally, we provide side-by-side comparative lesson plans; one that is developed using a behaviorism lens and one using an Engaged Pedagogy perspective to illustrate how a foundational course can incorporate behaviorism components, yet, be designed to include equity and social justice tenets to promote student engagement, development, and intellectual curiosity.

Behaviorism Through John B. Watson’s push for psychology to gain its rights as a “legitimate natural science,” behaviorism was coined as the “experimental observation of behavior” (Moore, 2013, p. 451). Though many behavioral scholars came after Watson, B. F. Skinner is also recognized for his focus on behaviorism. Skinner analyzed “how an organism acted, the features of the

3  BEYOND BEHAVIORISM: ENGAGING STUDENTS IN THE AGE OF NEOLIBERALISM 

41

surrounding environment, and how those organisms were observed publicly and privately with no consideration of their mental processes” (Moore, 2013, p. 459). Skinner studied only what could be measured and quantified systematically and defined learning as a change in behavior. This constituted a shift in thinking from studying learning as the subjective reflections of an individual’s ideas on their own learning processes (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). Predicated upon the idea that environment shapes behavior, behaviorism as a learning theory can be meaningful in delineating how students’ “conduct problems can be connected to behavioral engagement needs” (Lawson & Lawson, 2013, p. 437). Examples of behaviorism in education include giving recognition for acceptable behaviors in the form of rewards and accolades, assuring a good grade will be assigned for conforming to certain engagement standards, and maximizing efforts put in by students by focusing their attention on metrics and outcomes. Behaviorism in the “Classroom” The idea of positive versus negative reinforcement upon which behaviorism rests was developed from early research conducted on animal behavior. Reinforcement gained traction as an acceptable approach for educating young children and older individuals alike. Behaviorism was developed for use in situations involving automation and application to circumstances that were mentally similar to the learning context within which the concept was first learned (Illeris, 2009). Consequently, behaviorism is still used frequently in early learning, re-training, and subject areas that require a large amount of memorization or recitation of material (Illeris, 2009). Boghossian (2006) states that “behaviorism views the student as an unreflective responder… engaged in the educational process only in that she displays the appropriate verbal behavior” (p. 718). In these ways, behaviorism focuses more on acquisition of sub-skill proficiency than on how these sub-skills are necessary to advance to larger competencies. This distraction from the main goals of higher education has contributed to the onset of neoliberal proficiency measures in the classroom. As a result, this impacts how students are being taught. When we think about equity and social justice, students are often left out of the equation because of faculty desire to cover course content and ensure that students gain knowledge through correctness instead of critical thinking, evaluation, feedback, reflection, or engagement with the course content. For example, some faculty discuss topics looking for correct answers from students instead of creating opportunities to create knowledge. Although there may be basic content or competencies that benefit from behaviorist approaches to teaching, students might suffer educationally, intellectually, developmentally, and personally and professionally when more engaged strategies are not utilized to support more complex and developed learning outcomes.

42  J. L. JACKSON Jr. AND P. WHITE

Students The most important tenet of behaviorism as a learning theory is the idea that correct responses to stimuli are encouraged through immediate feedback while incorrect responses are discouraged and sometimes even punished (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). This can lead to issues of conformity and a loss of originality when students are more concerned with meeting prescribed learning objectives instead of finding meaning in the meta-cognitive process of learning (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). For example, in Jeffery’s experiences as an English Composition instructor, students frequently miss the opportunity to express their original ideas in their writing because they have been conditioned to write in certain ways that will conform with the instructor’s requirements. They write the same way as their peers, follow the same five paragraph models used to write essays in high school, and write to meet word counts instead of using academic freedom to think about topics in a new and exciting way. Another example of behaviorism in the classroom is when students expect pre-defined criteria for assignments. For example, in our experience, students often expect structured assignments that leave little room for interpretation or innovation. They appear to fear the complexities of thinking “outside the box,” presenting documents or multimedia work that does not fit traditional paper formats, such as an essay or report. Instead, they frequently resort to completing papers that look the same from one course to the other or multimedia presentations that look like the thousands of templates pre-defined in widely used software packages. Students fear that their assignments do not meet the instructor’s requirements and often insist that the teacher provides them with more structured elements, such as paper headings, required elements, or other must-have elements that would merit an exceptional assessment. As students move into higher education, behaviorism reveals itself in the number of undergraduate students who are passive readers. These learners are not active readers or writers, but instead read and write passively. McWhorter (2016) indicates that “active readers are involved with what they are reading. They interact with the author and his or her ideas” (p. 2) and contends that students only respond to the stimulus of doing an assignment for a grade. Consequently, McWhorter (2016) found that students read assigned readings just to get it done while reading passively and accepting whatever in print as true rather than actively and engaging with the text. This type of behaviorist conditioning voids students of enjoying what they are reading and extinguishes their spark to add to the conversation through Engaged Pedagogy. Additionally, in the behaviorist classroom, students may enter class with an expectation that the teacher will give them a grade for attending or provide answers without engagement because the behaviorist instructor places emphasis on reward-based performance. In fact, Grubb (2010) states that when instructors ask questions, they often provide the right answer if they do not get responses right away. An alternative is to rely on the same students to

3  BEYOND BEHAVIORISM: ENGAGING STUDENTS IN THE AGE OF NEOLIBERALISM 

43

give the right answers and then to move on without checking to see whether other students understand (Grubb, 2010). In light of these critiques, behaviorism in the classroom can lead to student disengagement. When faculty continue to teach through regurgitation of course content, it creates an environment where students are either quiet for fear of giving an incorrect answer or being embarrassed by the instructor because of an incorrect answer. It can also produce students who rarely participate because the perceived benefits of participation are outweighed by the fear of derision from the same students that participate in every class. Instructors who employ behaviorism as the sole means of student engagement and instruction may oppress, suppress, or silence the active participants in their classrooms when they try to involve nonparticipants. Instead of creating opportunities for active engagement in classes, many instructors may either give the students answers or move on to something else. It also promotes disengagement from faculty and students. As such, behaviorism is problematic because it voids social justice and equity in the classroom by neglecting to provide opportunities for students to participate authentically. As one of the first learning theories to be developed, instructors at all educational levels ostensibly used behaviorist principles in the classroom to promote the activities that were most optimal to learning the material by reinforcing positive outputs of learning. The simplicity with which behaviorist principles of reinforcement can be implemented makes it easy to see why it has been used on such a large scale, and the mere fact that it was one the first learning theories made it more likely to be utilized by instructors clinging to the security of precedence when developing the instructional processes used to deliver course material. Adopting behaviorism as the main approach to learning presented very low risk of upsetting the perceived sufficiency of contemporary educational delivery models. As the main instructional delivery model during the time of rising neoliberal sentiments, behaviorism left the door open for complete hijacking of the purposes of education in the twentieth century. Despite some of the positive attributes associated with the behaviorist perspective of learning, the market-driven influences of neoliberalism over the last century have led to the dilution of efforts directed toward one of the original and highest order goals of higher education: the education of an informed citizenry capable of governing themselves in a democratic society (Giroux, 2011). Instead, in a neoliberal context, educators are forced to direct their educational labors toward standardized goals espoused by corporate interests and those concerned with maximizing monetary profitability. The shift in focus from considering the educational implications of the public good to a paradigm characterized as a “credentialing factory for students” leads us to question whether the educational practices that have led us to this place, like behaviorism, are still desirable (Giroux, 2011).

44  J. L. JACKSON Jr. AND P. WHITE

Behaviorism Gives Way to Neoliberalism Giroux (2011) characterizes neoliberalism as a toxic form of capitalism that threatened the traditional existence of higher education in western societies. Driven by market-oriented ideals inherent in the capitalist paradigms of the developed world, values espoused by subscribers to neoliberal ideals include profit maximization, individual achievement, efficiency, and overall concern with production of capital. The shift from viewing education as a public good to a corporate good has led to substantial alterations in the way higher education is delivered in the United States. Now viewed as something to be consumed and exploited for the sake of profitability, education is thought of as a commodity (Giroux, 2011). Neoliberalism has revealed a hidden curriculum of many institutions of higher education that previously been hidden: The once lauded educational goals of promoting the education of citizens for active participation in their democratic societies has given way to the establishment of career readiness and individual achievement as the main considerations for what it means to obtain a valuable education (Giroux, 2011). The prevalence of behaviorism in early learning theory may have made it easier for the ideas supported by neoliberalism to take hold in American higher education. Students In early childhood education in the United States, aptitude and student achievement are defined by measurables such as grade-level proficiency and standardized tests. Through a behaviorist lens, learners are conditioned to believe that success is only garnered through memorization and regurgitation of subject matter. Through a neoliberal lens, students are conditioned to concern themselves with those things that will help them secure a job and advance, or in some cases hold, their statuses in the world; those behaviorist outcomes align with a neoliberal focus on outputs and, in both cases, neglects to consider the value of the learning experience itself as an outcome. Especially for minoritized students, where the experience is often the penultimate determinant of whether or not course content is accessible or not, a focus on reward and outcomes neglects to address the importance of the content or environment. An emphasis on grades as evidence of learning is one consequence of a neoliberal climate. In a culture defined by neoliberalism, Jeffery’s experiences as an English Composition instructor have shown how students who receive lower grades in college than what they were accustomed to receiving in high school may demonstrate anxiety over their grades that prevents them from completely benefitting from learning experiences. Through Jeffery’s conversations with students about their receipt of lower than expected grades, he has struggled to communicate the importance of learning as a primary goal instead of the final grade. As a result, Jeffery has struggled to help students to

3  BEYOND BEHAVIORISM: ENGAGING STUDENTS IN THE AGE OF NEOLIBERALISM 

45

see grades as one output of a course but not as the only important measure of course learning. The problem with a focus on grades, aside from neglecting the actual learning process or content to be learned, is that a focus on grades is indicative of an external motivator that is not often sustainable. Nilson (2016) points out that students who work primarily for good grades are performance goal-oriented and are characterized by seeking rewards for learning instead of valuing learning experiences obtained from or through their learning. This orientation can be discouraging because a focus on grades may exert stress on their self-esteem and can induce insecurity. Through a behaviorist lens, guided by neoliberal pressures, grades become the sole focus of a classroom experience, and, in Jeffery’s experience, often results in student work that seeks to identify what an instructor is looking for instead of generating original work. Teaching and Learning in a Neoliberal Environment In the rewards-driven environment created by the coupling of behaviorist learning techniques and the neoliberal market-based system, instructors may also struggle to find the right balance between what they know to be a worthwhile education and relevance in a world powered by monetary aspirations. Career readiness demands focus on standardized test scores, and the constant call for educators to justify the cost of higher education are just a few examples of the challenges with which instructors and administrators must contend in the modern neoliberal paradigm. Giroux (2011) summarizes the effects of these efforts to “teach to the test” as ways to tame students and invoke modes of corporate governance which reduces the labor force in higher education from fewer tenured faculty to increase adjunct faculty (p. 153). In light of the synergy between neoliberalism and behaviorism, the demand to prove that all students are learning is great, yet, as student diversity increases and curriculum delivery settings and methods change, faculty still have to prove that we are reaching all students. Neoliberalism demands proof that all students are learning, and behaviorism provides a way to provide that proof. However, the means through which behaviorism provides proof of learning is problematic because it has traditionally neglected deep intrinsic learning with a focus on external indicators of learning motived by extrinsic rewards. As a result, all classrooms may seek to look the same, feel the same, and produce the same type of students—and this fails to acknowledge or address how social inequalities, violation of human rights and gender ­inequalities continue to hinder what students learn, how they learn and how instructors reach these diverse learners. And, so, minoritized students become neglected in the classroom, which replicates and extends the systemic problem of decreased enrollment of underrepresented populations, inaccurate representations of these underrepresented populations by Predominately White

46  J. L. JACKSON Jr. AND P. WHITE

Institutions (PWIs) and faculty, and worsened socioeconomic and race relations between predominately white faculty, predominately white students, and the underrepresented groups. To address social justice and equity in higher education, instructors should actively engage in teaching, learning and application in their curriculum processes and practice.

Moving Beyond Behaviorism To increase inclusion and equity, and to decrease oppression, faculty must be willing to incorporate active-learning and student-centered pedagogy. Learning should be encouraged, facilitated, and guided. Students begin to put more effort into their assignments and spend more time on their assignment which results in higher quality work, that shows critical and strategic thinking and writing, creativity and resourcefulness. As Grubb (2010) suggests “instructors may not teach in the ways they espouse—their teaching is often more teacher-centered than they say they would like—but over time, through trial and error, many instructors move from behaviorist to more balanced instruction” (p. 6). The need to implement inclusive pedagogies such as consciousness, culturally relevant, and indigenous/non-western ways of knowing is ways to move beyond behaviorism while promoting equity and social justice in higher education for faculty and students. Further, when coursework is connected to a students’ backgrounds and interests, their work creates new meaning, which can provide a new perspective and exceeds the assignments and teacher’s expectations. In order to change the classroom climate from low participation to active participants, instructors must be willing to change the way they reach students, be vulnerable, use active-learning strategies, be transparent, and place students at the heart of learning. Once faculty create environments for reflective and interactive learning, they, along with students, will be transformed. Both faculty and students will move toward equity and social justice in higher education which will change the climate of neoliberalism and behaviorism. The introduction of these newer, more inclusive theories of learning is a good first step in combating the neoliberal ideology that now threatens the traditional missions of the academy. Even so, educators must continually question whether these theories will be enough to maintain relevance in a world more increasingly concerned with capitalistic ideals. As such, next, we discuss how an Engaged Pedagogy can serve to increase equity and awareness of social justice to transform the way faculty teaches and how learners learn. Engaged Pedagogy abandons the notion that only instructors are the holders of knowledge and favors students becoming co-contributors of knowledge and active learners (McInerney, 2009). It also considers context and builds meaning in the learning process for faculty and students.

3  BEYOND BEHAVIORISM: ENGAGING STUDENTS IN THE AGE OF NEOLIBERALISM 

47

Engaged Pedagogy As instructors, our teaching goals should help facilitate student learning by encouraging students to analyze, synthesize, and engage with information. hooks (1994) describes how Engaged Pedagogy “calls for students to be active participants and to link awareness with practice” (p. 14). Engaged Pedagogy focuses on well-being, which directly relates to equity and social justice in higher education. When instructors care about their students they create opportunities for all students to interact with their assignments which will yield active and higher participation in class. Caring can be as simple as learning about their students as people and not just as names on a roster. As a result, students and faculty will grow. Adams (2009) adds that understanding of a scholarship of teaching requires “more than knowledge of theories and technical skills, it also requires analysis and reflective critique. Faculty members most adept at scholarship of teaching are the most interested in why students learn, and the impacts of various teaching strategies on the extent of learning” (p. 4). In getting students to move beyond behaviorism and toward Engaged Pedagogy, students in higher education must be taught to become active readers, writers, and learners. McWhorter (2016) writes that students can become active readers when they, tailor their reading strategies to suit each assignment, analyze the purpose of a reading assignment, adjust their reading speed to suit their purposes, questions ideas in the assignment, skim the headings or introductions, and conclusion to find out what an assignment is about before beginning to read, make sure they understand or ask questions if they do not understand what they are reading as they go along, read with pencil in hand, highlighting, jotting notes, and marking key vocabulary, and develop personalized strategies that are particularly effective. (p. 2)

One example of assignments that require active engagement from students, that Jeffery uses, is an assignment that prompts students to write essays about three values that they hold dear. The goal of the assignment is for students to think critically about their esteemed values and to explore and explain the significance those values have in their lives. It also serves as a dual function because it shows them that their instructor cares about them as a whole person. In Jeffery’s experience, this assignment helps students to understand the significance of the assignment and begin to understand the value of critically thinking about what they are writing by exploring and explaining their ideas. They also become comfortable sharing ideas, taking risks, and being vulnerable. In the next section, we describe how Engaged Pedagogy both maximizes learning and supports minoritized learners (Table 3.1).

48  J. L. JACKSON Jr. AND P. WHITE Table 3.1  Comparative lesson plan: Behaviorist vs Engaged pedagogy Behaviorist lesson plan

Engaged pedagogy lesson plan

Outcome: Students will understand how “Making our lives count” is related to following topics: Minimum Wage, Wealth Divide, Same Sex Marriage, Environmental Racism, Sex Education in Alabama Schools, College Admission Scams, Institutional Racism, Teen Sex Trafficking and Victim Politics Activity: Students will recall and retrieve infor- Activity: Students will prepare a group mation based on Loeb’s text and participate in presentation by collaborating with classmates, a class discussion based on the reading to create a presentation that illustrates the connection between Loeb’s text and one of the topics above Assessment Activity: Students will complete Assessment Activity: Students will perform an in-class quiz on the Learning Management multimodal presentations with/without techSystem nology and visual aids to cover course content Assessment of Learning: The quiz is a mulAssessment of Learning: Students will be tiple-choice quiz in which students have seven assessed through a rubric that evaluate learnminutes to answer seven questions. Responses ers’ creativity, accuracy of information, ability will be automatically scored by the Learning to include credible sources, inclusion of visual Management System. Students will receive aids, quality of presentation (bullet points vs. their grade as soon as the quiz is complete sentences) and presenters’ voice level After each group has presented, all students will have an opportunity to discuss their experiences of collaborating with classmates, performing research, preparing the presentation, organizing information and presenting the presentations in class Students will compose original 1-2-page reflection papers that discuss what they learned as a result of performing the in-class group presentations. This can be anything from discussing personal improvements with writing research or presenting information to the class Outcome: Students will understand Loeb’s “Making our lives count” text by reading it outside of class

Practical Application The Behaviorist Lesson Plan is effective in prompting students to learn, retain, and retrieve information. Reading exercises, quizzes, and discussions are valid ways in which to test student mastery. To increase social justice and equity, the Engaged Pedagogy lesson plan implements components of Engaged Pedagogy by incorporating a reflection component. Similarly, the Engaged Pedagogy lesson plan can incorporate behavioral components by first introducing students to topics of social justice on an overview level. Through the lens of Engaged Pedagogy, faculty must actively involve and include every student in every class, even if the form of instruction for the day is lecture. When students do not feel a part of the class, perhaps because faculty do not know their name nor do they create opportunities for them

3  BEYOND BEHAVIORISM: ENGAGING STUDENTS IN THE AGE OF NEOLIBERALISM 

49

to learn from their peers, the result can be isolation in the classroom environment. Inclusion means involving students and encouraging students to use their voices. Without inclusion, social justice and equity will continue to be absent in the classroom. Further, faculty members can encourage equity in the classroom by providing opportunities for students to succeed in class. This can be in the form of individual and group presentations, peer review sessions, and in-class discussions following an assigned reading, in-class activity, or homework assignment. The more often students are given opportunities for success, students become more engaged with learning activities and develop confidence in their ability to learn. This contributes to an environment where students feel they belong as an equal learner, as that environment begins to feel safe. The goal of a safe environment is for students to feel comfortable taking risks, opening themselves up for constructive feedback, and learning from failures and successes. In contrast, in an environment where students are set up to fail, such as in “weed out” courses, students are provided multiple opportunities to fail, restricting confidence that one belongs and is able to learn. Being set up to fail disproportionately impacts minoritized students and women who are told they do not belong; failure increases student likelihood to fail. Through a focus on Engaged Pedagogy through success opportunities, students are engaged because they believe they can be successful. Because of the disproportionate impact on minoritized students, giving students opportunities to succeed is a critical component of an equitable classroom.

Conclusion Behaviorism’s role in the development of early theories of teaching and learning in higher education is significant. Moving away from the subjective self-reporting measures of the nineteenth century, behaviorism charted a path to learning based on objective observations of student response to stimuli in their learning environments. Conditioning, repetition, and rewards-based recognition all became the primary method of conveying information and skills upon students with no exposure to alternative methods of consuming and internalizing knowledge. While behaviorism can be an effective tool in early learning and in subject matters that require memorization and recitation of material, behaviorism fails to encourage deeper engagement in complicated social subjects—the mastery of which is crucial to advancing the causes of an informed citizenry. A contributing factor to the proliferation of behaviorism in the classroom is the introduction and influx of neoliberal ideology into the public discourse around the same time that behaviorism gained prominence as an effective teaching technique. The two constructs complemented and supported each other in ways that ultimately led to an alteration of the way higher education was delivered in the United States without changing the substance of that education.

50  J. L. JACKSON Jr. AND P. WHITE

Instructors and administrators alike should consider modifications to the overall curriculum and the evaluation methods used to assess proficiency. Traditional notions of student success must be challenged to become more inclusive and intentional in creating meaningful outcomes. Instructors cannot do this alone by altering their teaching practices. Changes must also be considered at the macrolevel to make education more valuable and attainable for all. Curriculum must consider diverse voices, and evaluation must be more than just making sure learners can meet restrictive, sometimes arbitrary testing standards. Ultimately, educators must do more than continue the current approach of positive and negative reinforcement if learners are to be led through the shallow waters of neoliberalism into the deeper wellsprings of critical thinking and self-reflection. To extend beyond behaviorism, students must be open to non-conventional ways of teaching and learning. Through the lens of Engaged Pedagogy, this shift includes participating in classes that are not fully lecture-based, retaining information using methods other than memorization and regurgitation and taking the challenge to think and write more critically. Students should be encouraged to think for themselves, use their voices to express their thoughts and share their experiences, and become active participants in class rather than names on a roster. There needs to be a conscious effort for students to come into every class with the thought that each professor is expecting them to show their individuality, even in coursework that is grounded in group work and collaboration. Concurrently, instructors must continually seek out ways to balance the demands of a consumer-driven world with pursuits of student learning and personal development that are rooted in a critical examination of the purposes of higher education. Above all, educators must promote a culture of learning that fosters the engagement of active learners seeking to make meaning in their educational journeys. Using Engaged Pedagogy, instructors can transform the classroom from a sounding board of the neoliberal ideology to an incubator of intellectual freedom. Faculty must come to each class with the intent to engage their students in what they teach and how they teach them. When faculty creates opportunities for all student learners to feel appreciated, respected, heard, and seen, they will create a more equitable higher education space.

References Adams, P. (2009). The role of scholarship of teaching in faculty development: Exploring an inquiry-based model. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1–24. Boghossian, P. (2006). Behaviorism, constructivism, and socratic pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(6), 713–733. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.

3  BEYOND BEHAVIORISM: ENGAGING STUDENTS IN THE AGE OF NEOLIBERALISM 

51

Grubb, W. N. (2010). The quandaries of basic skills in community colleges: Views from the classroom. An NCPR Working Paper—National Center for Postsecondary Research. hooks, bell. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Illeris, K. (2009). Contemporary theories on learning: Learning theorists…in their own words. New York, NY: Routledge. Lattuca, L., & Stark, J. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lawson, M. A., & Lawson, H. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement, research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891. McInerney, P. (2009). Toward a critical pedagogy of engagement for alientated youth: Insights from Freire and school-based research. Critical Studies in Education, 50(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480802526637. McWhorter, K. T. (2016). In concert: Reading & writing. Boston, MA: Pearson. Moore, J. (2013). Three views of behaviorism. The Psychological Record, 63, 681–692. Nilson, L. B. (2016). Teaching at its best. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

CHAPTER 4

Persistent Myths About the Psychology of Education: Implications for Social Justice and Equity Wilson S. Lester, Kamden K. Strunk and Payton D. Hoover

Key Terms and Definitions Educational Tracking: A system or set of policies whereby students are classified into differentiated educational pathways. These pathways usually differentiate between preparation for leadership advanced careers technical professions or service industries. Learning Styles Theory: The idea that students have certain styles in which they best learn such as auditory visual and kinesthetic. Typically this theory also suggests matching learning styles with instructional activities of that type. This theory is unsupported by research evidence. Personality Types: Personality refers to traits usually theorized to be relatively stable that form the core of how one interacts with the world. The most empirically supported theory includes traits of openness extraversion agreeableness conscientiousness and neuroticism or emotional instability. While research supports some personality models the notion of ‘types’ of personalities is not supported. W. S. Lester · K. K. Strunk (*) · P. D. Hoover  Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA e-mail: [email protected] W. S. Lester e-mail: [email protected] P. D. Hoover e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_4

53

54  W. S. LESTER ET AL.

Educators commonly have beliefs about psychological research and theory concerning teaching and learning; the most widespread of these beliefs are often rooted in myths about the psychology of education. The field of educational psychology has engaged in decades of research on psychological processes in education and has a robust body of evidence. Unfortunately, many educators believe widespread psychological myths about education without ever discovering the state of scholarship in those areas. As we will demonstrate in this chapter, those beliefs often have negative consequences for marginalized and minoritized students. In this chapter, we will describe several common myths about the psychology of education—learning styles, personality typologies, brain-based learning, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. For each myth, we will explain what the myth is and what educators are often told to do in response to that myth (What is the myth?). We will then review what the available evidence suggests about that myth and the scholarship on what works to promote learning (What is the evidence and what actually works?). Finally, we will describe the implications for social justice and equity in education.

Learning Styles What is the Myth? Educators are often taught that students have particular ‘learning styles’ wherein they learn best through certain modalities. While there are several different theories associated with learning styles, they commonly include visual (seeing), auditory (hearing), reading, and kinesthetic (doing or touching) learning modalities. Though the specific learning styles take different forms, they all emphasize that different students learn better through different modalities (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2009; Willingham, Hughes, & Dobolyi, 2015). It has often been suggested that when an instructor’s style of teaching matches that of the student’s learning style, the student should experience better performances in their academic coursework; this concept is often referred to as the matching hypothesis (Rogowsky, Calhoun, & Tallal, 2015). Because of a belief in this matching hypothesis, many instructors seek to know their students’ learning styles. As a result, an industry has arisen selling various learning styles assessments (Pashler et al., 2009). Those assessments represent a large investment of time and financial resources on the part of institutions that buy into the learning styles matching hypothesis. Based on these assessments, educators are meant to differentiate their instruction based on students’ learning styles, creating individual and separate lesson plans tailored to all of the students’ personal learning styles. In actuality, educators develop multimodal (not differentiated) instruction that presents similar material through multiple means, creating holistic, all-encompassing lesson plans involving all learning modalities (An & Carr, 2017; Pashler et al., 2009). Researchers have documented the influence of

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

55

this myth (Pashler et al., 2009; Rogowsky et al., 2015)—many educators and students firmly believe the best instruction matches teaching modality to learning styles. While the concept of learning styles holds good intentions, this myth may have negative consequences for students, specifically marginalized students (Moore, 2005; Solorzano, 1997).

What Is the Evidence and What Actually Works? The learning styles myth is perhaps the most widely believed in the psychology of teaching and learning, despite decades of high-quality evidence from educational psychologists refuting learning styles theory and the matching hypothesis. A widely held corollary to this belief is an assertion that learning styles are genetic or intrinsic to students, not a result of environmental, social, or historical events (Nancekivell, Shah, & Gelman, 2019). There is a robust body of evidence that instructors and students alike believe and attempt to align their practice to learning styles theory and the matching hypothesis. This belief is maintained because these instructors believe that matching instruction style to a student’s learning style will help the student achieve optimum performance (Nancekivell et al., 2019; Pashler et al., 2009; Willingham et al., 2015). Despite this widespread belief, the evidence for learning styles theory is clear: The theory does not hold up to rigorous examination and there is no meaningful evidence to support the matching hypothesis (Pashler et al., 2009). The matching hypothesis has been subject to a sustained examination, wherein the hypothesis proposes that learning will be enhanced by ‘matching’ the instructional style to a student’s learning style (Nancekivell et al., 2019; Pashler et al., 2009; Willingham et al., 2015). While a number of educators hold this belief, the available evidence suggests this is not true. To the contrary, scholars have documented the benefits of teaching in ways that differ from students preferred modalities (or ‘learning styles’) in both learning and performance (Pashler et al., 2009; Rogowsky et al., 2015; Willingham et al., 2015). Scholars have found that when students are asked to perform academic tasks or engage in academic activities that are not aligned with their preferences, this can generate additional intellectual growth, and this is associated with higher enjoyment of the learning experience (Montgomery, Strunk, Steele, & Bridges, 2012). This is further supported when one considers the different learning styles needed when comparing academic subjects. In short, no evidence supports the matching hypothesis or suggests that there is benefit in assessing learning styles. Pashler et al. (2009) have acknowledged in a thorough literature review that there are studies with evidence supporting the existence of these learning styles; however, the literature review also revealed that the results of these studies were not stable or consistent across time. Despite this, these types of assessments are still widely purchased and used as a means of aiding instructional design (Willingham et al., 2015). Scholars have acknowledged that the available

56  W. S. LESTER ET AL.

measures have extremely poor psychometric evidence (An & Carr, 2017; Pashler et al., 2009; Rogowsky et al., 2015). These assessments lack internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, structural validity, predictive validity, criterion validity, and discriminant validity. In other words, the available learning styles assessments are internally inconsistent, produce unstable scores, have questionable structure, and their scores do not have utility for understanding or predicting learning. This may indicate that learning styles do not exist or that they have not yet been adequately measured. Nevertheless, educators continue using learning styles inventories to classify and track students (Pashler et al., 2009; Rogowsky et al., 2015). These assessments, then, serve as a way of reducing students to a ‘type’ and interacting with those students based on their ‘type.’ Another issue with classifying students based on learning styles is that labeling students can actually produce the behaviors the label seeks to describe (Willingham et al., 2015). For example, calling a student a visual learner can influence that student to become more visually focused in their learning, even though no stable ‘visual learner’ type exists. Once students believe they are a particular ‘type’ of learner, their willingness and ability to learn in other ways decreases (Nancekivell et al., 2019). While it may be far easier for a teacher to categorize the students in this manner, it inhibits the opportunity for students to explore further or even embrace different learning methods that may benefit them. There are also some equity concerns regarding this type of labeling. Moore (2005) found that students of color are typically identified as being kinesthetic learners, while white students are typically associated with being more visual or auditory learners. This is problematic because once the student has been labeled, it can alter their overall educational path. These labels have serious ramifications for students, especially in programs that ‘track’ students into particular pathways (Moore). For example, labeling a student of color as kinesthetic can also result in tracking them into vocational or trades programs and away from college preparation programs at the K-12 level. College advisors and instructors may also encourage students perceived as more ‘physical’ (a well-documented racist stereotype about people of color, especially men of color) to pursue less intellectually rigorous courses and majors. Ironically, educators who believe in learning styles often employ holistic or multimodal teaching practices. Although recent evidence suggests that educators who believe more strongly in learning styles have worse student outcomes, on average (Nancekivell et al., 2019), there is some evidence that multimodal or holistic education benefits all students (An & Carr, 2017; Moore, 2005; Pashler et al., 2009; Willingham et al., 2015). In other words, presenting the same information in multiple ways actually does improve student learning; this would greatly impact marginalized students as it would prevent students of color of being mislabeled and avoid adhering to any racial stereotypes (Moore, 2005; Solorzano, 1997). The effect of multimodal teaching is beyond that of repetition. Although repeated

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

57

instruction does improve learning, the evidence demonstrates that learning is further enhanced when multiple different ways of teaching the same material are used. In short, matching instruction modality to perceived or measured ‘learning styles’ offers no benefit and actually appears to harm student learning—presenting all students with multiple different ways of learning the same material substantially enhances student learning. Implications for Equity and Justice Belief in and action based on the learning styles myth can be detrimental to students and their learning, and there are also serious implications for equity and justice for this myth. When students are categorized into ‘learning styles,’ students of color are much more likely to be categorized as physical or kinesthetic learners, with white students more likely to be categorized as visual or auditory learners (Moore, 2005). Because learning styles myths encourage educators to ‘label’ students, they play into preexisting racist stereotypes and racialized expectations about education (Solorzano, 1997). This, therefore, leads to multiple consequences, including that students may be ‘tracked’ into pathways that impact their educational futures based on faulty theory and measurements. In other words, not only is there no substantive evidence for learning styles theory or the matching hypothesis, but belief in learning styles is linked with an exacerbation of racist stereotyping and tracking. In short— there is no benefit to or evidence for learning styles theory or the matching hypothesis, and the mobilization of this myth harms students and disproportionately harms marginalized students.

Student and Personality Typologies What is the Myth? Educators are often taught about student typologies and personality typologies to help them better understand students and their needs. Examples of these kinds of typologies include the Myers-Briggs Typology Indicator (MBTI) and the StrengthsQuest set of tools, though there are many other less popular tools. These tools are all personality assessments in the sense that they seek to reduce to a ‘type’ students’ strengths or abilities or predispositions. These tools are also a major business venture, worth millions of dollars each year (Cunningham, 2014, December 14). In addition to the fees for each test administration, institutions or individual instructors also pay fees to become certified in administering or interpreting the tests. These tools have an intuitive appeal to educators and students by making the vast array of individual learning differences legible in a handful of types or profiles. These typologies are often used in multiple ways. Students might be encouraged to think about their type/profile as having implications for which majors they should pursue, what careers would be best suited for them, what

58  W. S. LESTER ET AL.

kinds of courses and learning experiences they might benefit from most, and what their type means for their leadership ability or potential. In some uses of these types, there is an overlap with learning styles. Some personality typology tools or curricula built from those tools will also suggest specific learning activities or styles that are most useful for that type. Instructors, likewise, are encouraged to consider student types or strengths when they design course curricula and assessments. In at least one case, a college used MBTI to place students with roommates of a compatible MBTI type (Wong, 2019, August 26). MBTI types, StrengthsFinder signature strengths profiles, and other typologies are used widely in colleges for purposes including instructional design, assessment, determining job placements, evaluating leadership capabilities, and throughout housing and residence life. What is the Evidence? There is little empirical evidence to support the use of any personality typologies in these ways. In particular, the MBTI shows a lack of stability across time and a lack of internal consistency reliability. The MBTI also shows a lack of predictive validity, meaning that MBTI types are not well-correlated with student outcomes or task performance. There is a scholarly consensus among most psychologists who study personality that the MBTI is invalid (Pittenger, 1993). Even among those who support the underlying Jungian typology that the MBTI is meant to measure, there is a lack of support for the use of MBTI types (Stein & Swan, 2019). For other typology measures, there is more mixed evidence. One of the most widely used is the Clifton StrengthsFinder, published by Gallup. That tool is the subject of sharp debate around its psychometric properties. In part because of the way the StrengthsFinder is scored, resulting in a top-five signature strengths list rather than scaled scores, there is limited evidence available other than what is provided by Gallup. Still, researchers have documented instability in the signature five strengths and pointed to other psychometric problems with the instrument (Louis, 2011). Others point to the problems inherent in using a typology indicator for educational and employment purposes, as opposed to simple self-exploration (Tapia-Fuselier & Irwin, 2019). What Actually Works? Like most psychological myths about education, there is something to the basic idea. Students are diverse in their personalities, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses. However, that human diversity is not well-aligned with these simplified typologies. The evidence suggests that when educators ‘type’ students, those students are more likely to exhibit type-typical behaviors. In other words, labeling students with types can create a self-fulfilling prophecy where students become the type they have been labeled. Instead of ‘typing’ students, a more effective approach would be to recognize the uniqueness

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

59

and diversity of students and to design learning environments that are inclusive and learning activities that are expansive. One key issue in all of these typologies, and some other psychological myths, is that students should identify their strengths/abilities/propensities, and then instructors should play to those strengths. In other words, these approaches suggest that educators should give students many opportunities to do those things they do best. There is some truth to this idea— providing students with opportunities to excel and show their strongest abilities can enhance student motivation and engagement. However, there is also ample evidence that when education takes a ‘play to your strengths’ approach, student learning can suffer. It appears that students need both opportunities to showcase and develop their strengths, but also to improve and strengthen their areas of weakness. One clear path toward providing both kinds of opportunities is in creating curricula and assignments that engage a wide range of abilities and task types. Doing so ensures that students, regardless of their propensities, strengths, or abilities at the beginning of a course, has the opportunity to do tasks that will show their strengths and build on their weaknesses. This approach is sometimes called holistic pedagogy or multimodal pedagogy and has strong evidence for efficacy in the published research. Implications for Equity and Justice One of the reasons that ‘typing’ students is so dangerous is that it plays to the natural human impulse toward stereotyping. When an educator believes they know a whole constellation of things about a student based on a type indicator or strengths profile, that educator is stereotyping the student. The educator is lumping students together into groups to reduce the cognitive effort required to learn about those students as individuals. The appeal of this is clear—educators might see hundreds of students in class in a given term, and these approaches make it feel easier to know something about those students. In other words, these typology approaches reduce students to labeled categories to render their diverse and unique humanity more legible for educators. However, the impact of those stereotypes can be massive. Researchers have demonstrated that when educators are given stereotype information on a student, they behave in ways that reinforce and reproduce those stereotypes. For example, educators who are told a student has special talent tend to give that student more attention and feedback, resulting in that student performing better. This results in the educator creating the outcome they expected based on stereotypes. It is important to point out that differential behavior toward students based on stereotypical beliefs is discrimination. Importantly, these stereotypes and resultant discrimination are not distributed evenly across intersections of racial, sexual, gender, and class identities. Researchers have documented the cultural biases in testing and have particularly pointed to the biased nature of typology indicators. Worth noting is that

60  W. S. LESTER ET AL.

the history of psychometric and psychological testing is replete with those test scores being used to sort and track people. Further, sorting and tracking have historically reproduced systems of white supremacy, racism, cisheteropatriarchy, heterosexism, misogyny, and transmisogyny. In short, the students these typology schemes tend to hurt are the students already marginalized and underserved in educational systems. The tests also reinforce the existing implicit biases that educators hold as a result of living in a white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal culture, exacerbating the harms experienced by marginalized students.

Myths About Brain-Based Learning What is the Myth? There are several widely held beliefs about the brain in education, most of which deal with physiological differences or limitations. One such belief is that some people are ‘right-brained’ and others who are ‘left-brained’ (Dekker, Lee, Howard-Jones, & Jolles, 2012). As with many of the previous myths, the right/left brain myth creates a tidy classification for students as one of two ‘types.’ The common belief is that right-brained people are more analytical and left-brained people are more creative. Another common brain myth about education is that there is a set physiological limit on ‘attention span,’ usually said to be ten minutes (Wilson & Korn, 2007). This myth holds that after ten minutes (or some other set period) elapses, it is physically impossible for students to attend to information or to learn. This myth claims that the human brain is set or static, with hard limits on what it can do. Similarly, another commonly held belief about the brain is that brain development becomes set at a certain age (in some versions, that age is quite early; in others, it is in early adulthood). After that point, no further brain development is believed to be possible, which places limits on the education of some age groups. A final brain myth we will explore is the idea that there are biological differences based on sex as assigned at birth in brain structure, size, and function (Kaczkurkin, Raznahan, & Satterthwaite, 2019). Researchers have documented the widespread belief in these myths about the human brain among educators, and several of these myths are also part of some professional development or curriculum programs (Dekker et al., 2012; Geake, 2008; Swami, Stieger, Pietschnig, Nader, & Voracek, 2012). What is the Evidence? There is much known about the role of the brain in the fields of educational neuroscience and educational psychology, and little of this research supports any of these myths resulting in negative ramifications for students when educators believe these false ideas about the brain. For example, researchers have repeatedly debunked the notion of right-brained versus left-brained people.

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

61

According to Geake (2008), early work in neuroscience that led to these beliefs was based on split-brain patients who had only one hemisphere of their brain following injury or surgery. However, those patterns do not hold in non-clinical populations, leading to misunderstandings. The vast majority of learning or performance tasks involve activation of both brain hemispheres in healthy individuals (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009). Some individuals are predisposed to more analytical or creative tasks, but those tendencies do not arise from differences in brain usage, structure, or function, and are more likely learned preferences. There are also no differences in the size, structure, or function of the brain between people assigned male at birth versus those assigned female at birth. Further, there is no evidence of gender differences of any kind in brain structure, size, or function. While numerous studies have attempted sex or gender comparisons of the brain, a meta-analytic review by Sommer et al. (2008) found no significant differences of any kind. A few studies have observed gender differences between men and women, but those differences were not related to learning ability and were likely due to environmental factors in socialization rather than biological differences (Kaczkurkin et al., 2019). This myth is most commonly used to justify disparities in women’s degree attainment in masculinized fields. However, researchers have consistently demonstrated that there is no gender difference in ability in those fields, but there are differences in the climate and social context around those fields (Watt, Eccles, & Durick, 2006). That is, women attain degrees in masculinized fields at a lower rate because those disciplines can be cold and unwelcoming for people other than cisgender men, not because they lack ability. Similarly, there is no evidence for a biological limit on attention span (Bradbury, 2016; Wilson & Korn, 2007). Rather, individual students do have varying levels of attentional capacity (Wilson & Korn, 2007), though those would not be meaningfully measured in minutes. Moreover, students are capable of increasing their attentional capacity (Napoli, Krech, & Holley, 2008; Vanhelst et al., 2016). Researchers have suggested increasing this capacity should be one goal of higher education. That said, there is evidence that students learn better when class periods are broken up into different activities (Whetten, 2007). Most commonly, this myth is repeated with the intention of dissuading educators from engaging in long lectures. Active learning spaces do have some positive evidence in comparison with passive learning (Chiu & Cheng, 2017; Whetten, 2007). However, the notion that students cannot physically attend to a task or lecture past a set point is unfounded. While there are differences in individual attention spans, these are not attributed to biological factors. Contrarily, attention span is often learned based on an individual’s environment. People tend to habituate to shorter attention spans, but there is no set biological limit on attention for adults, and they can usually learn to be more attentive for longer periods or pay

62  W. S. LESTER ET AL.

attention more intensely in certain settings, though there are attention deficit disorders that can affect or limit one’s attention span. A final component of this myth is about an endpoint to brain development, after which further changes or learning become more difficult or even impossible. Although this myth is less common than the others presented in this section (Gleichgerrcht, Luttges, Salvarezza, & Campos, 2015), it promotes a static view of a student’s intellectual and cognitive development. While there is evidence that the brain is still developing into at least early adulthood, especially in the frontal and prefrontal cortex (Lebel & Beaulieu, 2011), this does not suggest that future change is impossible or unlikely. The arc of brain development is important for educators to understand. The parts of the brain still developing in early adulthood (a period of development in which many college students fall) are related to understanding consequences, behavioral inhibition, and decision-making. Thus, riskier behavior, poorer impulse control, and failure to contemplate the consequences of one’s actions are more common in this age group. However, students of all ages are capable of learning new things in new ways and even forming new neural pathways in the brain (Knowland & Thomas, 2014; Lebel & Beaulieu, 2011; Willis, 2007). What Actually Works? While these myths have consistently lacked evidence, some aspects hold. While there is evidence supporting that the attention span myth is false, there are still individuals who have lower attentional capacity and will need modifications or accommodations based on that difference. To the extent that US students may have more limited attentional capacity than other groups, the difference is mostly learned, not biological. However, there is a bit of truth in the implications of this myth: educators might see student learning improve if they provide a variety of activities and tasks during a class period (Chiu & Cheng, 2017; Whetten, 2007). It is also true that, given a long period of the same kind of stimuli (say, a monotone lecture in a warm lecture hall), activation of the nervous system does lower, which can lead to the phenomena of students ‘zoning out’ or falling asleep. So, there is a real benefit to breaking up a class period and limiting how long a single activity (particularly if the activity is monotonous and unstimulating) goes on. A hard limit of ten minutes is not supported in the literature, but many students will find it hard to concentrate if an instructor reads from notes for a full hour. As we suggested earlier in this chapter, there are major educational advantages to multimodal and holistic education. Asking students to be creative and analytic is a strong practice. However, classifying students as either analytic or creative is harmful and can lead students to adhere more closely to the stereotype and inhibit their development in other areas. Educators should notice and work to improve differences in the social context of a classroom or degree program based on gender. However, they should recognize that those differences are not biological or intrinsic to women, nonbinary, or trans

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

63

students. Instead, they represent the culture of a program or class, and interventions to improve those conditions should be at the level of the program or class, not the individual or the marginalized group. Implications for Equity and Justice Many of the ideas about brain-based differences in learning have their roots in the eugenics movement. Eugenics thinking has seen a resurgence in recent years (Zigerell, 2019), promoting the belief that there are people who are genetically and biologically superior. With these myths, the suggestion is that some people are biologically better able to learn or genetically destined for certain kinds of tasks. Similar thinking pervaded early psychology and sociology (Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008). Eugenicists sought to identify these biological and genetically superior people and ensure they reproduced while discouraging (or forcibly sterilizing) ‘worse’ biological and genetic p ­ eople. This movement has, in the past, led to atrocities including mass genocide. The logic and idea of eugenics are at the heart of the push for adopting these brain-based myths. The differences educators observe between groups of students are not solely biological, genetic, or based on the size and shape of their brains; they are contextually determined and are entirely social outcomes. For example, some researchers have found that certain kinds of brain functions can be diminished by exposure to trauma, poverty, stigma, and environmental hazards (Carrion & Wong, 2012; Derks, Inzlicht, & Kang, 2008; Lende, 2012; Rauh & Margolis, 2016). However, those socially driven processes can be overcome with improvements to the social condition. In other words, women attain STEM degrees at lower rates due to social factors in STEM education, not due to biological differences. Students of color tend to achieve in schools at lower rates because of systemic racism, trauma, stigmatization, denial of access to resources, and unequal schooling, not because of any biological differences. Believing in brain-based differences can lead educators to refuse responsibility for the disparities that exist in their classrooms and programs. Educators should instead seek to understand how sociohistorical, sociopolitical, and sociocultural factors create those disparities and how they can interrupt those patterns in their teaching and programming.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation What is the Myth? The final myth we review in this chapter is a belief in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. There are two competing myths in this space, with many educators believing one or the other. Many educators believe either: (a) extrinsic motivation is the best tool for improving learning and classroom management or (b) intrinsic motivation is the only kind of motivation students should have

64  W. S. LESTER ET AL.

toward their work (Brophy, 2010; Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001; Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Both ideas are problematic and do not adequately reflect the state of the evidence on motivation and learning. These two beliefs can negatively impact a student’s learning, especially among the marginalized student population (Hughes, Gleason, & Zhang, 2005; Phillips & Lindsay, 2006; Robinson & Espelage, 2011). Intrinsic motivation refers to the individual being motivated to engage in a task because they enjoy it or derive pleasure from the task, while extrinsic motivation refers to the individual being motivated to engage in a task because of some external reward or the threat of an external punishment (Brophy, 2010; Cameron et al., 2001; Schunk et al., 2008). The first myth about motivation is that extrinsic motivators (e.g., verbal praise, rewards, getting high grades, or the threat of punishments like low grades, probation, or the removal of financial aid) are ideal mechanisms for motivating students to learn (Brophy, 2010; Cameron et al., 2001; Schunk et al., 2008). Educators who believe this often use tools like reward charts, point systems, extra credit, quiz-style study games, and other reward systems. It is important to notice that some of these extrinsic motivators are built into the education system, at least partially beyond the control of individual educators. Those include things like grades, financial aid, honors, and probation threats. This second myth holds that no extrinsic motivators should ever be introduced, as students should develop exclusively intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivators might harm the development of intrinsic motivation (Brophy, 2010; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Schunk et al., 2008). Educators and researchers have opposed the use of extrinsic rewards as they view it as a form of bribery of trying to get a student to complete a task for the sake of it, rather than having actual intrinsic value in completing the task. Some educators have actually utilized this type of instruction with marginalized students because of deeming these students as low achieving as well as genderized and racialized beliefs (Davis & Martin, 2008; Hughes et al., 2005; Robinson & Espelage, 2011; Wang & Degol, 2014). This has long-term consequences for this student population as it can lower their intrinsic motivation and affect their educational path and tracking in a K-12 setting. Some have also compared the use of extrinsic rewards to ‘training’ rather than ‘education’ because it is similar to the process of training behavior in animals (Ryan & Deci, 2000). What is the Evidence and What Actually Works? The research supports the use of extrinsic motivators in some cases, and they appear to be especially useful when the goal is behavioral control (Brophy, 2010). For encouraging long-term learning, the evidence is more mixed. One key seems to be the nature of the reward. Rewards that are unrelated to the learning task are less effective in encouraging life-long learning than are rewards related to the task. For example, in a comparison of two reading

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

65

programs, one where reading resulted in a reward of free pizza, and the other where reading resulted in a reward of free books, students who were rewarded with books maintained reading behaviors at a much higher rate after the end of the program (Brophy, 2010). There are also therapeutic uses of reward systems, such as Applied Behavior Analysis for the treatment of Autism Spectrum (Foran et al., 2015). However, the primary function of extrinsic rewards in learning is to instill learned behaviors (or to gain behavioral control). This is distinct from learning or mastery of a subject area. Students can learn based on a set of rewarded behaviors, but those learning gains are likely to be more temporary. Moreover, the introduction of extrinsic rewards has been associated with reductions in intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 2001; Schunk et al., 2008). In those cases, after the reward is no longer present, the behavior quickly slows or stops, and intrinsic motivation may not rebound. This emphasis of extrinsic rewards has been observed to be highly utilized for students who are considered to be low achieving, which has unfortunately been more associated with students of color, low-income, and LGBT students (Hughes et al., 2005; Phillips & Lindsay, 2006; Robinson & Espelage, 2011). That said, most educators will automatically recognize the problem with relying on exclusive intrinsic motivation. Namely, how can educators encourage students to learn things they do not find intrinsically rewarding? One approach that has been suggested is to initially ‘bait’ students to engage in a learning task with extrinsic rewards, then quickly withdraw those once the students find ways to gain joy or fulfillment from those tasks (Wery & Thomson, 2013). Perhaps the better answer from the educational psychology literature is that motivation is not a simple intrinsic/extrinsic binary (Seifert, 2004). There are many facets to student motivation. For example, in ­expectancy-value theory, students motivation is driven both by their belief that they can succeed (expectancy for success) and the extent to which they find that success valuable (subjective task value), in addition to the cost (physical, emotional, or time) of participating in the activity (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). There are multiple forms of subjective task value, one of which is intrinsic value. However, students may also find tasks valuable because they will help them reach another goal (attainment value) or because they believe they will use what they are learning in other situations (utility value). Researchers have found that actively seeking to highlight the value of certain tasks or courses is associated with increases in a student’s subjective task value (Wang & Degol, 2014). Motivation researchers have asked questions about how to motivate students to learn for decades. There is no simple answer, unfortunately. However, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations have a role to play in student motivation to learn. Intrinsic motivation primarily adheres to the students valuing learning while extrinsic motivation can play on external rewards to get students to learn; however, a combination of the two (such as the bait and hook strategy) can lead to a student developing a sense of value in the

66  W. S. LESTER ET AL.

material that they are learning (Brophy, 2010; Schunk et al., 2008; Wery & Thompson, 2013). They are not the only factors educators should consider, either. Factors like autonomy and relatedness are key features of motivation in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Researchers have found that autonomy support, where educators support a student’s sense that they control their own learning, is associated with improved learning and motivation (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). Teachers that support a student’s autonomy can enable the student to not only form the perception that they have a voice in the classroom, but this level of autonomy allows the student to experience a richer engagement with the learning material. Other theories like ­expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) emphasize the importance of student beliefs that they can succeed and their sense of the value of that success. Educators can support the expectancy for success by providing scaffolding and formative feedback, and they can support subjective task value by directly talking with students about the ways that content is valuable (beyond ‘it is on the test’). Implications for Equity and Justice Like previous myths we have presented, myths about motivation tend to fall along racial, class, gender, and ability lines. Students perceived as low achieving are far more likely to be identified for extrinsic reward systems, which may lower their existing intrinsic motivation to learn (Brophy, 2010). Moreover, when educators identify a student as potentially ‘gifted’ or h ­ igh-achieving, educators tend to utilize practices that encourage intrinsic motivation (Phillips & Lindsay, 2006). The result is a set of educational practices that can confirm an educator’s preexisting beliefs about a student’s ability to learn. Of course, researchers have also documented that an educator’s beliefs about the ability to learn are heavily racialized and gendered (Davis & Martin, 2008; Wang & Degol, 2014). Educators tend to label students of color, ­low-income students, and queer students as ‘at risk’ or low achieving (Hughes et al., 2005; Robinson & Espelage, 2011), thus tracking them for practices that might reduce their existing fulfillment or joy from learning.

Conclusion A common thread in many of these myths is the impulse to quickly and neatly categorize students. Based on those categories, educators can shift students to different tracks, employ different educational or pedagogical techniques, or identify areas where they believe some students simply cannot achieve. The long history of classification systems for students shows that these categories consistently disadvantage marginalized students, including students of color, women, and queer students. The appeal is clear, though. Give a quick assessment, quickly separate students into a few groups, and the educator can know

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

67

exactly what to do for each student. They all have the appeal of simplifying pedagogy. Nevertheless, in so doing, they reify existing racialized, sexualized, and gendered stereotypes. This entire volume is devoted to evidence-based practices for teaching and learning in higher education. The reality is that there are no simple or quick fixes to helping every student achieve their full potential. That takes individual attention, careful pedagogical and curricular design, and attention to the emerging evidence. Educational psychology, as a field, has much to offer in evidence-based teaching and learning. However, reducing it to myths and stereotypes, as the myths in this chapter do, results in far more harm than good.

Appendix Artifact: Sample assignment This sample assignment could be assigned in any course about teaching and learning, higher education, or psychology as an opportunity for students to explore their own beliefs about the psychology of teaching and learning. Writing Assignment: 1. Identify a belief that you hold, or have been taught, about teaching and learning that relates to psychology, the brain, or the mind. Describe that belief in some detail, including: a. What is the belief? b. What is it that educators are supposed to do based on this belief? c. Why are those practices supposed to work? 2. Using the library database (especially PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES), identify at least five recent (past ten years) published articles about this belief or the practices it inspires. Note that these should be empirical (which means they include some form of research evidence) articles. For each: a. Provide the citation for the article (in appropriate writing style for the class) b. Summarize the major arguments and findings c. Explain whether this article supports the belief/practices, does not support, or offers a mixed evaluation. 3. Finally, synthesize the available evidence, including: a. Overall, does the available evidence support, not support, or offer a mixed evaluation of the belief/practices you described? b.  How might you incorporate evidence from psychological research into pedagogical practices? c.  How could you reimagine or reconfigure the practices you have learned or come to believe into create equitable learning environments?

68  W. S. LESTER ET AL.

References An, D., & Carr, M. (2017). Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achievement: Recommendations for alternative approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2017.04.050. Bradbury, N. A. (2016). Attention span during lectures: 8 seconds, 10 minutes, or more? Advances in Physiology Education, 40, 509–513. https://doi.org/10.1152/ advan.00109.2016. Brophy, J. (2010). Motivating students to learn (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis. Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst, 24(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392017. Carrion, V. G., & Wong, S. S. (2012). Can traumatic stress alter the brain? Understanding the implications of early trauma on brain development and learning. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(2), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2012.04.010. Chiu, P. H., & Cheng, S. H. (2017). Effects of active learning classrooms on student learning: A two-year empirical investigation on student perceptions and academic performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 269–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016/1196475. Cunningham, L. (2014, December 14). Myers-Briggs: Does it pay to know your type? Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ on-leadership/myers-briggs-does-it-pay-to-know-your-type/2012/12/14/eaed51ae-3fcc-11e2-bca3-aadc9b7e29c5_story.html. Davis, J., & Martin, D. B. (2008). Racism, assessment, and instructional practices: Implications for mathematics teachers of African American students. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 1(1), 10–34. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071001001. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 182– 185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801. Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 18(3), 429. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429/. Derks, B., Inzlicht, M., & Kang, S. (2008). The neuroscience of stigma and stereotype threat. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(2), 163–181. https://doi. org/10.1177/1368430207088036. Foran, D., Hoerger, M., Philpott, H., Jones, E. W., Hughes, C., & Morgan, J. (2015). Using applied behavior analysis as standard practice in a UK special needs school. British Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 35–52. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8578.12088. Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in education. Educational Research, 50(2), 123– 133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880802082518/.

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

69

Gleichgerrcht, E., Luttges, B. L., Salvarezza, F., & Campos, A. L. (2015). Educational neuromyths among teachers in Latin America. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12086. Hughes, J. N., Gleason, K. A., & Zhang, D. (2005). Relationship influences on teachers’ perceptions of academic competence in academically at-risk minority and majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychology, 43(4), 303–320. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.07.001. Kaczkurkin, A. N., Raznahan, A., & Satterthwaite, T. D. (2019). Sex differences in the developing brain: Insights from multimodal neuroimaging. Neuropsychopharmacology, 44, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-0180111-z. Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9095-2. Knowland, V. C. P., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2014). Educating the adult brain: How the neuroscience of learning can inform educational policy. International Review of Education, 60(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-014-9412-6. Lebel, C., & Beaulieu, C. (2011). Longitudinal development of human brain wiring continues from childhood into adulthood. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(30), 10937–10947. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5302-10.2011. Lende, D. H. (2012). Poverty poisons the brain. Annals of Anthropological Practice, 36, 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2153-9588.2012.01099.x. Louis, M. C. (2011). Strengths interventions in higher education: The effect of identification versus development approaches on implicit self-theory. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(3), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.5703666. Montgomery, D., Strunk, K., Steele, M., & Bridges, S. (2012). Jungian typology as holistic teaching strategy in higher education. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 25(4), 63–72. Moore, J. L. (2005). Underachievement among gifted students of color: Implications for educators. Theory into Practice, 44(2), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip4402_11. Nancekivell, S. E., Shah, P., & Gelman, S. A. (2019). Maybe they’re born with it, or maybe it’s experience: Toward a deeper understanding of the learning style myth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1–14 (Online first publication). https://doi. org/10.1037/edu0000366. Napoli, M., Krech, P. R., & Holley, L. C. (2008). Mindfulness training for elementary school students. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 21(1), 99–125. https://doi. org/10.1300/J370v21n01_05. Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi. org/10.1177/1477878509104318. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x. Phillips, N., & Lindsay, G. (2006). Motivation in gifted students. High Ability Studies, 17(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600947119.

70  W. S. LESTER ET AL. Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 00346543063004467. Rauh, V. A., & Margolis, A. E. (2016). Research review: Environmental exposures, neurodevelopment, and child mental health-new paradigms for the study of brain and behavioral effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(7), 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12537. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Education, 28(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f. Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequities in educational and psychological outcomes between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational Researcher, 40, 315–330. https://doi.org/10.3102/00131 89X11422112. Rogowsky, B. A., Calhoun, B. M., & Tallal, P. (2015). Matching learning style to instructional method: Effects on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037478. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020. Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education theory, research, and applications. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Seifert, T. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000222421. Solorzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 5–19. Sommer, I. E., Aleman, A., Somer, M., Boks, M. P., & Kahn, R. S. (2008). Sex differences in handedness, asymmetry of the planum temporale and functional language lateralization. Brain Research, 1206(24), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. brainres.2008.01.003. Stein, R., & Swan, A. B. (2019). Evaluating the validity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator theory: A teaching tool and window into intuitive psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ spc3.12434/. Swami, V., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., Nader, I. W., & Voracek, M. (2012). Using more than 10% of our brains: Examining belief in science-related myths from an individual differences perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 404–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.005/. Tapia-Fuselier, N., & Irwin, L. (2019). Strengths so white: Interrogating StrengthsQuest education through a critical whiteness lens. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 5(1), 4. Vanhelst, J., Béghin, L., Duhamel, A., Manios, Y., Molnar, D., De Henauw, S., … & Gottrand, F. (2016). Physical activity is associated with attention capacity in adolescents. The Journal of Pediatrics, 168, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jpeds.2015.09.029. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. (2014). Motivational pathways to stem career choices: Using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in stem fields. Developmental Review, 33(4), 304–340. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.dr.2013.08.001.

4  PERSISTENT MYTHS ABOUT THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EDUCATION … 

71

Watt, H. M. G., Eccles, J. S., & Durick, A. M. (2006). The leaky mathematics pipeline for girls: A motivational analysis of high school enrollments in Australia and the USA. Equal Opportunities International, 25(8), 642–659. https://doi. org/10.1108/02610150610719119. Wery, J., & Thomson, M. M. (2013). Motivational strategies to enhance effective learning in teaching struggling students. Support for Learning, 28(3), 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12027. Whetten, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective course design: What i wish i had known about learning-centered teaching 30 years ago. Journal of Management Education, 31(3), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562906298445. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ ceps.1999.1015. Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 266–271. https://doi. org/10.1177/0098628315589505. Willis, J. (2007). Review of research: Brain-based teaching strategies for improving students’ memory, learning, and test-taking success. Childhood Education, 83(5), 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2007.10522940. Wilson, K., & Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: Beyond ten minutes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00986280701291291. Wong, A. (2019, August 26). Colleges would rather freshmen not choose their roommates. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar chive/2019/08/colleges-dont-want-fr eshmenchoosing-their-roommates/596803/. Zigerell, L. J. (2019). Understanding public support for eugenic policies: Results from survey data. The Social Science Journal, 1–5 (Online first publication). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.01.003. Zuberi, T., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (2008). White logic, white methods: Racism and methodology. Layham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers.

Recommended additional reading Gitomer, D. H., & Bell, C. A. (2016). Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Urdan, T. (2011). APA educational psychology handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Educational psychology: A century of contributions. New York, NY: Routledge.

CHAPTER 5

A Framework for Social Justice Education: Combining Content, Process, and Holistic Development Jessica Belue Buckley, Stephen John Quaye, Stephanie H. Chang and Aileen N. Hentz Key Terms and Definitions Social justice education (SJE): Any educational activity designed to foster student understanding of or enactment of social justice principles. Intergroup dialogue (IGD): One example of an SJE experience/course that entails a structured dialogue experience rooted in two often diverse social identity groups (men and women or non-binary students; white people and People of Color; LGBTQ + and heterosexual students) coming together to work toward shared understanding.

J. B. Buckley  University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. J. Quaye  The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA e-mail: [email protected] S. H. Chang  University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. N. Hentz (*)  University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_5

73

74  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL.

Holistic development: Umbrella concept of human development that often entails the intersection of cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal development. Content: Concepts, topics, and/or theories that illuminate or describe a ­concept in a learning experience. Process: Educational steps, experiences, and encounters that contribute to learning.

Facilitation Challenges in Social Justice Education While social justice education (SJE) has many different definitions and practices, it is largely an educational opportunity supporting the goal of “equal participation of all groups in society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs” (Bell, 2013, p. 21). It often draws upon critical theory, multicultural education theories, and feminist theory (Mthethwa- Sommers, 2014) to help people understand the systemic role of privilege and oppression and garner tools to work against multiple forms of oppression. Examples of social justice education abound across disciplines and include broad introductory courses, co-curricular experiences, and advanced courses. Inherent challenges for facilitators of SJE are: (a) incorporating complex content, (b) using pedagogical activities that foster learning across differences, and (c) including diverse students at varying stages of development and openness to certain content (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Perez, Shim, King, & Baxter Magolda, 2015). The tension of balancing content and process may look different across various SJE courses. For example, in intergroup dialogue (IGD), one type of SJE, an emphasis is often placed on individual experience and student-centered facilitation, leaving a situation whereby educators may hesitate to speak up and potentially disrupt the group dialogue (Buckley & Quaye, 2014; Quaye & Johnson, 2016). On the other hand, in advanced courses in social justice, the opposite can be true; educators may focus intently on theoretical constructs at the expense of inter- and intrapersonal dialogic and reflective opportunities. Simultaneously, variations in a student’s holistic development can influence the kinds of pedagogy most beneficial for learning about privilege, power, and oppression (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000; Perez et al., 2015). Thus, a facilitation challenge exists of appropriately pairing course elements of content and process (Schoem, 2003) alongside learner development. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to develop a theoretical framework for learning environments in SJE that result from the intersections of content, process, and student holistic development. Existing models featuring content and process rest primarily in the secondary education literature, with a focus on how to ensure differentiation of instruction (Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). Frameworks applying learning to holistic development center the concept of intercultural maturity (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005; Perez et al., 2015)

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

75

and the cognitive work required in multicultural education (Ortiz & Rhoads, 2000). Bringing together aspects of these models, we seek to outline the ways in which the joining of different levels of content, process, and each student’s holistic development result in different learning environments in SJE. Before describing the framework in detail, we outline IGD as an example of SJE and review literature that provides theoretical underpinning for the framework we propose.

Intergroup Dialogue as Example While the framework we propose is theoretical in nature, it draws examples from our empirical study of IGD (Buckley & Quaye, 2014; Quaye & Johnson, 2016), instruction in SJE classrooms, and research concerning an instructor’s facilitation of difficult racial dialogues (Quaye, 2012, 2014). IGD serves as a primary example of SJE as we draw examples from a case study (Creswell, 2007) of IGD at a public, research university we conducted from the Spring of 2010 to the Fall of 2011. In the study, we interviewed 42 participants and conducted three observations of IGD courses in order to understand how the positive empirical outcomes associated with IGD occur (Zúñiga, Nagda, Chesler, & Cytron-Walker, 2007). IGD is made up of co-facilitated, structured dialogues about privilege, power, and oppression. The identities of the facilitators mirror the identities of participants. For example, a dialogue on racial oppression would be facilitated by a white person and a Person of Color, and a dialogue about gender oppression would be facilitated by cisgender women, cisgender men, or Trans*-identified people. These dialogues typically occur over 8–12 weeks and move through a four-stage process. In Stage 1, participants work to build trust and ground rules. Stage 2 is characterized by learning about differences and commonalities. Participants then explore conflicts and multiple perspectives in Stage 3 before moving to action in Stage 4 (Zúñiga, Nagda, & Sevig, 2002). IGD outcomes include “consciousness raising, building relationships across differences and conflicts, and strengthening collective capacities to promote social justice” (Zúñiga et al., 2007, p. 9). Rooted in principles of social justice, IGD offers opportunities for theoretical content learning; but centered in dialogic activity, it also embraces experiential and cross-group interaction. In this chapter, we draw heavily on IGD as an illustrative example of SJE because it seeks to bring “genuine dialogue” to the broad landscape of SJE where it “seems to be missing” (Hytten & Bettez, 2011, p. 21).

Pedagogical Elements: Content and Process In IGD, content about systemic issues of privilege and oppression is a key element to fostering learning about endemic issues of social justice. At the same time, the learning process is paramount. Content often provides theoretical

76  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL.

and system-level concepts, while process provides experiential knowledge and reflection that allows participants to explore ways in which those concepts influence themselves and others on individual and systemic levels. Together, content and process help foster what Hackman (2005) argued must be included in SJE: “content mastery, tools for critical analysis, tools for social change, tools for personal reflection, and awareness of multicultural group dynamics” (p. 104). At the same time, finding the balance between content and process is difficult for most facilitators (Schoem, 2003). We consider types of content and process relevant to SJE before examining the ways in which they align with different developmental levels of students to create different learning environments. Content Content provides students a shared conceptual ground, such as shared vocabulary and understanding of principles of social justice undergirding dialogue, from which to engage about topics of privilege, power, and oppression (Beale & Schoem, 2001). Without enough content, Beale and Schoem suggest that too much process supports “misinformation” (p. 269) along with a number of other problematic group dynamics, such as shifting of class dynamic to resemble a therapy group or too much focus on idiosyncratic individual experiences at the expense of understanding context or systemic issues of privilege and oppression. Three elements of content important to fulfilling the goals of SJE include (a) definitions of social identity; (b) the systemic nature of privilege and oppression and its connection to social justice; and (c) advanced ­topics about social justice (depending on student readiness). Social identity. A person’s social identity includes personal, societal, and global factors, such as one’s own self-identification as well as the ways in which society identifies an individual. Overlapping aspects of social identities, such as race/ethnicity, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, social class and ability, help to define when and how one benefits from or is denied access to power and privilege (Kirk & Okazawa-Rey, 2010). SJE can provide students an opportunity to better understand the construct of social identity, their own multiple social identities at play, and the systemic nature of privilege and oppression associated with different identities (Jones & McEwen, 2000; Kirk & Okazawa-Rey, 2010). The concept of social identity and its relationship to privilege and oppression help to illuminate a theoretical understanding of the need for social justice. Systemic oppression, privilege, and social argued that content mastery in SJE focuses ­macro-elements of how oppression and privilege dent’s daily lives but also how they matter for

justice. Hackman (2005) not only on micro- and present themselves in a stusociety as a whole and are

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

77

perpetuated not just through individual people but also by larger social systems. Mayhew and Fernandez (2007) found that in a selection of courses related to social justice, those more likely to result in a student’s social justice learning included content with “a societal systemic approach” (p. 74). Specifically, “students exposed to course content dealing with systemic oppression, the societal structures and inequalities that cause and sustain it, and how individuals perpetuate and/or discourage its reproduction were more likely to achieve social justice-related outcomes” (Mayhew & Fernandez, 2007, p. 74). Thus, understanding the specific content related to the systemic nature of privilege and oppression can help students learn more effectively in SJE courses. Students must also understand social justice itself. While a number of theories of social justice exist (North, 2006), one primary goal of social justice as taught in IGD is to actively advocate for and promote a fair and just society in which all people have access to the resources they need and the ability to reach their full potential. Although the ideas of social justice are relatively simple to explain, the actual process of supporting social justice on a widespread level is a constant struggle in practice. Part of the structure, then, of IGD and SJE is to provide process activities, described later in this chapter, that help students practice tenets of social justice. Advanced topics.  Students already familiar with foundational concepts and/ or advanced in their intercultural maturity (Perez et al., 2015) may be better prepared to consider topics that complicate the clearly delineated ideas of social identity, privilege, oppression, and social justice. Such an example may be more applicable to SJE broadly than IGD specifically. For example, participants already familiar with social identity theory could be ready to discuss critical theory, critical race theory, and other advanced social theories (see Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002). One advanced topic might include intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991), or the concept that the intersections of systems of oppression impact people’s experiences (Crenshaw, 1991). Similarly, advanced topics could address the varying salience of multiple identities for people in different contexts (Jones & McEwen, 2000) or the socially and culturally constructed nature of identity, meaning the ways in which multiple contexts and social patterns influence ways societies define identity (Perez et al., 2015). The topic of intersectionality or social construction of identity would allow students to complicate clearly delineated social identities and begin to question the ways in which social identities work together to create individual identities. The concept of intersectionality could also enable students to critique individual experiences in light of power and dominance by considering how all social identities are at play in one’s experience. Within in IGD, therefore, intersectionality might invite students to understand not just the prima facie meaning of experiences group members

78  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL.

discuss in a dialogue but also the ways in which multiple identities—alongside systems of privilege and oppression tied to identities—have helped to influence people’s experiences. Process While content is important for IGD, process is equally crucial in the goals of IGD. Zúñiga et al. (2007) reviewed studies that showed both content-centered and active learning experiences contributed to student’s ­ interest in reaching across differences. Yet, active learning, which involved students sharing experiences in the classroom, seemed to deepen student communication processes. At the same time, when sharing remained surface-level and little inquiry ensued, a student’s understanding of others did not improve. Thus, a facilitator’s role in IGD broadly and SJE specifically is to identify process exercises that are most effective for moving beyond surface-level interaction or knowledge acquisition to deeper “perceptions, attitudes, and levels of understanding toward members of a different social identity group” (Zúñiga et al., 2007, p. 67). Thus, we describe different types of process activities, especially those common to IGD. Process activities.  A number of common activities exist in the repertoire of SJE. Some activities are social and dialogic in nature, such as privilege walks, agree or disagree questions, and group discussions. The general objective of these activities involves engaging participants to make connections between content knowledge and individual, everyday experiences (Zúñiga et al., 2007). While these activities do not exist without certain risks and problems, which facilitators must consider (e.g., people with minoritized identities feeling further oppressed during the role-play dimensions of a privilege walk), they provide students practice and feedback about engaging across differences and around sometimes difficult topics—moving students beyond cerebral and conceptual learning to practiced and applied learning. Such combined practice and feedback especially around a “specific goal” and with “sufficient frequency” (p. 127) are key to an effective learning environment (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010). Moreover, these activities help students understand the similarities and differences among people in a group, as students talk about and experience the process of listening to others and reforming opinions or previously held assumptions based on other people’s thoughts. Many times, facilitated reflections follow experiential activities, offering a continued process-oriented approach to learning as students make meaning of the activities together, much in line with experiential learning models (Kolb, 2014). One gender dialogue participant from our study (a cisgender man) described an activity concerning whether a woman should take a man’s name in marriage, with “a neutral zone, a disagree zone, and then an agree

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

79

zone” and shared how it “got people engaged and made them not only share personal thoughts on those issues but it also made you open your eyes that not everybody is the same as you.” More than simply learning content, the activity allowed for visually seeing different opinions and talking across those differences. In addition to in-class activities, students may have out-of-class reflections or experiential assignments. Out-of-class reflections serve as opportunities for participants to make meaning for themselves away from a dialogue or classroom environment. One white, cisgender man participating in a gender dialogue we studied, found that his journal assignments provided another way to “give an honest assessment of how you felt about certain things in the dialogue and also reiterate some of your opinions that you had on different things,” such as the “unrealistic … image of masculinity.” In this case, reflection allowed the student an opportunity to be honest about issues he may not have had an opportunity to consider outside of IGD. This same participant also provided insights into his experience with an out-of-comfort zone assignment, in which students were invited to participate in an activity that would disrupt their comfort level. The participant stated, “I took my partner [from class] to an Indian banquet, an Indian dinner because she’s never had Indian food before. My sister actually just got married and my brother-in-law is Indian so I’ve had Indian food a lot and I’ve been around that for a long time.” This participant used the ­out-of-comfort zone and journal assignments as a means to engage a classmate in his cultural experiences and life; similarly, he participated in an African dance event with his partner. He continued, “That’s why, I guess, [out-of-comfort zone experiences] are good to do. It makes you step out and do something that you wouldn’t normally think to do.” This is one example, which we critique in our framework later, of how one participant engaged in IGD ­process-oriented activities. Depending on facilitators and how they select to structure dialogue sessions, process-oriented or experiential activities may come after content is discussed or may become an avenue to discuss content knowledge. For instance, a facilitator of a gender dialogue (white woman) stated, I think that [participants’] ah-ha moment often happens after they have gone through several of the dialogues and then have the lived experience where they participate in an activity that is out of their comfort zone, and then share that and reflect that back with the group.

This facilitator believed that true learning occurred when students were able to reflect in class on the ways their learning in IGD aligned with out-of-class experiences in light of systemic issues of privilege and oppression. A number of learning and development theories support this facilitator’s observations on the importance of the combined processes of dialogue, reflection, and experience for learning. Therefore, we turn from the types of content associated

80  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL.

with SJE and the processes often employed in SJE experiences to ways in which facilitators might use learning and development theories and the scholarship of teaching and learning to best balance the use of content and process elements aforementioned. Together, these elements inform the final proposed framework in this chapter concerning learning environments in SJE.

Individual Elements: Learning and Development Theories for Social Justice Education Ambrose et al. (2010) define learning as “a process that leads to change, which occurs as a result of experience and increases the potential for improved performance and future learning” (p. 3). In the process of SJE, change is often rooted in learning content or principles related to social justice alongside development of one’s own identity awareness and skills of interacting with others and working against injustice. Keeling (2004) noted that while sometimes viewed separately, learning and development must be considered together such that learning is not simply one’s understanding of new content; instead, learning “simultaneously increases cognitive understanding and a sense of personal maturity and interpersonal effectiveness” (King & Baxter Magolda, 1996, p. 163). The three components outlined here—cognitive learning and development, interpersonal learning and development, and intrapersonal learning and development—form the backbone of one’s holistic development and can inform how educators facilitate SJE. These three components are pillars for Baxter Magolda’s (2004b) theory of self-authorship. Self-authorship serves as a scaffold for our description of learning and development, while we also feature the work of other developmental, learning, and cognitive science scholars to build the theoretical basis for our framework. Cognitive Learning and Development In her description of self-authorship, Baxter Magolda (2004b) describes that one outcome of college should be cognitive maturity, characterized by “intellectual power, reflective judgement, mature decision making, and problem solving in the context of multiplicity” (p. 6). Cognitive maturity entails not only the ability to understand and consider content but to contextualize content and realize when it might be limited or differently interpreted by different groups. Piaget (1950) approached cognitive learning from a biological perspective, suggesting humans have cognitive structures—biologically observable structures in all animals, such as organs or skeletons. He argued that people develop learning capacity over time and construct structures that help them process different kinds of information through sequential stages. Young children must learn concrete information before moving into complex thinking about abstract concepts. Similarly, Perry (1981) suggested people develop through epistemological positions, moving from dichotomous thinking to more contextual thinking.

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

81

Piaget’s and Perry’s theories help illustrate why learning content at the early stages of dialogue can be important. The concrete definitions of terms such as “systemic privilege,” “oppression,” and “social justice” can provide an introduction to topics that then help students work through later issues of conflict or confusion that arise in dialogue, which complicate the clearly delineated theoretical constructs that root the dialogue. In one framework showcasing such cognitive development especially for white students, Ortiz and Rhoads (2000) show the cognitive goals of multicultural education and scaffolding of cognitive learning that moves from understanding culture in early stages of development to valuing a multicultural society in mature stages. In their framework, the authors note the importance of establishing basic, shared understandings about concepts like culture and its influence before inviting students to deconstruct concepts like “white culture” (p. 88) and the ways it often becomes a dominant culture within the US Shared, early understandings of concepts within the framework then help students build later, more complex ways of thinking about multicultural societies. Establishing shared definitions of content-related terms also seems imperative given cognitive science research, which indicates that drawing upon prior knowledge is critical to student learning (Ambrose et al., 2010). Scholars reiterate the importance of activities, such as establishing clear concepts students should know, assessing their prior knowledge, activating that prior knowledge, working to undo misconceptions, connecting concepts to student lives, and providing “heuristics” to help students question prior knowledge (p. 35) (e.g., perhaps encouraging students to ask, “Do I believe this because of my experience or because of systematic evidence?”). Prior knowledge in SJE often involves a student’s fundamental beliefs about who they are and how the world operates; therefore, helping students identify their worldview and prior knowledge in order to link it to shared SJE concepts is critical in helping them learn. The framework we propose centers a student’s different levels of development, from initial to greater levels of complexity, and how different content may be important depending on the complexity of each student’s developmental level. Because issues of prior knowledge at stake in SJE are closely tied to one’s own social identity and self-understanding, Kegan’s (1982) approach to subject-object relationships can shed light on the cognitive development at play in SJE. Kegan proposed that subject-object relationships were central to cognitive development, with object being concepts that people can hold at a distance and subject being concepts that define and guide them. In the context of dialogue, one’s racial, gender, or other social identity may be subject at early cognitive stages; yet, as one develops, they may be able to hold that identity as object—an element they can analyze and understand contextually. Thus, one’s prior knowledge might entail an identity understanding that is subject while an SJE experience might ask students to consider identity as object. A process, then, of activating that kind of prior knowledge could be important, and developing that knowledge may require careful instructor

82  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL.

facilitation as students begin to newly understand themselves, others, and the underlying forces (e.g., systemic privileges and injustices) that influence the ways people interact. In addition, Kegan proposed that an element of epistemological development was the ability to have relationships and hold them as object (Baxter Magolda, 2004b), which allows one the ability to learn from and alongside others. In other words, interpersonal and epistemological development are interwoven, and interpersonal development is also important for one’s holistic development in SJE. Therefore, we turn next from scholarship on cognitive learning to scholarship on interpersonal learning and development, which might work in tandem with cognitive learning and development theories described here, to inform a student’s holistic learning in SJE courses. Interpersonal Learning and Psychosocial Development At its core, interpersonal learning is rooted in developing relationships and interacting with others. In Baxter Magolda’s theory of self-authorship (2004b), a second outcome of college is the development of mature relationships, yet a number of scholars have proposed that such mature relationships are not just an outcome of but a key component in the process of learning. Dewey (1954), Vygotsky (1978), and Freire (1970) all contribute important pieces to social learning theories that have relevance for learning within SJE. Dewey pioneered a progressive form of education that involved engaging students not simply in memorizing but also in interacting purposefully with others and the world around them—putting experience to conceptual knowledge—much as participants do in dialogue through in-class experiential activities. Dewey critiqued earlier theories that rooted learning in siloed cognitive spaces. Similarly, Vygotsky (1978) centered learning in a student’s engagement with others. Vygotsky argued that not only does social interaction enhance learning but that learning itself fosters overall development. Thus, IGD, as one example of SJE, enacts Deweyian and Vygotskian learning theories as IGD’s process-oriented activities foster learning through experience and interaction. SJE also borrows from Freire’s (1970) work of adopting socially just pedagogy (McArthur, 2010). For Freire, reality was not a piece of content to be memorized but a process in which people must always engage; he saw education as both a potential tool of oppressive systems but also a liberating opportunity for students to grow in consciousness of their possibilities and of the systems around them (e.g., political, educational, and others) that could be hindering their growth. As such, power dynamics must always be in consideration in the interplay of teaching and learning. For example, power dynamics in a traditional classroom call for an expert teacher who teaches an unlearned student group. Freire argued education must move beyond those power dynamics, explaining some of the hesitance facilitators of IGD feel in interrupting or challenging students in dialogue. Thus, in dialogue, those leading the group

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

83

are not “instructors” but “facilitators.” One facilitator of a gender dialogue (a white woman) in our study commented on these exact power dynamics: “I’m not coming as an expert, and even if I were, that’s still just my experience as an ‘expert.’ We constantly are learning, so every new story that I hear, every new perspective that is shared I take that into account. And it is humbling.” In IGD, facilitators engage in what Freire argues is a mutual process of learning; in SJE broadly, a Freirean approach to “true education” would require “communication,” rooted especially in principles of social justice (p. 93). Intrapersonal Learning and Development Finally, Baxter Magolda (2004b) suggested that intrapersonal development concerned how people understand and curate themselves and their identities. She noted that intrapersonal development requires the ability to “choose enduring values,” do so in a way that is “not overly dependent on the view of others,” and understand one’s own context and “responsibility for constructing knowledge” (p. 9). Although a number of development theories relate to one’s intrapersonal development, including those we describe here as cognitive and interpersonal theories, we feature in this section most closely the concept of identity development, especially Abes, Jones, and McEwen’s (2007) Reconceptualized Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (RMMDI). The RMMDI illustrates one’s various social identities, such as race, gender, or social class, encircling a core identity. These various social identities coexist but have varying salience for a person at different times; people also have different filters for understanding their identities. Those with mature, complex filters, demonstrate the ability to filter contextual messages such that outside influences move through one’s own meaning-making process with much more depth. On the other hand, those in earlier places of self-authorship have a more “porous” (p. 13) filter, and external influences may have significant impact on one’s self-understanding. The RRMDI illustrates that one’s own intrapersonal development rests in one’s ability to make meaning of personal identity in light of external influences and contexts, which might shift salience of personal identity at different points in time. A goal for reflection and learning, then, in SJE, is helping students grow in self-awareness and develop effective filters; at the same time, students’ varying intrapersonal development in an SJE experience can offer a challenge for facilitators of appropriately providing balance of content and process for self-understanding. Holistic Development Together, each of these areas—cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal— are key to one’s holistic development as well as one’s intercultural maturity and competence, or one’s ability to “integrate knowledge, skills, and awareness, and to act in interculturally mature ways” (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005, p. 572). Arguably, given the purpose of SJE, holistic development

84  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL.

and intercultural maturity is one key goal of SJE; therefore, a facilitator’s attentiveness to student development, alongside ways in which they employ content and process to facilitate students’ learning and development, in an SJE experience can help prepare an effective learning environment.

Combining Process, Content, and Learning/Development The content knowledge we describe above, such as theories of social identity, the systemic nature of privilege and oppression, and social justice, all provide a shared cognitive baseline to which students can return as they test their own ideas, theories, and experiences. Pedagogical processes, such as experiential activities and reflection, provide experiential opportunities for not only cognitive development but also interpersonal and intrapersonal development as students practice using content in interpersonal communication and intrapersonal growth. Engaging with others and thinking critically in light of content knowledge provides the opportunity for learning to shift from simple storage of knowledge to meaning-making. A Framework for SJE To more clearly demonstrate how these concepts work together, we propose a framework that combines the concepts of content, process, and holistic development in SJE. The framework, shown in Fig. 5.1: A Learning Environments

Fig. 5.1  A learning environments framework for social justice education

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

85

Framework for Social Justice Education, features a t­hree-dimensional matrix, with the three course elements along each axis on a continuum of high to low, creating eight distinct learning environments that showcase different intersections of course elements, some of which may be more conducive to certain types of learning than others. The framework can help educators prepare effective pedagogical techniques in courses rooted in principles of social justice; consider developmental levels of students in courses; and recognize potential areas of incongruence among content, process, and development, depending on course goals. The matrix includes three axes for process (P), content (C), and development (D). We have labeled the poles of the axes as “high” (H) and “low” (L) as a heuristic tool, recognizing no definitive extreme exists on concepts such as development. Thus, a content continuum moves from both appropriate amount and quality of content (HC) to little or low-quality content (LC); a process continuum moves from appropriate quantity and quality of instructional strategies and processing activities (HP) to too few or inappropriate strategies (LP); and a developmental continuum moves from initial (LD) to mature levels (HD). Learning Environments While Table 5.1 Learning Environments in Social Justice Education outlines each of the eight intersections, we discuss learning environments that occur in four categories—HPHC, HCLP, LPHC, and LPLC—and the different potential implications for each student’s holistic learning and development. High process and high content (HPHC).  In an HPHC learning environment, students encounter an integrated learning environment with appropriate attention to cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal learning. At a mature developmental level, students are introduced to more complex concepts (e.g., critical theory) with instructional strategies that allow for meaning-making and both open-ended and guided group experiences. At ­ an initial developmental level, students are introduced to elementary topics (e.g., definitions and foundational concepts) with experiences that focus on exploring their own perspective as well as listening to and observing other viewpoints. High process and high content learning environments are aimed at courses that seek to root themselves in social justice principles and provide tools for advocacy or change. Low process and low content (LPLC).  In an LPLC environment, students encounter neither appropriate process nor content. Theoretically, these exist in our model but may not actually be observed given all experiences have some level of process and content.

86  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL. Table 5.1  Learning environments in social justice education Intersection

Learning environment

Characterized by

1. HD HP HC

Integrated

2. HD HP LC

Inter/intrapersonal

3. HD LP HC

Cognitive

4. HD LP LC

Ineffective

5. LD LP HC

Cognitive

6. LD LP LC

Ineffective

7. LD HP LC

Inter/intrapersonal

8. LD HP HC

Integrated

Students introduced to complex content alongside structured and open-ended collaborative and individual processing. Students primed for higher-order inter- and intrapersonal development through dialogic, reflective, or experiential activity without much content for cognitive development. Students ready for holistic learning yet introduced to learning that remains highly cognitive. Theoretically present in the model but unlikely given educational experiences have content or process. Students introduced to appropriate introductory concepts without effective reflection and group learning. Can result in both resistant and energetic learners in need of assistance putting new concepts into practice. Theoretically present in the model but unlikely given educational experiences have content or process. Students provided opportunity to discuss concepts in diverse groups who have only surface-level learning of concepts, such as systemic oppression and ability to tie personal beliefs to principles of SJE. Students introduced to foundational concepts alongside opportunities to activate prior knowledge and engage in experiential activities.

High process and low content (HPLC). In an HPLC environment, students encounter an inter-/intrapersonal learning environment heavily ­ centered on individual and group experience, without a strong tie to content, such as the systemic nature of oppression. For the mature learner, such a learning environment does not provide much cognitive challenge. For the initial learner, such a learning environment is often heavily focused on individualized understandings of social justice and may help students practice understanding others and themselves without much focus on tying course issues to content related to social justice. We often saw HPLC challenges in IGDs, such as moments when facilitators hesitated to interrupt dialogue to share content that might challenge students to see patterns of oppression of privilege that may counter a single person’s experience. Additionally, one might consider a gender dialogue where one student (a white, cisgender woman) described talking about discussing a “hot topic” on whether “men and women could be friends.” The student shared that all participants had differing opinions and people spoke up with the idea that

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

87

“I have had these experiences and it is totally different than what you think. I was just like, ‘It depends.’ How on earth can we go farther than that?” Her question suggested that all must come to agree to disagree on the subject and move on, rather than tying the question back to potentially problematic or larger issues of privilege or oppression that might relate to the issue. The facilitator (a white, cisgender woman) for the dialogue noted that one main goal of the class was to help students dialogue rather than debate given “we’re so accustomed to presenting our side of something instead of just listening to all sides.” She saw that her role, therefore, was to focus dialogues in student experiences and ask students to “keep talking about feelings” and “noticing the unspoken dynamics that are occurring in the classroom.” In this dialogue, content of social justice was less of a focus than the interpersonal learning of dialogue, listening to others, and being aware of different experiences. In an additional example of an HPLC environment, we consider the person we described above who ventured to an African dance and took a partner to an Indian dinner. Without content related to social justice, these kinds of experiences may expose students to difference and engaging alongside others but may not help in cognitive developmental understanding of the ways the experience itself may perpetuate systemic issues of privilege and oppression (whereby someone with many dominant, privileged identities may need to seek out environments to feel out-of-comfort, while minoritized people are exposed to such experiences regularly). Low process and high content (LPHC). In an LPHC environment, students experience a cognitive environment with significant content learning and little experiential and/or reflection experience to help foster inter- and intrapersonal learning. With the mature learner, abstract concepts remain theoretical without practical experience applying them or putting them into context with different others. With the initial learner, some may have newly gained knowledge (e.g., vocabulary to talk about racial injustice) without interpersonal learning (e.g., experience talking about racial injustice with a diverse group) to support such knowledge. One might see a caveat in this case of students who may essentialize others or stereotype or judge others without considering, for example, nuances of individual’s experiences, such as intersectional and varying salience of identities. In addition, in LPHC environments, learners with prior knowledge contrary to SJE principles may resist concepts that are theoretical or contrary to individual beliefs given little process work is done to help students activate prior knowledge and then process that knowledge with others it in light of course content. Given IGD by its nature is reliant on dialogue and typically a h ­ igh-process activity, we draw an example of an LPHC course from Mayhew and Fernandez’s (2007) examination of courses related to social justice. They studied student social justice outcomes in courses that focused on “social issues”

88  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL.

both from a “critical societal framework, presenting and describing phenomena ‘out there’” (p. 74) (e.g., a course on Moral Choice and Contemporary Moral Problems) and from a “sociological” approach (e.g., IGD, Project Community, and Introduction to Sociology) where students were taught to “critically analyze structural course of oppression” and recognize “the individual’s roles and responsibilities for reproducing such structural conditions” (p. 74). The courses focused more on building “sociological skills,” a processrelated education, resulted in students reporting achieving more social justice outcomes than the courses rooted in more abstract content. Using the framework. Through our descriptions of various learning environments, we showcased how different pairings of content and process can establish different environments that may feature some elements of learning/ development over others. Some pairings offer integrated learning environments, which support holistically cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal growth. At the same time, some environments feature learning that focuses more individually on cognitive, inter-, or intrapersonal learning. From our conceptualization, an integrated learning environment where students grow cognitively (through understanding content and developing in epistemological maturity), interpersonally (through learning to engage with, listen to, and understand others who are different), and intrapersonally (through understanding their own identities) is an ideal learning environment as it aligns with Baxter Magolda’s theory of self-authorship and accompanying Learning Partnerships Model (2004a, 2004b). At the same time, educators may have instructional goals that may be best met through learning environments centered more on one aspect of learning (e.g., cognitive, interpersonal, or intrapersonal). The framework provided can help educators, therefore, align their learning goals with student development and the content and process elements of the course.

Conclusion In offering a learning environments framework, we considered intersections of content, process, and holistic development in SJE. We argue that considering learning and development theories alongside content and process aspects of SJE can contribute to the ways in which educators can mold learning environments for course goals. First, we described content as a course element that promotes theoretical learning that contributes to a student’s cognitive learning of concepts like social justice, privilege, and oppression. Second, we discussed course process, such as interactive, experiential, and reflective elements of dialogue that stimulate holistic learning and development. Third, we highlighted a number of theories to help showcase cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal aspects of holistic learning and development. Using examples from dialogue and related literature, we highlighted the ways that in

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

89

which alignment of content, process, and development can result in different learning environments for students. As scholars have suggested, “The integration of content and pedagogical process is a theoretical prescription for success. Yet, it is practically difficult. Many educators focus on one or the other rather than their joint process” (Nagda, Gurin, & Lopez, 2003, p. 168). Given the challenge of appropriately aligning course elements and student development, the framework we propose can serve as a heuristic to help educators recognize and work to navigate learning environments in SJE to ensure appropriate alignment of course goals with the elements of content, process, and student learning and development.

Practical Examples Educators working to incorporate this model might employ it as a tool in the following ways: • Assessing student development and prior knowledge: At early stages of SJE courses, facilitators might provide reflection opportunities that allow the facilitator to assess student holistic development, such as (a) a paper where a student reflects on the salience of one’s identity and how one has come to understand that identity or (b) a journal on one’s ­identity-awareness timeline or history. Then facilitators could use knowledge of early assessments to inform appropriate elements of challenge (such as regular questions about contextual and social justice-oriented content) and support (validating the importance of someone’s openness to exploring their own view alongside others’). • Structuring holistic content and process through learning outcomes: An educator of SJE courses could use the framework in writing both course and individual lesson learning outcomes. The educator could ensure inclusion of all areas of holistic development (in this framework: cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) in learning outcomes, using a table, such as the following, to ensure that each class is designed with holistic development in mind (Table 5.2). • Facilitating informed student programs: Those facilitating programs centered on topics like diversity and inclusion, especially where participants may be at varying levels of understanding and experience with the topic, could use this framework to consider ways to tailor the program, based on learning outcomes, for different students. For example, after initial assessment, a facilitator might group students with ­like-individuals to engage in activities designed for their appropriate developmental levels. Alternatively, facilitators might group students across diverse developmental levels for peer-to-peer learning. • Self-assessing facilitator learning and needs for professional development: Facilitators might use this framework for self-assessment,

90  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL. Table 5.2  Structuring holistic content and process through learning outcomes Supported by what content (readings/ videos):

Process-oriented strategies to reach (instructional strategies):

How to assess Goal for growth in students with outcome: higher levels of development:

Goal for students with lower levels of development:

Cognitive learning outcome Interpersonal learning outcome Intrapersonal learning outcome

especially across different topics they teach, assessing where they fall developmentally on different topics and how they might pursue professional development opportunities that offer the appropriate amount of content and process learning. A lecture or reading might provide effective content learning, which when paired with a workshop, facilitation opportunity, or learning community, might provide inter- and intrapersonal learning.

References Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0000. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: 7 Research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004a). Self-authorship as the common goal of 21st century education. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to education for self-authorship (pp. 37–62). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004b). Learning partnerships model. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to education for self-authorship (pp. 1–36). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Beale, R., & Schoem, D. (2001). The content/process balance in intergroup dialogue. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college, community, and workplace (pp. 266–279). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Bell, L. A. (2013). Theoretical foundations. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 21–26). New York, NY: Routledge. Buckley, J. B., & Quaye, S. J. (2014). A vision of social justice in intergroup dialogue. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(5), 1117–1139. https://doi.org/10.1080/136 13324.2014.969221.

5  A FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE EDUCATION … 

91

Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory. New York: New York University Press. Dewey, J. (1954). The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press Books. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Hackman, H. (2005). Five essential components for social justice education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(2), 103–109. https://doi. org/10.1080/10665680590935034. Hytten, K., & Bettez, S. (2011). Understanding education for social justice. Educational Foundations, 25(1–2), 7–24. Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–414. Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and American College Personnel Association. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kincehloe, J. L., & McClaren, P. (2002). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Y. Zou & E. T. Trueba (Eds.), Ethnography and schools: Qualitative approaches to the study of education (pp. 87–138). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. King, P., & Baxter Magolda, M. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 163–173. King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 571–592. https://doi. org/10.1353/csd.2005.0060. Kirk, G., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (2010). Identities and social locations. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 8–14). New York, NY: Routledge. Kolb, D. A. (2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Mayhew, M. J., & Fernández, S. D. (2007). Pedagogical practices that contribute to social justice outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 31(1), 55–80. https:// doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0055. McArthur, J. (2010). Achieving social justice within and through higher education: The challenge for critical pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(5), 493– 504. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.491906. Mthethwa-Sommers, S. (2014). Narrative of social justice educators standing firm. NY: Springer. Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., & Lopez, G. E. (2003). Transformative pedagogy for democracy and social justice. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 165–191. https://doi. org/10.1080/1361332032000076463. North, C. (2006). More than words? Delving into the substantive meaning(s) of “social justice” in education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 507– 535. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004507.

92  J. B. BUCKLEY ET AL. Ortiz, A. M., & Rhoads, R. A. (2000). Deconstructing Whiteness as a part of a multicultural educational framework: From theory to practice. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 81–93. Perez, R. J., Shim, W., King, P. M., & Baxter Maolgda M. B. (2015). Refining king and Baxter Magolda’s model of intercultural maturity. Journal of College Student Development, 56(8), 759–776. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0085. Perry, W. G., Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Piaget, J. (1950). Psychology of intelligence. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Quaye, S. J. (2012). Think before you teach: Preparing for dialogues about racial realities. Journal of College Student Development, 53(4), 542–562. https://doi. org/10.1353/csd.2012.0056. Quaye, S. J. (2014). Facilitating dialogues about racial realities. Teachers College Record, 116(8), 1–42. Quaye, S. J., & Johnson, M. R. (2016). How intergroup dialogue facilitators understand their role in promoting student development and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 27(2), 29–55. Schoem, D. (2003). Intergroup dialogue for a just and diverse democracy. Sociological Inquiry, 73(2), 212–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-682X.00053. Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools & classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. A., & Sevig, T. D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational model for cultivating engagement across differences. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845248. Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher education: Meaningful learning about Social justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(4), 1–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3204.

Recommend Reading Nagda, B. A., & Roper, L. D. (Eds.) (2019). Centering dialogue in leadership development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2019(163). Quaye, S. J., & Johnson, M. R. (2016). How intergroup dialogue facilitators understand their role in promoting student development and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 27(2), 29–55. Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup dialogue in higher education: Meaningful learning about social justice. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(4), 1–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3204.

CHAPTER 6

Postcolonial Approach to Curriculum Design Laura Parson and Jessica Weise

Key Terms and Definitions Colonialism: Systems of domination and control by a foreign group that exploits a native group of people in a variety of forms (e.g., economically, epistemically, spatially). Competency-Based Curriculum: Curriculum that is based on a desired set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) needed for a profession or discipline. Decolonization: The process of “undoing” systems, processes, and beliefs that were put in power as a result of colonization. Hegemony: Dominant narratives and ideologies, typically in the form of dominance over a group of people. Higher Education: Education that goes beyond high school and requires some form of a degree attainment. Marginalized Students: Students who do not belong to the “dominant” group. Often treated as insignificant and do not have the same. Postcolonialism: An epistemological and theoretical approach that decenters, challenges, and disturbs Eurocentric knowledges, processes, and systems by centering those oppressed by colonialism.

L. Parson (*) · J. Weise  North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Weise e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_6

93

94  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE

This chapter describes a postcolonial approach to competency-based curriculum design (Seung Youn, Stepich, & Cox, 2006) as a method to evaluate and redesign curriculum and (re)build it on a foundation of inclusion and social justice. In this approach, the experiences and perceptions of students, empirically tested approaches from the research literature, practitioner perspectives and feedback, and faculty expertise are used to inform a curriculum design process that recreates instead of replicates the teaching and learning institutional structure. Envisioning inclusion in higher education means re-envisioning traditionally accepted structures of higher education curricular processes and procedures and applying those same frameworks and research methods to curriculum design processes and procedures. Through a curriculum design process that names inequitable power structures and their disproportionately negative effects on underrepresented groups, we argue that they can begin to dismantle those institutional processes. Following a postcolonial approach to data collection and analysis (Harding, 1998; Sawyer & Liggett, 2012; Vanner, 2015), this chapter outlines a competency identification process that begins from the standpoint of those most marginalized in higher education: underrepresented and marginalized students, graduates, and faculty. We argue that curriculum (re)design can recreate the academy by recreating teaching and learning systems and processes, rooted in the outcomes and objectives identified by key stakeholders. First, we define colonialism and explore the impact of colonialism on underrepresented students, including Indigenous persons. To illustrate the impact of colonialism, we highlight and focus on the experiences of Indigenous persons in HE and the colonizing experiences of Indigenous persons on the lands that became identified as US/North America. Second, we describe how higher education both reinforces and extends colonialism through the production of knowledge and teaching and learning practices. Third, we discuss competency-based design as a method to develop and evaluate curriculum. Fourth, we explore the potential for postcolonialism to inform and guide curriculum design. Finally, we discuss the proposed method to (re)design curriculum through a postcolonial approach to competency identification and curriculum design. By decolonizing traditional curriculum design that places faculty members at the center of the curriculum evaluation and (re)design effort and extending the critique of which knowledge(s) are valuable, we seek to describe a process that leads to a curriculum that encourages a heightened level of consciousness locally regarding societal ills, “the task of the postcolonial is to make the invisible … visible” (Young, 2012, p. 23). It is our goal, in this chapter, to make that application explicit and provide a framework for future program curriculum (re)design.

Colonialism and Higher Education While colonization refers to the occupation or domination of land and its people by central systems of power, colonialism “refers to the manner in which modern systems of colonialism operate epistemically, economically,

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

95

ontologically, politically, and spatially” (Calderon, 2014, p. 314). This chapter refers to two types of colonialism: (1) “Settler colonialism” describes colonizers who stayed and assumed a dominant position independent from their native land, such as the colonization of Native Americans in the United States (Calderon, 2014); and (2) Settlers who conquered yet returned to their homelands while maintaining control through various power mechanisms such as British colonization.1 Colonizers and settlers are different from immigrants; immigrants are subject to the laws of the place that they go to while settlers “become the law” (Calderon, 2014, p. 321). Colonization usually includes economic exploitation; shapes knowledge, discourse, and language; and controls the body and psyche of the colonized and the colonizer (Asher, 2009; Calderon, 2014; Rosser, 1999). Domination is accomplished through the use of force and through the constant shaping of what knowledge is legitimate and validated in a way that reaffirms the colonizer’s knowledge as natural and logical or “common sense.” “Common sense” dictates who, what knowledge, and what practices belong, which allows the impact of colonization to persist and makes it hard to challenge those forms of othering and marginalization because they are seen as natural and logical. “Common sense” is reaffirmed in everyday practices, like curriculum, and, as a result, members of an “other” group must consent to their classification and othering by the dominant group. Specifically, identity markers, language and culture, and Eurocentric teaching practices implemented in curriculum intersect in ways that “reify, recreate, and transmit the effects of colonization” (Asher, 2009, p. 8). Through these mechanisms, control of Indigenous peoples is all-encompassing. For example, the forced boarding schools for indigenous children in the United States and Canada are an example of how colonization was perpetuated in education. In those boarding schools, Indigenous children were forced to repudiate their cultural practices and native language and adopt Christian religious beliefs and accept Western knowledges (Dunbar-Ortiz, 2014). After domination is complete, the impacts of colonization persist even after colonizers have left (if they leave). Indirect control (if the colonizer left) is still as effective as direct control when the colonized “resort to academic dependency,” which has been ingrained into the academic structure and academic mind (Shih, 2010, p. 44). As an institution that “produces” knowledge through research and validates what knowledges are accepted through

1 Some historians suggest that the term terra nullius, a concept in international law, was used to justify British colonization of Australia and New Zealand. Terra nullius is a Latin term that means “empty land” or “nobody’s land,” and it refers to land that was unaffected by man and therefore treated as uninhabited and subject to occupation (Painter & Jeffrey, 2009). Others historians question if British colonization was rationalized through terra nullius and deem British colonization as invasion and occupation (Painter & Jeffrey, 2009). Regardless of the justifications used to exploit lands already occupied by Indigenous people, terra nullius represents the colonizer’s view of the colonized land as “empty” and the people occupying them as “nobody.”

96  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE

scholarly activities and teaching and learning practices, higher education is a key player in reinforcing the hegemonic power of the colonizer. Colonialism’s impact on higher education.  Higher education supports colonization as a socializing process that reconfirms dominant forms of knowledge as valid while systemically rendering other forms of knowledge invisible or untrue (Calderon, 2014): Dominant curriculum is derived from, normalizes, and preserves homo oeconomicus, an individualized, accumulation-oriented Western genre of human based on free-market capitalism … curriculum is ‘particular, historically formed knowledge that inscribes rules and standards by which we ‘reason’ about the world and our ‘self’ as a productive member of that world.’ Thereby curricula are technologies of social regulation that discipline our ontological understandings of the Self and Other. (Desai & Sanya, 2016, p. 715)

Curriculum is a site of hegemonic power (Nozaki, 2009) that often naturalizes Eurocentric ontology; universities distribute and preserve dominant knowledges while making other forms invisible (Stein, 2017). The colonizing practices of Western higher education impact higher education internationally, including nations currently and previously colonized, as well as those nations less directly affected by colonization. The Western model of higher education is the most common model for universities throughout the world (Stein, 2017): To the extent that science reflects the interests of the white, middle- and ­upper-class Western/Northern male and that most scientists are also personal representatives of that elite, many of the biases and treatment of knowledge and individuals not from the dominant background will be similar. (Rosser, 1999, p. 9)

When science is largely represented by scientists that reflect the demographics of dominant groups, the knowledge “created” by that group represents their biases, interests, and worldviews. Further, the Western conception of knowledge prevails through processes described as objective and unbiased, such as the scientific method: “Western knowledge is characterized as much by its particular content as it is by its organizing principles of progress, possession, universalism, certainty, and neutralization of difference (either though incorporation, erasure, or elimination)” (Stein, 2017, p. S29). As a result, other nondominant forms of knowledge are dismissed as irrational, imprecise, invalid, or untrue. Similarly, higher education textbooks are “artifacts of Western knowledge production and its attendant institutional manifestations” (Calderon, 2014, p. 219). Finally, as Rosser (1999) discussed, much of the available research funding is not dictated by scholars but by Western governments, specifically North American and European governments; the research agendas and priorities set by these governments then become global

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

97

priorities. Research interests and agendas that do not align with those of Western governments become invisible or “defined as inadequate science” (Rosser, 1999, p. 10). Even outside of colonized nations, higher education largely represents the dominant worldview of Western colonizers. In tandem with, and often the result of Western control of knowledge (re)production, traditional universities view Indigenous knowledge(s) and therefore Indigenous people(s) as “other.” Mainstream society assumes that Indigenous populations are not suited for academic work; in higher education, Indigenous persons are often treated as needing special help, their knowledges are marginalized or silenced, their treatment is characterized by “benevolent ignorance,” discrimination, and misconceptions (Cupples & Glynn, 2014). Frequently, Western researchers have claimed non-European discoveries as their own (Stein, 2017). Because non-European peoples are often viewed only as objects of knowledge, Indigenous people(s) are seen as resources to provide the understanding of culture but not as authorities or sources of valid knowledge. This view of Indigenous people in education is seen in K-12 Social Studies curriculum in the United States. In seeking to decolonize K-12 Social Studies curriculum in the United States, Calderon (2014) found that Social Studies curriculum constructed Indigenous peoples as figures from the past, reinforced the identity of the United States as a white European immigrant nation, and centered white experiences and knowledges. This view of Indigenous persons as relics perpetuates marginalization, settler colonialism and reinforces the label of “other.” Conquest and dominance were an integral part of the export of the Western university model to colonies because economic control funded the institutions. Presenting Western knowledge as universal was used to rationalize a hierarchy of difference between colonizer and colonized Indigenous populations (Stein, 2017). One way to begin to improve the experiences of and empower Indigenous and marginalized persons is to decolonize the modern Western university. Postcolonialism provides a framework to critically evaluate higher education, specifically curriculum, and begin the process of decolonizing higher education.

Postcolonialism Postcolonialism is defined as, “an intellectual, cultural, and pedagogical project to disturb and decenter Eurocentric knowledge and historiography; to investigate its assumptions and interrogate its claims by highlighting the voices and experiences of the ‘subaltern,’ those historically marginalized and oppressed by Western and patriarchal hegemony” (Shirazi, 2011, p. 279). Through a postcolonial lens, one that is interdisciplinary, philosophical, and ethical, we depart from the concept of knowledge as universal and acknowledge the Western conception of a universal knowledge as oppressive to marginalized groups and individuals (Shirazi, 2011, p. 291). “Post,” then, refers

98  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE

not to a mythical time after colonization but to how the colonial present is related to historic colonization of people(s) (Subedi & Daza, 2008, p. 2). Through the lens of postcolonial theory, the authors seek to listen to the voices of those traditionally marginalized; avoid the creation of a universalizing account of marginalization, domination, and resistance; and acknowledge how the ideas of things thought to be universal (e.g., education as empowering and/or validating) fail to acknowledge how those structures systemically perpetuate marginalization and oppression. This is particularly important when considering education as an influential and socializing structure in society. Exploring education through a postcolonial lens allows scholars to decolonize knowledge, produce transformative knowledge, and map how Western power projects beyond its own borders, in order to identify the limits of a “universal” system of viewing the world. Through a postcolonial lens, we seek to resist US imperialism and highlight ways Indigenous and marginalized persons have agency and can resist dominant power/knowledge systems (Subedi & Daza, 2008). Decolonization seeks to critique dominant forms of knowledge and the institutions that reinforce and replicate the systems that dominate (Calderon, 2014), which is the goal of this chapter as we seek to decolonize the curriculum design and evaluation process. Need for a postcolonial approach to higher education. Postcolonialism allowed us to explore the marginalization perpetuated by higher education by shifting the lens from those traditionally dominant to those marginalized (Wuetherick & Ewert-Bauer, 2012). This is critically important when decolonizing higher education. Many decolonial critiques document a persistent failure to adequately address the effects of colonialism and its afterlife and to recognize the centrality of colonialism to the past and present of capitalism and the nation-state. If this is so, then rather than pushing to determine a new way out or forward, we need to consider what political, methodological, and pedagogical questions remain to be asked if increasing numbers of people are dissatisfied with this imaginary yet largely remain deeply embedded and invested in the promises that it offers. (Stein, 2017, p. S27)

To decolonize higher education, scholars must begin by deconstructing higher education as a contributor to colonialism and as a force that reinforces and contributes to the power/knowledge system of dominance. Higher education is an institution governed by processes, systems, discourses, and language, so identifying alternate valid forms of knowledge is not enough because those forms of knowledge will still be evaluated according to Western systems of thought. Colonialism involves more than just silencing other forms of knowledge, it actively defines “knowledge” and categorizes what knowledge is valuable, essentially creating a hierarchy of what is considered valid

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

99

and true. As such, higher education systems need to be interrogated, interrupted, and dismantled to truly undo colonialism. Further, the curriculum (re)design process also needs to acknowledge and consider the systems that “police” what is considered valid knowledge (Stein, 2017) when (re)designing the curriculum and curricular processes as that will impact if and how a reconceptualized curriculum is accepted and implemented.

Decolonizing Higher Education Through a Postcolonial Lens Postcolonial studies in education are particularly relevant to understanding how education praxis and knowledge production reinforces the dominant power/knowledge systems. A postcolonial approach to curriculum (re) design pushes to unlearn “white privilege and deficit thinking” (Subedi & Daza, 2008, p. 4); emphasizes the layered and intersecting aspects of identity; and redefines who is considered an “authority” (Subedi & Daza, 2008). This approach to curriculum design in higher education through a postcolonial lens is to transform higher education. The use of a postcolonial lens is valuable as a pedagogical intervention for scholars and practitioners of critical peace education, because it provides orientation in how to read events and how to interpret youth practices in schools in such a way that is mindful of their knowledge, narratives, and beliefs (Shirazi, 2011, p. 292). Further, decolonization does not occur at the “expense” of Western knowledge but seeks to create spaces where alternative knowledges are valued, promoted, and can grow (Wuetherick & ­Ewert-Bauer, 2012). One way to decolonize higher education curriculum is by disrupting epistemic dominance (Stein, 2017). Disrupting epistemic dominance includes making structures of epistemic dominance visible so that what is missing is noticed, sparking the desire for change followed by creating alternative possibilities (which creates new questions). Stein (2017) discussed four stages of addressing and deconstructing epistemic dominance in curriculum: 1.  Denaturalization: Denaturalization involves understanding the impact of defining valid and invalid knowledges. For example, Shirazi (2011) explored the experiences of Jordanian youth to understand how they were disempowered in education. Instead of using assumed knowledge about the youth as a departure point for curriculum, beginning with attention to how knowledge has been produced about Jordanian youth helped the educator move beyond definitions of Jordanian youth as “marginalized” or “oppressed.” It also helped to inform understanding of how knowledge had been produced about youth and how that knowledge had guided/or informed the development of institutionalized “empowering” spaces. Beginning with the experiences of Jordanian youth allowed the educator to identify spaces for empowerment that existed in their own realities.

100  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE 2. Seeking solutions: The second stage of disrupting epistemic dominance is seeking practical solutions that address immediate and accumulated harms (e.g., institutional policy changes) and diversification of disciplinary canons in response to what was identified or uncovered in step one. 3. Implementation: The third stage involves a review of the implementation of solutions identified in step two and, based on that review, either a return to step one and two, or; 4. Unlearning, unknowing, and unowning: The fourth stage is to proceed with unlearning, unknowing, and unowning marginalizing and dominating ways of thinking, teaching, and researching.

By following these steps, the proposed model of a postcolonial approach to curriculum design discussed in this chapter seeks to empower and emancipate according to the lived realities of students instead of assumptions or current knowledge about them (Shirazi, 2011). The model is additionally informed by Stein’s (2017) discussion of four different levels of the inclusion of traditionally marginalized knowledge into curricula: 1.  Thin inclusion: Thin inclusion of traditionally marginalized knowledge emphasizes the consumption of knowledge about marginalized groups rather than the creation of spaces to ethically engage with the knowledges created by those groups. Curriculum changes are isolated to one or two course meetings, and the rest of the syllabus stays the same without addressing racism or colonialism. One example of thin inclusion is seen in “multicultural curricula” that include “violent colonial histories merely as symbolic representation, as opposed to encouraging inquiries that distill consequences of colonialism and imperialism” (Desai & Sanya, 2016, p. 716). Thin inclusion might define past wrongs, such as slavery, as something that is part of the past and disconnected from larger conversations about racism and the systems that perpetuate racism (Desai & Sanya, 2016). 2. Thick inclusion: In thick inclusion, traditionally marginalized knowledge(s) is fully incorporated into the course/curriculum, along with questions about the nature of knowledge, whose knowledge is traditionally included and excluded, and the relationship between power and knowledge (Stein, 2017). However, because these knowledges are still inserted into the Western conception of higher education, there are limits as to what emancipation efforts can be accomplished in thick inclusion. 3.  Institutionalized “Interdisciplines”: The creation of “studies” programs to study other forms of knowledge implemented within the traditional higher education system attempts to create a discipline that specifically studies traditionally marginalized knowledges within the larger institution. The rest of the institution where these programs are created, however, continues reproducing the status quo. An example of “interdisciplines” can be seen in some internationalization curricula, where traditionally marginalized knowledges guide the curriculum. The push for an internationalization of curriculum focuses on overcoming institutional obstacles to internationalization and proving to the institution why redesign is important (Stein, 2017). For example, overcoming obstacles to internationalization could be accomplished by discussing how internationalization could help students to be competitive in a global

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

101

market by being educated to be global leaders. However, when the case for internationalization is built in this way, internationalization of curriculum theoretically extends colonial dominance. Further, because these programs are being inserted into a Western context and these programs are islands within the larger colonial system, the impact and potential for support and change is often limited to the program or department where the program resides. 4. Alternative institutions: Finally, the creation of alternative organizations represents a true integration of marginalized forms of knowledge and teaching. These alternative organizations focus on non-Western epistemes where Indigenous forms of knowledge form and inform scholarship, pedagogical practices, and curriculum. Examples are URACCAN, Bluefields Indian and Caribbean University, and the Universidad Autónoma Indígena Intercultural (UAIIN) in Columbia (Cupples & Glynn, 2014, p. 59). URACCAN emphasizes teaching in native languages and culturally appropriate texts, endogenous teaching methods, and practices interculturality.

Through a postcolonial approach to curriculum design, we applied Stein’s (2017) frameworks to the process of decolonizing and (re)designing ­competency-based curriculum design. Examples of a postcolonial approach to higher education. Attempts to decolonize higher education curriculum have occurred in many fields and contexts. First, Nozaki (2009) described a postcolonial approach to the (re)design of Asian Studies program curriculum and found that most Asian studies courses, programs, and student outcomes in the United States typically reflected stereotypical perceptions of Asia and reinforce Asia as the “other.” To challenge the othering of people, nations, and knowledge, Nozaki’s (2009) critical approach suggests that Asian Studies curriculum should describe the diversity within Asian cultures and Asian nations. Nozaki’s (2009) approach included the voices of subordinated populations within a given Asian nation through the lens of “multiple oppressions” that explored how different power structures operated within a country to oppress or marginalize. Second, Nozaki (2009) recommended that Asian Studies programs explore the hybrid aspects of Asian culture to avoid generalizations or the assumption that the culture being studied is an isolated, cultural exception. Finally, Nozaki (2009) emphasized the importance of an “ecology of knowledges” that emphasizes the value of diverse knowledges in different contexts (instead of trying to reify one knowledge that applies across all contexts) and affirms diverse knowledges as interdependent instead of autonomous. Second, Guenette and Marshall (2008) described the process to decolonize a counselor education curriculum for Indigenous students. Their curriculum redesign process included: (a) Formation of an advisory committee of faculty and community members involved with aboriginal education and healing. This included an initial retreat to establish goals, values, principles, and outline redesign; (b) securing funds for redesign activities; (c) an additional

102  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE

retreat to determine overarching vision for program; and (d) evaluation. Throughout each stage of the process, Guenette and Marshall (2008) emphasized the importance of verifying and validating each decision with the advisory committee and evaluating the relative success of each component of the curriculum after it was implemented. In that way, they modeled how a postcolonial lens involves those referenced in the curriculum in each stage of the process. Finally, Rosser (1999) outlined six phases of the incorporation of postcolonial feminism into science curriculum: Phase I: No inclusion of Indigenous science and scientists in curriculum; Phase II: Recognition that science might reflect a Eurocentric/colonial/masculine perspective; Phase III: Understanding how colonization impacts what is viewed as valid scientific knowledge; Phase IV: (re)Discovery of Indigenous science and technology; Phase V: Focus on Indigenous science and technology as valid forms of knowledge and avenues for future study; and, Phase IV: Exchange and discourse that is mutually beneficial between Indigenous and traditional scientists. As an example of these phases, Rosser (1999) discussed a postcolonial approach to science curriculum that could be applied to most higher education fields. By intentional and reflective design, as the process proceeds, the view of what is valid curriculum and who are valid curriculum designers, practitioners, and teachers expands to include marginalized knowledges and knowers. Potential obstacles to a postcolonial approach to higher education.  Decolonizing higher education curriculum is challenging, even outside of systemic and individual resistance to changes to the dominant power/knowledge system. Western higher education management is organized through a governance culture referred to as neoliberalism, which positions education as a standardized model of “inputs,” faculty production of credit points, and “outputs,” student consumption of credit points, through specific courses or modules (Lorenz, 2012, p. 612). A neoliberal governance system prevents changes to traditional higher education systems, processes, and procedures, The neoliberal ethos enacted through vertical corporate managerialism, audit and surveillance, the commodification of knowledge and the prioritization of science (see as both relevant and necessary) over humanities (increasingly deemed ‘a luxury we cannot afford’) sits uneasily with Indigenous ontologies which tend to be based on horizontal and reciprocal solidarities, collective decision making, and relationship rather than instrumentalist understandings of the connections between humans and nonhumans. (Cupples & Glynn, 2014, p. 65)

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

103

Further, neoliberalism limits knowledge production and creates a less welcoming environment for Indigenous students (Cupples & Glynn, 2014). In a neoliberal climate, higher education is accountable to the business world through private funding and by defining the student as a future valuable employee (Giroux, 2014). The focus on the individual and career-readiness might prevent large-scale restructuring of curriculum processes and procedures, especially if those changes are not directly related to outcomes valued in a capitalistic economy. This is why and how competency-based curriculum design can help to ameliorate fears that decolonizing curriculum will make students less prepared for life after higher education.

Competency-Based Curriculum Design In competency-based curriculum design, curriculum is student-centered and designed based on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) needed in the given profession. This method connects the desired behaviors and skills the student needs for their profession; this approach is student-centered because it focuses on the desired learning outcomes of the student rather than the process of teaching (Parson, Childs, & Elzie, 2018). Competency-based curriculum has been used in Health Professions Education (HPE) (Bierer, Dannefer, Taylor, Hall, & Hull, 2008; Frank et al., 2010; Harris, Snell, Talbot, & Harden, 2010; Litzelman & Cottingham, 2007; Mulder, Cate, Daalder, & Berkvens, 2010; Parson et al., 2018; Smith & Dollase, 1999; Smith, Dollase, & Boss, 2003), social work education (Bracy, 2018), engineering curriculum (Carracedo et al., 2018), human performance technology curriculum (Chyung, Stepich, & Cox, 2006), and teacher training curriculum (Dumitru, 2017). Proponents of competency-based education (CBE) assert that it gives students more control over their education and has the potential to provide a more uniform education. Key in the development of competency-based curriculum is alignment of desired competencies with performance outcomes and curriculum (Bracy, 2018). To do that, Carracedo et al. (2018) developed “competency maps” to implement professional competencies into engineering curriculum. The competency map eliminated the hierarchy of desired learning outcomes and aligned learning outcomes with each professional competency at each domain. Competencies should align to organizational goals, be designed to move the individual from novice to expert, and need to be context specific (Chyung et al., 2006). One example of CBE to implement a competency-based curriculum was described by Mulder et al. (2010) to create a physician assistant curriculum. Mulder et al.’s (2010) model was guided by the creation of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for the University of Applied Sciences master’s program for physician assistants. First, the team identified and described the entrustables, based on the KSAs of different domains. Then, the team created an assessment of each competency and decided how each competency

104  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE

would be implemented into the curriculum across the student’s education are defined. The final phase of the model included the implementation of curriculum into practice through supervision, observations, and assessment by other supervisors (Mulder et al., 2010). Similarly, CBE has been used to develop and design curriculum in the social work field. Bracy (2018) stated that “performance outcomes are the building blocks of a competency-based curriculum” and identified the three domains where KSA development occurs: cognitive domain, affective domain, and psychomotor domain (p. 3). The cognitive domain included the knowledge to be learned and process to learn that knowledge; the affective domain included the attitudes and feelings held about the learning environment; and the psychomotor domain is where the development of skills occurred (Bracy, 2018). Through a partnership with a Western university and institutions in Southern and Eastern Africa, Tolliver, Martin, and Salome (2018) utilized CBE and concepts of lifelong learning to develop curriculum rooted in African cultural values. Input from students and faculty was used to “Africanize” the curriculum by incorporating cultural and social values and traditions (Tolliver et al., 2018, p. 132). The authors reflected on their experience with the USA-African higher education partnerships and concluded that the learning processes through CBE and “Africanizing” the curriculum has the potential to enhance the students’ personal pursuit of learning, knowledge, and success (Tolliver et al., 2018). Criticisms of competency-based design. First, CBE is criticized when the competencies developed are binary, when an individual is assessed as either competent or incompetent. Binary competencies may not be entirely reflective of an individual’s competence in the given area, and the competent/incompetent false dichotomy fails to acknowledge levels of competency and nuances in ability. Additionally, binary competencies often fail to clearly delineate how to determine if a student has learned enough be called “competent” and how sufficient levels of competence are defined and assessed in terms of learning as well as performance. Second, even with multi-level competencies, scholars caution that approaching CBE as “mastery” education may suggest that the student has achieved the highest level of competence (Albanese et al., 2010; Bracy, 2018; Carracedo et al., 2018; Frank et al., 2010; Harris et al., 2010). This language defines competence as static, which is problematic because performance expectations need to adapt to complex and dynamic environments (Frank et al., 2010). Further, static competencies are not reflective of fluid real-world environments and suggest that once competence is reached, the individual is competent forever. Further, a static view of CBE is not practical and not reflective of the complex and constructed environments people live in. Additionally, the use of language to suggest a hierarchical approach to learning and development may not be effective regarding professional competencies because professional competencies are complex, and learning is not a linear process (Carracedo et al., 2018). Similarly, some criticize CBE because it suggests that student success

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

105

is judged or measured by their outputs (Hawkins et al., 2015). This behavioral approach to education concerns those in the profession because CBE suggests that learning activities may not measure learning, but rather one measurable competency. As a result, this may lead to reduced instructor and student creativity by holding everyone to the same expectation (Hawkins et al., 2015). Finally, Harris et al. (2010) also critique competency-based frameworks as not representative of particular sociocultural and economic contexts which could lead to unintended costs to the student’s performance outcomes (Harris et al., 2010). Competency-based curriculum has the potential to be static and reflects a pedagogical framework that situates learning outcomes in a binary way, either learning did or did not occur. The use of this language and implementation has the potential to reinforce Western concepts of measuring learning, which further reinforces Western knowledge systems. In response, careful consideration needs to occur when designing, implementing, and assessing competencies so that they adequately reflect the goals of the organization and the desired learning outcomes of the students. Learning is a continuous process, and competency-based curriculum needs to be reflective of that process. Several considerations need to be made in competency-based curriculum design, including how each competency will be implemented, monitored, assessed, and how the desired outcome will be measured (Albanese et al., 2010). Skills and attitudes are complex, measurable outcomes that require a complex measurement tool. As a result, the development of authentic, multi-level competencies may create financial and time constraints on the organization. How a postcolonial approach to competency-based design can resolve those concerns.  Viewing competency-based curriculum design through a postcolonial lens addresses criticisms of CBE by expanding the source of the competencies, so they are not just limited to career-focused competencies. Second, and described in more detail in subsequent sections, a postcolonial approach gathers data on learning methods and techniques, expanding the focus from competencies that reflect Indigenous knowledges to Indigenous forms of learning shifting the focus from competencies to learning and competence. Further, the behaviorism inherent in competency-based curriculum design seen as problematic is positive when incorporated into a postcolonial approach to curriculum design. Especially in a Western model of higher education, there needs to be a shift in faculty behaviors, so while instructor biases may not change, CBE can help to promote behaviors that respect and acknowledge Indigenous knowledges. Although a postcolonial approach is often a view that focuses on the colonizer/colonized relationship, the authors use a postcolonial lens to not only (re)structure higher education from the perspective of Indigenous persons but also those traditionally marginalized in higher education, including those marginalized by race and gender to name a few.

106  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE

Author Positionality One of the key challenges the authors encountered in the development of a model for curriculum redesign was to acknowledge and consider the interconnection of their identities as white women scholars and the privilege inherent in their identities in higher education. Laura. As a researcher, I am a white, middle-class, woman professor. My privilege from my race and social class interacts with my role as a professor. The power I derive by determining the research process privileges me in multiple ways and gives me even more power in the research process than another might have as a woman professor within the higher education institution. Jess. I am also a white, middle-class, cisgender woman and a graduate student. I benefit from the privileges of my identities, and I understand the ways in which power intersects with the privilege of holding those identities. As a graduate student, I have been socialized under the Western model of education and have the potential to (re)produce colonizer ideologies and narratives through her coursework and involvement with research. As Asher (2009) stated, “Postcolonial educators/cultural works – remain implicated by their own participation in systems of education that are rooted in Eurocentric, colonialist, and oppressive traditions” (p. 8). We acknowledge that one cannot disconnect from the privilege of being a beneficiary of the colonizing systems and processes in Western higher education. Indeed, writing this chapter and proposing a model of competency-based curriculum design is done within the same system that would invalidate a similar process or implementation of these practices if done outside the academy or, perhaps, proposed by those with different roles, identities, or privileges. In this chapter and in proposing this method, we sought to disrupt the very system that allowed us to be here and write. Further, the ways in which we have been a beneficiary of these power relations have conditioned us to see the world in ways that (re)produce the “goodness” of our values, characteristics, and culture. Through this work, by seeking the input of those traditionally marginalized, we actively work to decolonize not only curriculum design but also our own ways of thinking, knowing, and believing: “The work of decolonization begins right here, with self and the contradictions of home – incompletenesses, joys, struggles, surprises, and all” (Asher, 2009, p. 7).

Postcolonial Approach to Competency-Based Curriculum Design Following a postcolonial approach to data collection and analysis (Harding, 1998; Sawyer & Liggett, 2012; Vanner, 2015), we describe how to conduct a competency identification process that begins from the standpoint of those most marginalized in higher education: underrepresented and marginalized students, graduates, and faculty. To do this, we sought to decolonize traditional curriculum design, which places faculty members at the center of the

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

107

curriculum evaluation and (re)design effort. This model of competency-based curriculum (re)design occurs in two stages that aligns with Stein’s (2017) stages of inclusion of marginalized knowledges into the curriculum (denaturalization, seeking solutions; review and assessment, and unlearning, unknowing, and unowning marginalizing and dominating ways of thinking, teaching, and researching). The first stage of this model, referred to as Stage One, is to accomplish the goal of denaturalization, seeking solutions, and review/assessment through “thick inclusion” of marginalized knowledge and knowers into the curriculum. The second stage, Stage Two, seeks to accomplish unlearning, unknowing, and unowning through the creation of a curriculum and coursework that creates an “interdiscipline” within the traditional higher education structure. While there are two stages to this model, neither the process nor the model should be seen as a linear or finite process. Instead, the model is iterative and cyclical, with curriculum design occurring in a continuum that constantly seeks to re-evaluate, improve, and repeat. Stage One In Stage One, curriculum (re)design begins from the standpoint of minoritized students and faculty who describe their perceptions of the KSAs of professionals and/or leaders in their field (referred to as key stakeholders throughout this chapter). The first step of Stage One, after key stakeholders have been identified and asked to participate, is identifying and seeking their input. Curriculum designers collect this data through focus groups, individual interviews, and shared documents (via the Delphi Method; Linstone & Turoff, 1975) that ask traditionally marginalized and minoritized stakeholders to describe the institutional barriers and opportunities they have observed and experienced as it relates to both their specific experience with ­program-specific curriculum and higher education. Listening and documenting this articulation of nondominant and Indigenous knowledges and their histories (Young, 2012) informs curriculum designers as they develop competencies that represent the KSAs identified by each stakeholder group. Next, curriculum designers organize, analyze, and validate those competencies with the key stakeholder group before developing competencies into curriculum learning objectives and outcomes. Next, curriculum designers organize learning objectives thematically into domains, followed by the organization of domains into courses. This categorization process is similar, in many ways, to qualitative methods of data analysis where codes are organized into themes and themes organized into categories (Saldaña, 2016). In this analogy, competencies are codes, domains are themes, and courses are categories. Further, the translation of KSAs into competencies could mirror the process of creating significant statements or descriptive code names. In this way, we view the curriculum identification and organization process as similar in rigor and design to qualitative research. See Table 6.1 for Stage One steps and key processes involved in a postcolonial approach to competency-based curriculum design.

108  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE Table 6.1  Stage one steps: Postcolonial approach to competency-based curriculum design Step

Task

Time

Key processes

1.

Identify competencies (KSA’s)

3–4 months

2.

Identify competencies and organize into domains Craft key program learning objectives

1–2 months

Literature review; focus groups with underrepresented students (undergraduate); focus group with underrepresented program students (current and graduate); focus group with stakeholders; focus group(s) with faculty; and review employment requirements/expectations (e.g., faculty handbooks, P&T) Coding significant statements into themes, organize themes into categories

3.

1–2 weeks

4.

Organize learning objectives into courses

1–2 months

5.

Create course learning outcomes and assessments

1–2 months

6.

Evaluation

1–4 months

7.

Implementation

1–3 years

8.

Program evaluation

3–8 years

9.

Summative assessment

1–2 years

Rewrite domains in a student-centered way that demonstrates categories of KSAs students should demonstrate at the conclusion of the program. Suggest five to seven program learning objectives In consultation with faculty (e.g., faculty focus groups), organize learning objectives into courses. More than one course can help students meet learning objectives Group competencies according to learning objectives, and turn each competencies into a course learning objective and course assessment (This step could occur simultaneously with step 4) Review program curriculum and compare to similar programs; consult key stakeholders, students, and external faculty; make revisions according to feedback Receive institutional approval; communicate curriculum changes and rationale to students, administrators, and faculty Seek feedback from stakeholders, students, and external faculty; gather qualitative and quantitative measures of perceptions Collect internal and external assessment of program success

After competencies, domains, and courses have been drafted, curriculum designers conduct the first external assessment to validate their curricular decisions with key stakeholders. This assessment should also include a comparison with similar or competitive programs to identify if and how curriculum recommendations differ from competitive programs. While differences from competitive programs do not (and perhaps should not) automatically result in changes to the curriculum especially if they contradict recommendations made by the key stakeholder group, this step is still important to understand if and how the proposed (re)designed curriculum will differ from

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

109

traditional programming. The external assessment data collection could occur via focus groups, interviews, and shared documents (or a combination of the three, which the authors recommend), similar to methods for collecting data in the initial data gathering stage. After an external validation, curriculum designers refine the competencies, domains, and courses according to their feedback. These revisions should again be sent to the key stakeholders for review and additional feedback and revisions, finishing only when no substantial changes are needed. Once a curriculum outline has been established, curriculum designers begin individual course development. Individual course development involves translating the competencies associated for each course content domain into course learning objectives. This process could be as simple as adding “At the conclusion of this course, students will be able to…” to each competency. However, we suggest that courses should have between five and seven student learning objectives, so the development of course learning objectives might include the decisions about how broad or narrow to make course learning objectives and if course learning objectives should align with the broader content domains instead of replicating each competency (see Parson et al., 2018). Development of effective learning objectives is discussed at length in other resources (see Ezell et al., 2019; Mitchell & Manzo, 2018; Rainwater, 2016; Torrance, 2007). These course learning objectives then inform the development of course assessments, content, and teaching methods. In each step of the course design process, assessment, methods, and content are directly rooted in the competencies identified and verified with the key stakeholders. Of note, in the traditional higher education institution, individual curriculum development often only includes the establishment of course learning objectives and key assessments, preserving the individual faculty member’s academic freedom to teach the course based on their expertise on knowledge. Ideally, however, the faculty member teaching the course will be involved and fully participate in the full curriculum design process. Also discussed at length in other resources, this chapter will not discuss how to develop and align course assessments, teaching methods, and course design with learning objectives. After (re)design is complete, the new curriculum is implemented in tandem with a focused program evaluation and assessment effort. In this model, program evaluation includes measuring if and how student learning outcomes are being met and seeks to understand how students, faculty, and stakeholders are experiencing the (re)designed program. This data is added to the data collected at the beginning of the curriculum (re)design process about institutional barriers for marginalized groups. Program evaluation collection also includes data that explores if challenges persist for students in the redesigned curriculum, and if so how, and what additional challenges have arisen. Finally, program evaluation needs to identify and explore barriers to implementation of the (re)designed curriculum. While this data could be collected in many ways, we recommend a combination of qualitative measures of student and

110  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE

faculty perceptions, assessment of student work, and qualitative interviews and focus groups with students, faculty, and key stakeholders who interact with or are otherwise engaged with program graduates or faculty. Formative assessment should occur throughout the implementation of the curriculum in an iterative manner, and curriculum designers need to collect data each semester (or trimester, term, etc.), yet a full summative assessment of the curriculum might not be possible until one or two full cohorts of students have graduated under the new curriculum. This will allow for a more complete program evaluation, understanding that program evaluation inside and outside of this process is ongoing and continuous. See Fig. 6.1 for Stage One of the postcolonial competency-based curriculum design framework. Stage Two Stage Two is guided by the program evaluation and assessment results in Stage One and seeks to respond to stakeholder feedback on the institutional structures that created challenges for them. In this stage, curriculum designers aim to understand how to (re)create the institutionalized structures identified as challenging by these stakeholders through curriculum and program design. In Stage One, curriculum designers tried to identify nondominant ways of thinking and knowing and (re)design in the curriculum according to those knowledges through the identification of competencies. In Stage Two, curriculum designers address the larger processes, procedures, and discourses that work to marginalize, silence, and invalidate nondominant knowledge and knowers. This process begins with the data gathered from stakeholders in Stage One about the institutional processes that created challenges for learners as well as data gathered from the implementation of Stage One. (Re) design addresses all institutional barriers that created challenges for marginalized or underrepresented students as well as the new barriers that emerged in resistance to the (re)designed curriculum. Additionally, in Stage Two, curriculum designers try to re-imagine how education can look. This is a process that might include changing instructional methods and even learning settings, although the nature of how that will look will be directed by stakeholders. Some examples may include service learning, alternative pedagogies, bringing in voices and experiences of knowers, and revising traditional grading and assessment structures. In the competency-based curriculum design model, Stage One is rigid and follows a step-by-step procedure. The actual curriculum implementation process is rigid; Fig. 6.1 shows Stage One and double-ended arrows are used to provide some fluidity to the implementation process as the authors recognize that structured processes do not always occur in a structured way. Presenting Stage One in this manner aligns with Western methodologies

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

111

Fig. 6.1  Stage one of the postcolonial competency-based curriculum design framework

because it “assumes a homogenous understanding of methodology, methods, implementation, and negotiations of multiple un/planned circumstances” (Bhattacharya, 2007, p. 1108). Though this may seem counterintuitive to postcolonialism, decolonization does not reject Western knowledge but values alternative knowledges and creates opportunities for these knowledges to be taught (Wuetherick & Ewert-Bauer, 2012). We did not create a visual for Stage Two because it is reliant on input and feedback from stakeholders and is contextually based. In Stage Two we ask, “How do we (re)create an educational framework focused on centering traditionally marginalized knowledges?” A postcolonial approach to the (re) creation of an educational framework recognizes that “academic rigor, trustworthiness, and transferability are shifting, contingent concepts fraught with their own limits and possibilities” (Bhattacharya, 2007, p. 1108). Therefore, we chose to not create a static and structured outline for the implementation of Stage Two, giving complete autonomy to institutions and their stakeholders. By making these processes and procedures visible, curriculum designers keep key stakeholders involved in the curriculum evaluation and ongoing evaluation process. We argue that curriculum (re)design can (re)create the

112  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE

academy by recreating teaching and learning systems and processes, rooted in the outcomes and objectives identified by key stakeholders.

Recommendations We accept that, even within this model, we cannot completely decolonize higher education, especially if the only sphere of influence is at the curriculum or course level. The goals, according to Shahjahan’s (2014) modes of postcolonial resistance, begin in Stage One with resistance as (re)writing and undermining colonial narratives. However, while that can lead to cultural change, that process is not automatic. That is why the evaluation that guides Stage Two is key for transformation of the institution. Resistance as (re)writing and undermining can only lead to cultural change if it involves reflection and recreation. Inherent to a postcolonial curriculum is supporting Indigenous students (Grant, 2010); as white authors, we acknowledge the limitations of own colonial knowledge and suggest that educators support students by attending traditional events, seek knowledge and advising from Indigenous scholars and non-scholars, and put aside fears that the student cannot do it or that the work is not traditionally valid in academic circles (Grant, 2010). While individuals cannot explicitly experience another genre, genres are interwoven with each other, and curriculum must educate toward interconnectivity (e.g., moving beyond the limits of standpoint theory) (Desai & Sanya, 2016).

Conclusion If the focus of postcolonial theory is identifying and understanding the “other,” then it has the potential to reify othering: Othering is what the postcolonial should be trying to deconstruct, but the tendency to use the concept remains: the often-posed questions of how ‘we’ (implicitly the majority or dominant group) can know ‘the other,’ who remains implicitly unknowable and unapproachable, or how ‘the other’ can be encouraged to represent itself in its otherness rather than merely be represented as other, is simply the product of having made the discriminatory conceptual distinction in the first place … the question is not how to come to know ‘the other,’ but for majority groups to stop othering minorities altogether, at which point minorities will be able to represent themselves as they are, in their specific forms of difference, rather than as they are othered. (Young, 2012, p. 37)

It is our hope that a postcolonial approach to competency-based curriculum design can begin a process to the decolonization of the academy and create spaces where marginalized and Indigenous knowledges are valued and accepted as valid in higher education.

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

113

References Albanese, M. A., Mejicano, G., Anderson, M., & Gruppen, L. (2010). Building a competency-based curriculum: The agony and the ecstasy. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9118-2. Asher, N. (2009). Writing home/decolonizing text(s). Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300802643033. Bhattacharya, K. (2007). Consenting to the consent form. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1095–1115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407304421. Bierer, S. B., Dannefer, E. F., Taylor, C., Hall, P., & Hull, A. L. (2008). Methods to assess students’ acquisition, application and integration of basic science knowledge in an innovative competency-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 30, e171–e177. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.500703. Bracy, W. (2018). Building a competency-based curriculum in social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 38, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0884123 3.2017.1400496. Calderon, D. (2014). Uncovering settler grammars in curriculum. Educational Studies, 50(4), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.926904. Carracedo, F. S., Soler, A., Martín, C., López, D., Ageno, A., Cabré, J., … Gilbert, K. (2018). Competency maps: An effective model to integrate professional competencies across a STEM curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9735-3. Chyung, S. Y., Stepich, D., & Cox, D. (2006). Building a competency-based curriculum architecture to educate 21st-century business practitioners. Journal of Education for Business, 81(6), 307–314. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.6.307-314. Cupples, J., & Glynn, K. (2014). Indigenizing and decolonizing higher education on Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 35(1), 56–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12051. Desai, K., & Sanya, B. N. (2016). Towards decolonial praxis: Reconfiguring the human and the curriculum. Gender and Education, 26(6), 710–724. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1221893. Dumitru, D. E. (2017). Reorienting higher education pedagogical and professional development curricula toward sustainability—A Romanian perspective. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(6), 894–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2016-0046. Dunbar-Ortiz, R. (2014). An indigenous peoples’ history of the United States. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Ezell, J. D., Lending, D., Dillon, T. W., May, J., Hurney, C. A., & Fulcher, K. H. (2019). Developing measurable cross-departmental learning objectives for requirements elicitation in an information systems curriculum. Journal of Information Systems Education, 30(1), 27–41. Frank, J. R., Snell, L. S., Cate, O. T., Holmboe, E. S., Carraccio, C., Swing., S. R., … Harris, K. A. (2010). Competency-based medical education: Implications for undergraduate programs. Medical Teacher, 32, 646–650. https://doi.org/10.3109 /0142159X.2010.500703. Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.

114  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE Grant, B. M. (2010). The limits of ‘teaching and learning’: Indigenous students and doctoral supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(5), 505–517. https://doi. org/10.1080/13562517.2010.491903. Guenette, F., & Marshall, E. A. (2008). Indigenizing counselor education: Implementing postsecondary curriculum change. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 31(1), 107–122. Harding, S. G. (1998). Is science multicultural? Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Harris, P., Snell, L., Talbot, M., & Harden, R. M. (2010). Competency-based medical education: Implications for undergraduate programs. Medical Teacher, 32, 646– 650. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.500703. Hawkins, R. E., Welcher, C. M., Holmboe, E. S., Kirk, L. M., Norcini, J. J., Simons, K. B., & Skochelak, S. E. (2015). Implementation of competency-based medical education: Are we addressing the concerns and challenges? Medical Education, 49, 1086–1102. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Litzelman, D. K., & Cottingham, A. H. (2007). The new formal competency-based curriculum and informal curriculum at Indiana University School of Medicine: Overview and five-year analysis. Academic Medicine, 82(4), 410–421. Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry, 38, 599–629. Mitchell, K. M. W., & Manzo Ross, W. (2018). The purpose and perception of learning objectives. Journal of Political Science Education, 14(4), 456–472. https://doi. org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1433542. Mulder, H., Cate, O. T., Daalder, R., & Berkvens, J. (2010). Building a ­competency-based workplace curriculum around entrustable professional activities: The case of physician assistant training. Medical Teacher, 32, e453–e459. Nozaki, Y. (2009). Critical teaching about Asia: Orientalism, postcolonial perspectives and cross-cultural education. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 30(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256860902766941. Painter, J., & Jeffrey, A. (2009). Political geography: An introduction to space and power. London: Sage. Parson, L., Childs, B., & Elzie, P. (2018). Using competency-based curriculum design to create a health professions education certificate program the meets the needs of students, administrators, faculty, and patients. Health Professions Education, 4, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2018.03.008. Rainwater, T. S. M. (2016). Teaching and learning in competency-based education courses and programs: Faculty and student perspective. The Journal of ­Competency-Based Education, 1(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbe2.1008. Rosser, S. V. (1999). International experiences lead to using postcolonial feminism to transform life sciences curriculum. Women’s Studies International Forum, 22(1), 3–15. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Sawyer, R. D., & Liggett, T. (2012). Shifting positionalities: A critical discussion of a duoethnographic inquiry of a personal curriculum of post/colonialism. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(5), 628–651.

6  POSTCOLONIAL APPROACH TO CURRICULUM DESIGN 

115

Seung Youn (Yonnie), C., Stepich, D., & Cox, D. (2006). Building a ­competency-based curriculum architecture to educate 21st-century business practitioners. Journal of Education for Business, 81, 307–314. Shahjahan, R. A. (2014). From ‘no’ to ‘yes’: Postcolonial perspectives on resistance to neoliberal higher education. Discourse: Studies in The Cultural Politics If Education, 35(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.745732. Shih, C. F. (2010). Academic colonialism and the struggle for indigenous knowledge systems in Taiwan. Social Alternatives, 29(1), 44–47. Shirazi, R. (2011). When projects of ‘empowerment’ don’t liberate: Locating agency in a ‘postcolonial’ peace education. Journal of Peace Education, 8(3), 277–294. Smith, S. R., & Dollase, R. (1999). AMEE guide no. 14: Outcome-based education: Part 2-planning, implementing and evaluating a competency-based curriculum. Medical Teacher, 21, 15–22. Smith, S. R., Dollase, R. H., & Boss, J. A. (2003). Assessing students’ performance in a competency-based curriculum. Academic Medicine, 78, 97–107. Stein, S. (2017). The persistent challenges of addressing epistemic dominance in higher education: Considering the case of curriculum internationalization. Comparative Education Review, 61(S1), S25–S50. http://doi.org/0010-4086/2017/61S1-003. Subedi, B., & Daza, S. L. (2008). The possibilities of postcolonial praxis in education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13613320701845731. Tolliver, D. E., Martin, A., & Salome, N. (2018). Competency-based education, lifelong learning and adult students: Insights from international partnerships between East Africa, Southern Africa and USA-based institutions of higher education. Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, 12(1), 123–144. Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education, 14(3), 281–294. https://doi. org/10.1080/09695940701591867. Vanner, C. (2015). Positionality at the center: Constructing an epistemological and methodological approach for a western feminist doctoral candidate conducting research in the postcolonial. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915618094. Wuetherick, B., & Ewert-Bauer, T. (2012). Perceptions of neutrality through a post-colonial lens: Institutional positioning in Canadian academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 17(3), 217–229. https://doi.org /10.1080/1360144x.2012.700896. Young, R. C. (2012). Postcolonial remains. New Literary History, 43(1), 19–42.

Recommend Readings Asher, N. (2009). Writing home/decolonizing text(s). Discourse Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01596300802643033. Calderon, D. (2014). Uncovering settler grammars in curriculum. Educational Studies, 50(4), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.926904. Desai, K., & Sanya, B. N. (2016). Towards decolonial praxis: Reconfiguring the human and the curriculum. Gender and Education, 26(6), 710–724. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1221893.

116  L. PARSON AND J. WEISE Lang, J. M. (2008). On course: A week-by-week guide to your first semester of college teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Major, C. H., Harris, M. S., & Zakrajsek, T. (2016). Teaching for learning: 101 intentionally designed educational activities to put students on the path to success. New York, NY: Routledge. Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Parson, L., Childs, B., & Elzie, P. (2018). Using competency-based curriculum design to create a health professions education certificate program the meets the needs of students, administrators, faculty, and patients. Health Professions Education, 4, 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2018.03.008. Shahjahan, R. A. (2014). From ‘no’ to ‘yes’: Postcolonial perspectives on resistance to neoliberal higher education. Discourse: Studies in The Cultural Politics if Education, 35(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.745732. Stein, S. (2017). The persistent challenges of addressing epistemic dominance in higher education: Considering the case of curriculum internationalization. Comparative Education Review, 61(S1), S25–S50. http://doi.org/0010-4086/ 2017/61S1-003. Subedi, B., & Daza, S. L. (2008). The possibilities of postcolonial praxis in education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13613320701845731.

CHAPTER 7

Creating Inclusive College Classroom: Granting Epistemic Credibility to Learners Karla I. Loya

In the latest update of the National Center for Education Statistics data (Department of Education, 2019), of the almost 17 million undergraduate students enrolled in Fall 2017, 8.9 million were white. The other 47% included 3.3 million Latinx students, 2.2 million Black students, 1.1 million Asian/Pacific Islander students, and 124,000 American Indian/Alaskan Native students. Of the total, 9.4 million (56%) were women. Increasingly, our “traditional” higher education classrooms include working adults, parents, international students, and other “non-traditional” students (Wray & Montgomery, 2019). However, as college student demographics continue to change and diversify, higher education teaching methods, content, and curriculum have not, for the most part, evolved to better meet the needs of a more diverse student body. Under the current model of teaching and learning in higher education, instructors have the responsibility, authority, and power to make curricular, pedagogical, and assessment decisions; they create the classroom environments where students can learn (Sathy & Hogan, 2019; Weimer, 2013). Students, on the other hand, hold less authority and power in instructional decisions but are expected to be responsible participants in the teaching and learning process (Weimer, 2013). Embedded in this hierarchical notion of teaching and learning is the idea that knowledge, its access, and its production are central to power positions (Crabtree, Sapp, & Licona, 2009; Weimer,

K. I. Loya (*)  University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_7

117

118  K. I. LOYA

2013). That is, instructors know more, hence they teach, and students know less, hence they learn. But in our increasingly diverse college classrooms, this notion, if left unproblematized, limits and hinders the possibilities of incorporating perspectives, voices, and ways of knowing from those in the room. In this chapter, I examine the explicit and hidden ways in which, often unintentionally, college instructors create or maintain systems that include student’s voices in the teaching and learning process, leaving some voices excluded from the shared creation of knowledge in the classroom. Drawing on interview data with 25 faculty members and on well-documented best teaching practices, I offer ways to understand and foster classroom dynamics that promote full inclusion of students in college classrooms. I begin by presenting the concept of epistemic credibility as the theoretical foundation for this chapter’s proposed method for maximizing inclusion in the higher education classroom which requires the acknowledgment of power dynamics embedded in classroom practices.

Epistemic Credibility The concept of epistemic credibility is helpful to unpack, explain, and address classroom power dynamics. The term epistemic credibility evolved from epistemological critiques by feminist philosopher scholars who sought alternative ways to look at knowledge production and to make transparent practices of power (Alcoff, 2001; Diprose, 2000; Harding, 2004). These critiques challenged the notion of a universal, value-free, rational, and almost exclusively masculine knowledge production (Code, 1991; Haraway, 1988; Irigaray, 1995). These arguments, proposed by mostly western white women scholars, presented an idea of knowledge as always partial, biased, and specifically situated, value-laden, and linked to political contexts (Haraway, 1988; Harding, 2004). Feminist scholars of color have extended these propositions to introduce postcolonial critiques that problematize the historical and contemporary marginalization of knowledge produced by scholars of color (Anzaldúa, 1990; Gandhi, 2019; hooks, 1994; Narayan, 2000; Ortega, 2006). From these alternative epistemic perspectives, a pursuit of neutrality or objectivity ignores power dynamics and inequity in what we learn, how we learn it, and how we demonstrate that learning has occurred, which could lead to excluding the voices of less privileged groups (Crenshaw, 1991; Mohanty, 2003). Epistemic credibility is the authority given to an individual to receive and produce knowledge (Alcoff, 2001); in other words, epistemic credibility is the authority to be a learner as well as a contributing member in the teaching and learning process. Before granting epistemic credibility to an individual, that individual’s knowledge authority is assessed by others using what is known about them (Alcoff, 2001; Code, 1991; Fricker, 2007). Often, when one lacks knowledge about a person, they may resort to judgments of appearance (i.e., appearance of belonging to affinity groups), even if they are unaware of

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

119

it. Simply put, instructors grant or deny epistemic credibility to our students. Instructors do this consciously or unconsciously as they gauge a student’s knowledge authority (i.e., how much do/can/should they learn, how much do/can/should they contribute in class). Instructors often make these judgments based on what they see, know, or assume about their learners based on appearance or interactions with them. From this perspective then, faculty members engage in a constant and often unconscious estimating of what is deemed valid as epistemologically credible (i.e., knowledge) and how that knowledge is validated. These estimations are affected by structurally prejudiced and unequal societal values that enter their classrooms (Fricker, 2007; Harding, 2004). Specifically, an instructor’s assessments of who can learn and who can produce knowledge are influenced by their assumptions about the students, based on their decision to take into account or exclude aspects of their social identities (Alcoff, 2001). Often, educators seek or claim to pursue neutrality and fairness in their teaching. Regardless of good intentions, by pursuing neutrality, educators may contribute to ignoring existing power dynamics and maintaining inequity systems (Alcoff, 2001; Caughie & Pearce, 2009). Further, the pursuit of neutrality limits a recognition of difference and brings (often false) assumptions of equality in opportunity and preparedness, which can prevent instructors from integrating the voices of oppressed, underserved, or underrepresented groups (Crabtree et al., 2009; Fricker, 2007; Ropers-Huilman & Taliaferro, 2003). Under this false sense of neutrality, an instructor could easily fail to recognize a student’s trajectory, opportunities, and ways of demonstrating knowledge that can lead to erroneous judgment of academic performance, and to consider some population’s knowing as lesser (Fricker, 2007; Kaomea, 2003; McGee & Martin, 2011; Walkerdine, 1994). Being aware of student identities and faculty epistemic beliefs is fundamental to creating inclusive classrooms.

Inclusive College Teaching and Learning Efforts to make college classrooms—and teaching in particular—more inclusive are not new. Under different terms (e.g., multicultural education, diverse teaching and learning, dis/ability equality in higher education, universal design, culturally responsive teaching, or student- or learner-centered instruction), there have been numerous approaches that seek to foster student participation and agency. These approaches aim to respond to student’s backgrounds and culture through responsive curriculum, pedagogies, assessments, or other aspects with the goal of including students in the teaching and learning process (Hockings, Brett, & Terentjevs, 2012; Mack, 2012; Scager, Akkerman, Pilot, & Wubbels, 2017). Hockings (2010) defines inclusive teaching and learning in higher education:

120  K. I. LOYA The ways in which pedagogy, curricula and assessment are designed and delivered to engage students in learning that is meaningful, relevant and accessible to all. It embraces a view of the individual and individual difference as the source of diversity that can enrich the lives and learning of others. (p. 1)

Inclusive teaching and learning is anchored on ideas of student diversity, broadly understood to view “race, ethnicity, gender, disability, socioeconomic background, ideology, even personality traits like introversion—as an asset” (Sathy & Hogan, 2019, para. 5). Inclusive teaching and learning is also linked to ideals of social justice and concepts of equity and fairness (Hockings, 2010; Sathy & Hogan, 2019); inclusive instructors tend to recognize and value difference (Hockings, 2010; Sathy & Hogan, 2019). Conversely, inclusive teaching and learning is not tied to specific pedagogies and assessments—although it usually involves a learner-centered pedagogical approach. Rather, inclusive teaching requires the instructor to shift their perspective with a goal to improve the teaching and learning process for all (Beyer, Taylor, & Gillmore, 2013). Instructors who teach inclusively are more likely to grant epistemic credibility to everyone in the classroom, to incorporate multiple viewpoints, voices, ways of knowing, and ways of demonstrating and sharing that knowledge. Inclusive teachers foster multiple creation and sharing of knowledge through careful selection of curricular, pedagogical, and assessment choices (Hockings, 2010; Sathy & Hogan, 2019). In the next section I present select findings from a qualitative grounded theory study that explored how faculty create or maintain systems that include or exclude some students from teaching and learning. The study’s results revolve around the idea of epistemic credibility and are the basis for the recommendations on how to make teaching and learning more inclusive, which I discuss at the conclusion of the chapter.

Study Purpose and Design Since this chapter’s emphasis is to provide practical suggestions on how to create inclusive classrooms, I present only a brief overview of the study and main findings to provide some context to the rest of the chapter. This study was guided by the research question: How do faculty members create or maintain systems that include some voices and exclude others from shared creation of knowledge and learning in the college classroom? I employed a qualitative methodological approach that employed grounded theory design (Charmaz, 2011; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Participants were 25 full-time faculty members with different appointment types (i.e., tenure-track, tenured, non-tenure track, partly administrative) at a large, public doctoral research university in the Eastern United States. All faculty in one academic department were invited to participate, regardless of

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

121

teaching approaches. The department was chosen for its four programs in an earth science field; these programs encompass an array of disciplinary and epistemological stances (i.e., from the humanistic and social sciences to the technology and physical sciences), which led to an assumption of pedagogical heterogeneity. After repeated efforts to include diverse faculty, 16 participants self-reported being foreign-born but only one self-described as faculty of color; five were women; 18 were in tenure-track or tenured positions; 11 were untenured, including the 7 non-tenure-track faculty. All faculty taught and advised at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Participant years of teaching experience ranged from fewer than 5 years to over 30 years. Data collection consisted of interviews with faculty participants. I interviewed each participant for an average of two hours. The interview questions addressed participant’s views and practices related to pedagogies, assessment, student diversity, and classroom power dynamics. I used a constant comparative analysis of the data through initial, focused, and theoretical coding to develop and refine preliminary themes into the final four categories (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In this chapter, I focus on participant responses to questions about classroom dynamics in relation to their instructional choices through which I explore how instructors can promote inclusion in teaching and learning practices. Findings Aligned with the purpose of this chapter, I present findings in relation to how epistemic credibility is granted or denied to learners and on the conditions necessary for granting that recognition to create inclusive classrooms. Analysis of data illustrated how participants made successful and unsuccessful efforts to create inclusive classrooms. Results are grouped into four themes, all revolving around epistemic credibility: (1) views of students; (2) efforts to diversify the curriculum; (3) clear expectations and multiple perspectives; and (4) efforts to decenter power and letting go of control. Views of students. When asked specifically about student diversity in their classrooms, participating faculty largely named academic diversity (e.g., major, year, program) rather than social identity (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, dis/ability, country of origin, sexual orientation, among others). However, during the interviews, participants volunteered examples or anecdotes that revealed their views or interactions with students they deemed diverse. In general, faculty made efforts to include and respond to student needs, which were often assumed and linked to a student’s social identities. In many cases, these efforts were described by participants as well-intentioned. Two examples from the data illustrated different views of students and their roles in the classroom. The first example demonstrates how an instructor granted epistemic credibility to learners:

122  K. I. LOYA I do a lecture on the burka and there’s a bunch of female students sitting there covered, not with burkas, but with [scarves]… I do “The bikini versus the burka lecture, and who is really oppressed?” And a lot of the women who are covered in some way come up to me afterwards and thank me for the lecture. It’s a really old lecture, I wrote it with two Muslim students […]. I sat down with them and said, “Look, I have to do this lecture. What do you think is the best way of doing it?” They gave me some great ideas.

She invited students to create knowledge with her, which disrupted the idea of the professor as the sole producer of content. In contrast, another faculty described an open essay assignment in one of his courses. To adjust to learner’s different abilities and language skills, he allowed students to use their home experiences completing the assignment. He added: I wanted it in their own words, and if they turn and just cut and pasted from web pages, they are going to get an F. Too many of the Chinese students are plagiarizing left, right, and center. They cheated on their exams to get in, most of the ones for grad school …And if we are going to make an offer to somebody that has got supposedly high TOEFL scores and high on English, we’ll phone them up. And sometimes there is somebody on the dorm that night who is the person who is pretending to be that person. And [when] they arrive in September […], you cannot have a conversation with them… I am not willing to say, “Okay, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.”

In this example, the professor seemed to assume that Chinese students at his institution had plagiarized and cheated to get into the institution—that is, they did not possess the knowledge necessary to be accepted. He also speculated that when these students were called as part of the admissions process, they did not answer the phone but had an impersonator answer the phone for them. He demonstrated a high level of distrust for the epistemic capability of these students before they arrived to the classroom. This faculty participant viewed these students as incapable of receiving epistemic credibility and incapable of creating and sharing knowledge. Efforts to diversify the curriculum. Second, faculty participants shared examples of how they created inclusive curricula in their courses, regardless of the topic. Their efforts were sometimes well-planned and delivered and they reflected their views of individuals or groups. For example, one participant provided an example of how he incorporated historical context that included the slave landscape in his course. He said: I sat down next to one African-American student before the class started, […] and in very low voice I said, “Look, I am sorry, some of the things that I’m going to be talking about today are awkward and disturbing, but I really feel that it is important that we lay out this part of that…” And they appreciated me saying that. I try to accommodate that. As I said earlier, I am dealing with my

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

123

White, male, straightness, so if I am comfortable in my own self, then, and not apologetic about, at least I think I can engage.

This faculty participant knew that the class content would be “awkward and disturbing” for the “one African-American student,” yet he addressed it only by notifying the student of the content as class was about to begin. He did not allow the student to participate in how the class lesson happened; rather, he made the decision. The faculty participant apologized to the student without being apologetic. This suggests that this effort was not done thoughtfully, did not include the Black student, therefore highlighting the power dynamics. In contrast, another faculty participant created a more diverse curriculum in a course on cultures by examining identity issues like race, racism, privilege, gender, and sexism. Aware of the common deficit perspective, she included “a whole lecture on white privilege, which… everyone is on board for the racism lecture: ‘oh yeah, that’s bad,’ but when you start talking about your own privilege and what we don’t see…” Recognizing that white students struggled to acknowledge their privilege and power, she broadened her course content to disrupt power dynamics through carefully choosing to include traditionally ignored perspectives. Clear expectations and multiple perspectives. Third, many faculty participants spoke of the value of including multiple perspectives in the classroom and making inclusion of diverse voices a course expectation. For example, a faculty participant explained his expectation that students would contribute to shared teaching and learning: Then we started to really think about who was in the classroom and what they brought to it and making more use of what they brought to the classroom. Because now everybody was bringing something different. […] And every student that came in, came with a different perspective and a different disciplinary background that let them add something to the conversation. In those classes the students become part of the teaching that’s going on. […] It is students teaching each other; there’s a lot of peer learning happening.

To create classrooms where all students are full participants in the learning and co-teaching process, this faculty member actively named expectations for student participation related to knowledge creation that extended beyond engagement or short answers. Further, another faculty participant shared how he communicates that multiple perspectives were expected in his classroom: I have an environment in which people of various backgrounds are comfortable […]. Again, I think that very, very early in the semester, communicating to students that we are going to have multiple perspectives here, and we need to recognize that that’s valued within the classroom … recognizing that there are boundaries that would be unacceptable to cross.

124  K. I. LOYA

For this participant, holding the expectation of including multiple perspectives and also communicating those expectations and the value assigned to them was critical to creating classrooms where most or all students—their voices and viewpoints—contributed to the shared creation of knowledge. Efforts to decenter power. Finally, faculty participants shared their views on power in the classroom. First, some participants spoke of ways that they would secure power and control in their classrooms such as using devices and being addressed by their titles (e.g., doctor, professor, never by their first name). For example, one participant acknowledged his efforts to hold the power in the classroom: Absolutely, that’s why I wear a tie. I am not trying to pretend that there isn’t [power]. It is not a level-playing field. If I showed up in a t-shirt and shorts and a baseball on backwards, you know… I am the person who is giving the grade. I have been hired and I am being paid to share certain things and to adjudicate on the adequate level of performance. So yes, of course there’s power.

As this faculty observed, his classroom “was not a level-playing field.” Similarly, another professor explained how he included clear rules in his syllabus to control classroom behavior. He said he has long syllabi: … in part because increasingly we are required to put in all kinds of things regarding plagiarism, health issues, and what we can and cannot do. So, you have 2-3 pages of literally regulation […I also…] put in all my assignments [and] all the reading list in the syllabus, so there were no extra handouts coming in week 3 or 4. It’s all in one document … In some ways it’s meant both show the student what’s going to be covered but it’s also meant to intimidate them, because I wanted to know that I am serious, and they got to be serious.

These comments showed not only this faculty participant’s awareness of their power in the classroom but also of their desire to maintain it and even to “intimidate” his students. In contrast, some faculty acknowledged power dynamics but tried to diffuse them. For example, one faculty member described they tried to acknowledge and diffuse the power differential: Those power relationships are there; I don’t actually see that you can get away from them. All you can do is try to lessen the impact, and at least be a little bit more approachable and create an environment where people –where you might still have the power, you’re giving the grade—can feel a little more comfortable about talking. [I teach] a lot of classes where we allow them to grade each other, so we give them a little voice in what’s going on…

Some faculty participants tried to disrupt existing power dynamics in their classrooms by empowering their students to become co-teachers. These efforts were often linked to “letting go” of control. One faculty shared:

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

125

Oh, the students have power, they really do. And I want them to have power, I want them to feel like when we are working together, that they can influence me, and the kinds of information that I can help them gain, the ways that I can help them gain it… Sometimes they want to hear lectures, other times they want to just for me to help guide them in a direction where they can find their own material, so I try to —in my more advanced classes— to empower the students to help me. And I often say to them that “this is your class.”

This professor’s efforts to grant epistemic credibility to his students demanded that everyone, the instructor and the students, become learners and co-teachers. Further, another faculty participant described how they let go of control: … And I don’t know what’s going to happen, talk about being on a tight rope. [The students] bring any and all kinds of stuff out. I like it because, boy, it keeps me on my toes! I have to be prepared to respond. And there are going to be things that I don’t know about. I say to the students, “I don’t know anything about that. Who else knows about this type of energy?” Immediately that’s a way to basically say, I am not the expert on all things, I don’t need to have control over everything.

These faculty participants described how they became learners in the classroom. As a result, epistemic credibility was granted and expected from everyone in the classroom. In that way, everyone participated in the co-creation of knowledge. Implications The granting of epistemic credibility (Alcoff, 2001) to learners became a salient piece in interpreting faculty’s instructional decisions. By granting epistemic credibility to students, some faculty were able to share responsibility with students for creating learning environments. This allowed the instructors to become learners (Weimer, 2013). Each theme suggests how instructors can promote inclusion through epistemic credibility. Authentic recognition in granting of epistemic credibility. A key component of granting epistemic credibility relates to how authentic recognition occurs (Alcoff, 2001). Particular attention must be paid to the ways in which the teacher grants epistemic recognition to students—particularly underrepresented and non-traditional students—by helping them to feel recognized and accepted as learners and knowledge creators. This must be done authentically, without prejudice or expectations of specific responses, ways of demonstrating skills and knowledge, or of ways of learning. Prejudice can exclude some students, often the very students intended to be included (Fricker, 2007; hooks, 1994).

126  K. I. LOYA

Clear expectations of roles and responsibilities. Faculty who created inclusive classrooms held and communicated expectations of students as full participants in the teaching and learning process. An instructor’s high expectations of students have been documented as a factor in student learning, engagement, and success (Beyer et al., 2013; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). As faculty disrupt classroom power dynamics, letting go of control, they allow students to be part of the process, at least to some extent. Inclusion of multiple perspectives and voices. Epistemic credibility, or granting the right and authority to know and learn and to be part of knowledge production, is linked to social identity (our gender, race, ethnicity, social class, sexuality, religion, nationality, and other facets) (Alcoff, 2001). Therefore, authentic epistemic recognition of students invites and includes more and multiple perspectives and voices (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Harding, 2004). In turn, this enriches the teaching and learning process and balances classroom power dynamics (Weimer, 2013). As a result, inclusion creates more inclusive learning environments that seek to correct hierarchies that maintain some student populations silenced or invisible (Hockings, 2010; Persellin & Daniels, 2018; Sathy & Hogan, 2019). To do this, faculty need to employ an array of pedagogies and assessments to include multiple voices and perspectives. Efforts to recognize, use, and decenter power dynamics. Letting go of control over the content and the role of sole teacher means allowing students to take the class to sometimes unpredictable places. To do that, teachers need to feel comfortable taking a backseat to allow students to set the direction in their classrooms. Teachers can further shift epistemic responsibilities by becoming more vulnerable. They can purposefully bring their “selves” into the classroom, becoming one of the learners (Beyer et al., 2013; Weimer, 2013). This study and its findings provide empirical support to guide practical applications toward an authentic granting of epistemic credibility to our learners, creating more inclusive classrooms. Next, I discuss some recommendations to create inclusive classrooms grounded in the findings from this study.

Making Changes to Create Inclusive College Classrooms As previously mentioned, inclusive teaching and learning is not linked to specific ways of teaching or assessing. Rather, it requires careful consideration of who one considers worthy of learning and of producing knowledge and a critical look at the ways in which instructors design and implement their instruction to welcome and engage those learners. This section is organized in four main areas where instructors can direct their efforts to make their teaching and learning more inclusive: (1) syllabus and curriculum, (2) pedagogy, (3) assessment, and (4) communication and interactions with students.

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

127

Syllabus and Curriculum The syllabus is often the first or only place where faculty make efforts to change their teaching (Falk, 2012; Johnson, 2017). It can be a powerful document that conveys an instructor’s intentions through the tone, content, and format (Weimer, 2013). The syllabus can be as terse, wordy, friendly, ­policy-driven, or accommodating. I suggest that an instructor revises their syllabus vis-à-vis their teaching philosophy statement so that their beliefs about teaching and learning align with the language and content in their syllabus. The tone and the content of syllabi often are influenced by one’s institution, but instructors can alter it to convey the message they want their students to receive. Other considerations for creating a more inclusive course through a syllabus include aligning course content with tone and the inclusion of preferred pronouns and a diversity statement. Second, instructors should make their expectations of student engagement and contributions to shared teaching and learning explicit. The syllabus ­format should reflect the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) recommendations: choose a san serif font, use easy to read colors, and make the syllabus available in electronic format to all students (it benefits students with visual disabilities, language barriers, and reading difficulties, among others). I use Falk (2012) Becoming a New Instructor: A Guide for College Adjuncts and Graduate Students, in my instructional development course to help learners design their own courses. Other recommended instructional books include Bain’s (2004) What the Best College Teachers Do; Filene’s (2005) The Joy of Teaching: A Practical Guide for New College Instructors; and hooks’s (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. The curriculum is often more difficult to change, especially if one is teaching at an institution that provides the content, textbooks, and assessments for the course. In that case, instructors can add short videos, cases, podcasts, and other supplemental content from diverse sources. If one has full control over their course curriculum, they might consider finding alternative readings by authors from diverse backgrounds to “decenter” the curriculum. Second, another area where an instructor could adjust their curriculum is to add specific, often ignored perspectives. One simple way to let students choose content that connects with their interests is to create assignments where they can choose the topic and sources (e.g., essays, presentations, team projects, TED talks, creating a play, commercial, game show, poster, or op ed, to name a few). Pedagogy When it comes to thinking about the actual ways of teaching, instructors might feel like they need full training or more time to learn and incorporate large changes. This is an incorrect assumption, as small tweaks can go a long way to improve the learner-centered classroom one seeks to build (Bain,

128  K. I. LOYA

2004). Instructors should focus on creating spaces for diverse ways of participation and engagement. Some students are more likely to engage if offered more time to complete assignments or different means and formats to meet assignment expectations. Second, instructors should avoid making assumptions about student readiness, comprehension levels, or reasons for disengagement. Instead, I suggest that instructors try speaking less and allowing silences to be part of their teaching and learning. The way instructors use language and silence transmits, perpetuates, changes, introduces, or controls ideas and transform classrooms (Code, 1991; Diprose, 2000). Third, instructors can promote student participation by making it an expectation (verbally and in writing, in your syllabus) and develop the time and space to let the students be part of the shared knowledge creation (Beyer et al., 2013). Finally, instructors can decenter the classroom by allowing students to increase their agency by giving them some decision-making power over course content, instructional decisions, and assignments (Mohanty, 2003; Weimer, 2013). Participation.  Including students in classroom activities requires the instructor to provide opportunities for participation. Many students need time to think, organize their thoughts, and find ways to express them. To allow student to think before participation, think-pair-share is a useful activity in which the instructor provides time for students to think individually about the topic or a question before the instructor asks them to share with peers before those dyads or groups share with the whole class (Svinicki & McKeachie, 2011). Sathy and Hogan (2019) suggest that structured pedagogies work best for undergraduate students, so designating time for each phase of ­think-pair-share is beneficial. Another way to help students prepare to participate in classroom discussions is to ask them to bring short logs reflecting on the readings assigned for class. Those logs might include student questions and comments. In class, these logs become the starting point for student discussions about course readings (see Lesson Plan example in Appendix). Technology.  Technology is an opportunity for students to share their expertise on new apps and gadgets; ask them to lead an activity using technology. Further, instructors can ask to create their own videos or podcasts using Canva, Padlet, Kahoots, GoogleDocs, or other platforms. Mindful use of technology can provide engagement opportunities to some students as long as careful attention is paid to ensure that the use of technology does not create impediments for others (Lang, 2010). Make sure that slides use text sparingly and are as accessible as possible by remembering that not everyone can see the same colors, fonts, and text sizes. Finally, students will benefit from having one’s slides after or even before class. There are a plethora of books and online resources on pedagogical tips. See, for instance, Davis’s (2009) Tools for Teaching; Persellin and Daniels’s

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

129

(2014) A Concise Guide to Improving Student Learning: Seven E ­ vidence-Based Principles and How to Apply Them; Svinicki and McKeachie’s (2011) McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers; Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) Understanding by Design. Regardless of the format, include a variety of pedagogies and assessments (see below), and let students be part of the teaching and learning. Be creative in finding ways to encourage learners to generate and share their knowledge and link them to assignments and assessments. Assessment The same principle of using a variety of means in teaching applies to employing multiple assessments. Instructors should include as many low ­ stakes assignments in different formats as possible (Davis, 2009). When creating assignments, individual and collaborative, adding clear structure has been shown to benefit undergraduate students (Hockings, 2010; Sathy & Hogan, 2019). Regardless of whether an instructor must include mid-term and final exams or not, they can include written (e.g., short essays, papers, logs, concept maps) and verbal (e.g., debate, interviews, presentations) assignments (see Johnson, 2017, for a list of alternative assignments). Instructors can give options for individual and collaborative work as well as in-class and out-of-class assignments; some students will appreciate the extra time to ­ think, read, write, and prepare. Depending on the instructor and student skill level, instructors can also incorporate technology into their assignments. Finally, for collaborative assignments, instructors should provide clear rules, expectations, and means of assessing individual and group work. Depending on the course and assessments, instructors might consider incorporating peer feedback or assessment. If one chooses to include feedback, they should give clear guidelines for how students should provide feedback. Additionally, for any assignment, and particularly cumulative assignments, instructors should provide timely feedback to students (Evans, 2013). Lastly, instructors should provide anonymous ways for students to ask questions. Communication and Interactions with Students In addition to all the previous recommendations, it is important that instructors convey the importance of inclusiveness in their classroom and in their communication and interaction with your students inside or outside the classroom. Tone, responsiveness, and language choices are key. Instructors can convey respect and inclusion in their communication and interaction with students by using inclusive and bias-free language (see the American Psychological Association publication manual, 7th edition, 2020).

130  K. I. LOYA

Additionally, instructors should avoid making assumptions about students; instructors should ask students if they need to and use the correct spelling of their names and their preferred pronouns. Further, instructors should make themselves available to students to discuss their learning and engagement (Bjorklund, Parente, & Sathianathan, 2004; Chickering & Gamson, 1987) and be an advocate for students when the occasion arises (e.g., intervene if the wrong preferred pronouns are used, or if someone in the classroom is tokenizing or demeaning an individual or group). Finally, instructors must be humble and recognize and apologize for mistakes or ignorance if or when that happens.

Gauging If Your Efforts to Create Inclusive Classrooms Are Working As with any part of the teaching and learning process, the cycle of improvement, assessment, and reflection is never ending. Planning and implementing changes in one’s teaching to make classrooms more inclusive is perhaps the most important part, but instructors must also include mechanisms to check whether students feel included in the classrooms (Sathy & Hogan, 2019). These efforts should not be aimed at assessing student learning; rather, they should assess teaching and the assumptions behind it, referred to as formative assessment of teaching. The best way to do this is by collecting feedback from multiple data points. To do that, instructors begin by deciding what information they need (i.e., is it one student’s perceptions of inclusivity, their engagement, their learning, your teaching?). Then, instructors should collect feedback often and in multiple ways (i.e., is everyone comfortable writing on a piece of paper in class, do you need to offer anonymous or electronic means?). Finally, instructors should use that feedback to determine if action is needed (i.e., do you need to make changes to your teaching, assignments, expectations, content?) (Sathy & Hogan, 2019). One example of a way to collect formative assessment on teaching is through a first day of class inventory. This inventory asks students to complete a short questionnaire the first day of class. Ideally, these questionnaires include the minimum number of questions that will collect the data one needs. Questions might ask about student’s prior knowledge, interests, goals, and needs. I find it useful to send this questionnaire by email or course management software announcement prior to the first class, which allows students with visual or language limitations to complete and bring the questionnaire to class. Then, I compile the answers and create one-sheet with select aggregate answers. I distribute or add this one-sheet in my slides for the second class and announce any changes to be made to the course after receiving their comments if applicable.

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

131

Another form of formative assessment of teaching is a mid-semester assessment. I like to use a minute-paper mid-course. I ask students to write their answers to two questions: what is going well and what can be improved (I use variants of it depending on course topic or class dynamics). Again, I show students the compiled answers the following class and we often have a short discussion on potential tweaks we can make to improve the course. Lastly, I use a modified version of the first day of class questionnaire on the last day of class, where I also add the course learning outcomes listed in the syllabus. In most of the feedback I collect I try to capture student views and needs in three areas: learning, contributions, and teaching. More formal ways of collecting feedback on one’s courses, student learning, inclusivity, and teaching are the student evaluations of courses and instructors, and peer observations of teaching. I find it useful to tell students that I carefully read and consider their comments in the course evaluations as I make course revisions for the next year and that their feedback informs my teaching. When asking peers to observe my teaching, I first explain a short version of my approach to teaching and learning, which can help the observer better understand and confirm (or critique) whether my teaching practices match my description. Overall, feedback on learning should always be feedback on teaching.

Conclusion Inclusive teaching and learning benefits everyone (Hockings, 2010; Persellin & Daniels, 2018; Sathy & Hogan, 2019). We are hopefully past the time when instructors would think that inclusive teaching aligns only with some course topics or when you have a visible diverse student body. To teach inclusively means creating the college classroom spaces where everyone, instructor and students, feels compelled to participate in the shared learning and the shared creation of knowledge. Where everyone is expected to fully contribute and engage. The movement toward making our college classrooms more inclusive requires institutional support, of course (we would need another chapter to discuss that). However, at the heart of it, inclusive teaching must be driven by each instructor’s desire to improve the teaching and learning experience for everyone in the classroom (Beyer et al., 2013). There are a plethora of books and online resources on pedagogical tips. See, for instance, Davis’s (2009) Tools for Teaching; Persellin and Daniels’s (2014) A Concise Guide to Improving Student Learning: Seven EvidenceBased Principles and How to Apply Them; Svinicki and McKeachie’s (2011) McKeachie’s Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers; Wiggins and McTighe’s (2005) Understanding by Design.

132  K. I. LOYA

Appendix: Lesson Plan (Based

on Wiggins

& McTighe, 2005)

Course: Introduction to Research Methods (2.5 hrs) Class Topic: Ethical educational research. Guest lecturer: IRB Chair Step 1. Desired Outcomes Established goals: • Students will understand and explain some of the ethical issues that must be considered when designing, conducting, or communicating educational research Essential questions to be considered: • What is ethical research?

• How do we conduct ethical research? • Why is it important and for whom?

Students will know… • Historical background and current ethical issues in educational research • Main issues associated with educational research and vulnerable populations, informed consents. • The role of research boards

Students will understand: •T  he historical and current issues that have prompted the need for ethical research guidelines • What ethical research means • The role of Institutional Review Boards •T  heir role and responsibility when conducting educational research Students will be able to do… •D  iscuss main ethical issues in educational research •C  omplete CITI training and obtain a certificate for social science modules •A  rticulate the function of informed consent in research projects

Step 2. Learning and Assessment Evidence Performance tasks: (what evidence will show that Other evidence: students understand?): • Reflection logs will show connections • I n-class discussion of ethical research issues between readings, student’s reflection, and (individually, in pairs, as a class) applications to own role as researcher • Completion of CITI training module on •E  ngagement with guest lecturer (e.g., quessocial sciences (certificate) tions, comments) Student self-assessment and reflection: • Reflection logs • Discussion (and reflection) on how readings, guest lecturer, CITI module, and class discussion has deepen understanding of ethical research in education and students’ own roles as future educational researchers Step 3. Learning Plan Sequence of teaching and learning experiences to help students achieved desired outcomes 1. Welcome guest lecturer, the Chair of the Institutional Review Board 2. Begin with class in a square (instructor in one of the squares; invite guest to join) 3. Ask students to bring out their logs (log activity time: ~18 mins) 3a. Share log with a peer (in dyads or trios). Each student reads peer’s log quietly, making comments on paper if desired (~3 mins) 3b. Peers quietly begin to discuss each other logs in dyads or trios (~5 mins) 3c. Ask all to share in larger group, focusing on what was similar and different. (Remind to speak to each other, not to instructor or guest lecturer only; ~10 mins)

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

133

4. Guest lecturer presentation (usually uses slides; adjust classroom setup) (~20 mins) 5. Students engage guest lecturer with questions and comments (~20 mins) 6. Instructor thanks guest lecturer (who leaves). Classroom returns to square set up 7. Instructor poses ethical research issue/question to class (think-pair-share activity: ~30 mins) 7a. Students individually think about answer(s); take notes if desired (~3 mins) 7b. Students pair with one peer (or in trios) to share their individual answers; they discuss how each answer addresses or not different perspectives, participants’ or researcher’s needs or rights, and focus their conversation on the Informed consent form; take notes if desired (~7 mins) 7c. Students share with whole class verbally on their pair/trio conversations; after most have shared, they ask questions or make comments across pairs/trios (~20 mins) 8. Continue class discussion in square, with instructor and learners asking and answering questions from one another; students’ comments should be informed by assigned readings 9. Ask students to move into group of 4–5 (cases activity time: ~30 mins) 9a. Distribute institutional cases with different ethical research issues (in handouts and available online on Blackboard). Explain that they can use their laptops to learn more about each case but do not have to. Each case has specific questions and ethical aspects for the groups to address 9b. Groups report to whole class and might ask clarifying questions 10. Return to square. Reflect on today’s topic, including the readings, the logs, the guest lecturer presentation, the think-pair-share and cases activities. Allow time for questions and comments (usually related to students’ own research projects and roles). (Rest of class time) 11. Close class with reminders or announcements as needed

References Alcoff, L. M. (2001). On judging epistemic credibility: Is social identity relevant? In N. Tuana & S. Morgen (Eds.), Engendering rationalities (pp. 53–80). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Anzaldúa, G. (Ed.). (1990). Making faces, making soul: Haciendo caras. Creative and critical perspectives by feminists of color. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beyer, C. H., Taylor, E., & Gillmore, G. M. (2013). Inside the undergraduate teaching experience: The University of Washington’s Growth in Faculty Teaching Study (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Bjorklund, S. A., Parente, J. M., & Sathianathan, D. (2004). Effects of faculty interaction and feedback on gains in student skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00799.x. Caughie, P. L., & Pearce, R. (2009). Resisting “the dominance of the professor”: Gendered teaching, gendered subjects. In R. D. Crabtree, D. A. Sapp, & A. C. Licona (Eds.), Feminist pedagogy: Looking back to move forward (pp. 27–39). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Charmaz, K. (2011). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

134  K. I. LOYA Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987, March). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Retrieved from AAHE Bulletin website: http://www. aahea.org/aahea/articles/sevenprinciples1987.htm. Code, L. (1991). What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crabtree, R. D., Sapp, D. A., & Licona, A. C. (2009). Feminist pedagogy: Looking back to move forward. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Department of Education. (2019). The condition of education: Undergraduate enrollment—May 2019 update. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp. Diprose, R. (2000). What is (feminist) philosophy? Hypatia, 15(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2000.tb00318.x. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654312474350. Falk, E. (2012). Becoming a new instructor: A guide for college adjuncts and graduate students. New York City, NY: Routledge. Filene, P. (2005). The joy of teaching: A practical guide for new college instructors. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press. Gandhi, L. (2019). Postcolonial theory: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. https://doi. org/10.2307/3178066. Harding, S. (2004). A socially relevant philosophy of science? Resources from standpoint theory’s controversiality. Hypatia, 19(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1527-2001.2004.tb01267.x. Hockings, C. (2010). Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: A synthesis of research. Advance Higher Ed. EvidenceNet, 67 pp. Hockings, C., Brett, P., & Terentjevs, M. (2012). Making a difference—Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education through open educational resources. Distance Education, 33(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2012. 692066. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Irigaray, L., & Guynn, N. (1995). The question of the other. Yale French Studies, 87, 7–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2930321. Johnson, A. P. (2017). Teaching strategies for all teachers: Enhancing the most significant variable. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Kaomea, J. (2003). Reading erasures and making the familiar strange: Defamiliarizing methods for research in formerly colonized and historically oppressed communities. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/00131 89X032002014.

7  CREATING INCLUSIVE COLLEGE CLASSROOM … 

135

Lang, J. M. (2010). On course: A week-by-week guide to your first semester of college teaching (1st paperback ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mack, L. (2012). Does every student have a voice? Critical action research on equitable classroom participation practices. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 417– 434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436922. McGee, E. O., & Martin, D. B. (2011). “You would not believe what I have to go through to prove my intellectual value!” Stereotype management among academically successful Black mathematics and engineering students. American Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1347–1389. https://doi. org/10.3102/0002831211423972. Mohanty, C. T. (2003). “Under Western Eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(2), 499–535. Narayan, U. (2000). Undoing the “package picture” of cultures. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 25(4: Feminisms at a Millennium), 1083–1086. Ortega, M. (2006). Being lovingly, knowingly ignorant: White feminism and women of color. Hypatia, 21(3), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2006. tb01113.x. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Persellin, D. C., & Daniels, M. B. (2014). A concise guide to improving student learning: Six evidence-based principles and how to apply them. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Persellin, D. C., & Daniels, M. B. (2018). A concise guide to teaching with desirable difficulties. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Ropers-Huilman, B., & Taliaferro, D. (2003). Advocacy education: Teaching, research, and difference in higher education. Gendered futures in higher education: Critical perspectives for change (pp. 151–177). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sathy, V., & Hogan, K. A. (2019). How to make your teaching more inclusive. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/ interactives/20190719_inclusive_teaching. Scager, K., Akkerman, S. F., Pilot, A., & Wubbels, T. (2017). Teacher dilemmas in challenging students in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(3), 318–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1248392. Svinicki, M., & McKeachie, W. J. (2011). McKeachie’s Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Walkerdine, V. (1994). Femininity as performance. In L. Stone & G. M. Boldt (Eds.), The education feminism reader (pp. 57–69). New York, NY: Routledge. Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd Expanded ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. Wray, C. C., & Montgomery, R. C. (2019). Bridging the skill gap: Helping ­non-traditional students develop research skills when they need it most. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Adult Higher Education Alliance, Orlando, FL.

CHAPTER 8

Engagement with Diversity Experiences: A Self-Regulated Learning Perspective Christy M. Byrd, Ritika Rastogi and Erin R. Elliot

Key Terms and Definitions Power: The way in which social structures grant access to advancement, social mobility, and privilege. Power is relational and parasitic; while the dominant group has the ability to thrive, the non-dominant group(s) are at a loss. Advantaged or privileged identities: When students identify with social groups that traditionally have more power in the US context (e.g., white American, two-parent home, middle-to-high SES background, ­able-bodied, heterosexual, cisgender, Christian religion). Minoritized or marginalized students: When students identify with social groups that have less power and opportunities for social mobility and advancement historically in the US context (e.g., African American, differently abled, LGBTQ identifying, African and Middle-Eastern religions, first-gen students, low-income backgrounds).

C. M. Byrd (*)  North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Rastogi  University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. R. Elliot  University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_8

137

138  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

Diversity: Diversity includes any engagement with social identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation) or aspects of power and privilege in society. Diversity experiences: Diversity experiences are opportunities for interaction with and learning from individuals who share different social identities. In this chapter, we focus specifically on curricular/co-curricular diversity experiences, which are structured and programmatic efforts to help students increase their knowledge and skills around issues with diversity (Denson, 2009). These experiences range from brief activities in a course, workshops hosted by cultural centers, and full-semester courses focused on diversity, ethnic studies, or women’s studies (Bowman, 2011; Denson, 2009; Engberg, 2004). Social justice education is a form of diversity experience. Self-regulated learning: Cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral strategies students use to help themselves learn. Instructors and facilitators of workshops and courses focused on issues of diversity and social justice are often concerned with how best to s­tructure their activities in order to promote student learning. On top of designing activities that can best reveal the underlying mechanisms of privilege and oppression, instructors should also consider how to address the inevitable resistance that will come when a student’s preexisting beliefs and values are challenged. In this chapter, we use a self-regulated learning perspective to examine how students respond to the cognitive and emotional challenges of diversity experiences in higher education inside and outside of the classroom. To do this, we integrate multiple existing frameworks into a comprehensive process model that applies to students of all backgrounds, with attention to how student identities and previous experiences influence their learning. Our process model (Fig. 8.1) seeks to show how student behavior in diversity experiences is a result of goal-directed (although not necessarily conscious) internal processes. The theoretical foundation of the model is the motivation theory self-regulated learning. Self-regulated learning (SRL) is the cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral strategies students use to help themselves learn (Zimmerman & Labuhn, 2012). It occurs in cycles

Fig. 8.1  Process model of learning and resistance in diversity experiences

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

139

of forethought, performance, and reflection (Pintrich, 2000). Although traditionally applied to academic learning in primary content areas (e.g., ­ math, science, English/language arts), SRL is also relevant to the learning that occurs in diversity experiences—even those outside of the classroom. SRL can explain how students apply their cognition, motivation, affect, and behavior to achieve the learning goals of a diversity experience. SRL can also explain why students resist and disengage from these experiences. Learning from a diversity experience is not simply a matter of having the right attitudes or participating in the right activity. Instead, learning occurs as a result of ­goal-directed, dynamic choices students make in response to their assessment of the learning environment. In our model, student behavior is explained by understanding their goal-directed internal processes and the factors that influence those processes. From left to right in Fig. 8.1, the first element is the instructor, who brings their passion, awareness, skills, and knowledge into the learning environment (Jackson, n.d.; Maxwell, Fisher, Thompson, & Behling, 2011). Often, instruction is filtered through contextual restrictions such that all of the educator’s relevant abilities are not brought to the fore. For example, a ­pre-tenure professor of Color may limit the extent to which she shows her passion for social justice in the classroom in order to avoid being seen as too “radical” (Matias, 2013). The learning environment is composed of classroom norms (i.e., guidelines or working agreements), learning goals, methods, and content of the day in addition to the characteristics and moods that all students bring to the classroom. What follows are specific examples of student learning and resistance in diversity experiences according to the components of the model. To illustrate our model, we use examples from research articles that explore participant responses to social justice education.

Student Working Model In diversity experiences, students are faced with many challenging ideas about power structures and systems of oppression. But how students react to those ideas varies from student to student. In the interaction of person and environment, the person is represented by the working model in Fig. 8.1, in which the student takes their perceptions of the learning environment and assesses it through the lens of their beliefs, motivation, and previous experiences. Students do not enter the classroom as “blank slates” but come with previous experiences and cognition, motivation, and behavioral tendencies based on those experiences. Cognitions are beliefs and attitudes. Existing research suggests that some of the beliefs and attitudes that predict engagement in diversity experiences are openness to diversity, awareness of inequality, left-leaning political views, and identification with a marginalized group (Bowman, 2011; Denson & Bowman, 2017). Even students who grew up in homogeneous

140  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

communities with little exposure to people who are different from them still have stereotypes, biases, and beliefs regarding their own identity and social position (Matias, 2013). Some of these beliefs may be more implicit while others are more explicit. Closely related to student attitudes and beliefs is their motivation, specifically their values and goals related to diversity and the learning environment. Values are beliefs about the importance, usefulness, or interestingness of a subject (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Goals are specific outcomes that one anticipates receiving as a result of engaging in an action (Pintrich, 2000). Motivation can be entirely extrinsic (i.e., driven by external rewards), intrinsic (i.e., driven by personal interest), or a combination of the two (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Marginalized students are often motivated to participate in cultural center activities and student organizations to feel a sense of connectedness and support to those sharing their identities (e.g., Lozano, 2010; Patton, 2010). Other activities are valuable because students consider them more practically important and/ or useful, such as for getting a job post-graduation or fulfilling a requirement for their major. A student can think about value for diversity at a general level or more specific to the particular content of an activity. For example, a Latinx student might value diversity in general but also specifically value their Latinx identity (or another identity, such as gender or sexual orientation) and content related to that identity. Value for a particular outcome, such as achieving course credit, or avoiding a negative consequence, such as academic probation, also matters. This is especially true when a diversity-focused activity or course is part of an educational requirement. Moreover, students can approach a diversity experience with a variety of goals in mind, including actually learning the material (mastery goals), appearing to have the right beliefs and attitudes (performance-approach goals), avoiding being embarrassed or being perceived as prejudiced ­ (performance-avoidance goals), or meeting like-minded peers and making friends (social goals) (Pintrich, 2000). Students will have multiple relevant values and goals that can be more or less salient depending on the learning environment. Finally, students have existing behavioral patterns that they bring to a classroom. Some students have many friends who are of a different race, sexuality, and/or socioeconomic group; other students have homogeneous friend groups. Some students are frequent attendees at diversity events, whereas others may be engaging with a group or activity for the first time. Some students see themselves as agitators and enjoy heated debate while others avoid conflict at all costs. Students also have different self-regulatory skills when it comes to learning more generally, and learning about diversity in particular. For example, an A-student who has mastered study skills in other academic areas could apply those same skills to be successful in a required diversity course. However, the student may struggle because the unfamiliar cognitive and emotional content of the course disrupts their usual behavior.

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

141

Appraisal Our description of the appraisal process is based on the cognitive theory of psychological stress and coping (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986), which focuses on how individuals perceive and react to their environments. Specific applications to the learning environment are informed by Boekaert’s dual-processing model of self-regulation (Boekaerts, 2007; Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2016). As the student compares their working model to their perception of the learning model, they make an assessment (Folkman et al., 1986): “Is there a threat to my well-being, values, or goals?” In this primary appraisal, the student determines whether they are safe, i.e., whether is a challenge to their ability to meet their goals for the day, whether that be to learn, to interact socially, or to just enjoy class. They determine whether or not there is a threat to their mental, emotional, or physical well-being. They consider whether there is potential for harm to their values or self-esteem. In social justice terminology, some call emotional responses “triggers” (Griffin, 1997). Students are constantly attending to cues in the learning environment for information on how well they are meeting their goals, whether learning or social. Processing of threat is often unconscious and occurs alongside rapid emotional responses (Boekaerts, 2007). For example, consider a South Asian student enrolled in a general survey course on Asian American history that focuses primarily on the history of East Asians in the United States. South Asian experiences are often erased in discourse on Asian Americans within white-dominated spaces. As such, the reproduction of these dynamics even within Asian spaces may engender feelings of psychological threat (i.e., may trigger the student). Also, if a student has the goal of getting through the class with a minimum amount of effort, any calls for engagement could become a threat. Moreover, threats can be external to the learning environment: a student may just be too tired, hungry, or stressed to engage. Confusion is a prime example of a cue that indicates a learning goal is not being met. However, emotional reactions are also the precursors to feelings of threat. These reactions might occur when presented with surprising statistics, when engaging in a thought-provoking activity, or when a peer provides a harsh response to a statement. Common negative emotions during social justice learning include shame, guilt, powerlessness, anger, and sadness (Garcia & Van Soest, 2000; Mildred & Zúñiga, 2004). Within the context of social justice education, negative emotions are especially common for students with privileged identities when the experience focuses on that identity (Shapses Wertheim, 2014). Negative emotions can be detrimental to the learning process for diversity experiences (e.g., Mayhew & King, 2008) but do not have to be (Mayhew & Engberg, 2010; Shapses Wertheim, 2014). In this chapter, we aim to show how proper self-regulation can be a tool to help manage classroom threats.

142  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

Importantly, students only feel threatened when the information is relevant to the self (Boekaerts, 2007). Many social justice activities are designed to engage students to cognitively and emotionally reflect on their own experiences and worldviews (e.g., Bowman & Brandenberger, 2012; Zúñiga, Nagda, & Sevig, 2002). Developmental psychologists have proposed that experiences that are novel and/or contradict one’s current understanding create disequilibrium that students must then attempt to resolve, and empirical research demonstrates that diversity activities that encourage this disequilibrium are more effective at changing attitudes (Bowman & Brandenberger, 2012). However, cognitive dissonance can trigger negative emotions (Bowman & Brandenberger, 2012; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Mayhew & Engberg, 2010; Mayhew & King, 2008). Given that the attitudes in focus are often implicit or otherwise deeply held, challenges to those attitudes can create a sense of threat to the self. Furthermore, the determination of threat is entirely dependent upon the perception of the individual based on their existing working model. What one individual considers a threat may be different from what another person considers a threat. The following is a quote illustrating a white teacher candidate feeling threatened by course content: I know I may not have had any relationships with people of color but that is not my fault…. I don’t see race so this is not about race. You telling me to see race is racist. Race is just not important. I believe in goodness of all human beings and how we can love each regardless to race, religion, and gender…. I do want to learn about race but I feel like I am being blamed for all this stuff even when I work hard to help African American and Latino students. I don’t understand why I have to feel guilty. … You see, I care for everyone, so I’m confused… Isn’t that what teachers are supposed to do? (Matias, 2014, p. 141)

The student is experiencing disequilibrium between their belief that “race is just not important” and their instructor telling them to “see race.” That this conflict is threatening is revealed by their statements of “I feel like I am being blamed” and “why [do] I have to feel guilty.” Specifically, the student perhaps feels guilty about their lack of interaction with people of Color despite their desire to help African American and Latino students. The student’s self-image is at risk because they believe that their motivation to become a teacher and help students of Color is a good thing, and not, in fact, potentially racist. Feelings of threat lead to coping, whereas students who do not feel threatened use learning strategies. Both of these outcomes are outlined below.

Learning Strategies When a student’s primary assessment indicates that there is no threat to their well-being, values, and/or goals, they are free to apply learning strategies to master the activity content. Sometimes learning is uncomfortable but within

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

143

a student’s capacity to manage the discomfort because they have effective learning strategies (Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2016). Many students enter social justice courses with previously learned strategies for reading and participating in class. Furthermore, for some students, the effectiveness of their strategies will be increased by their comfort and/or familiarity with the topic at hand. At the same time, however, the uniquely personal content of diversity experiences might also disrupt students’ ability to use their normal strategies. For example, a Christian student may find it difficult to carefully take notes on a reading that challenges their views on homosexuality. Many social justice educators emphasize particular skills, such as active learning, and can help students learn and apply these skills. In the next ­example, a white man in a race-ethnicity dialogue course describes how he applied his active listening skills to difficult topics: Well I just tried to listen to what other people had to say and not necessarily change their views or change my views, just to digest what they were saying and put it on a bigger scale of what it meant. And then just take it from every side and see like where I fell on that and if I felt I wanted to switch over. (Gurin, Nagda, & Zuniga, 2013, p. 220)

In this example, the student finds that he disagrees with his peers, but instead of reacting negatively, he “trie(s) to listen” and “digest.” The student feels comfortable enough to focus his attention on the learning strategy.

Coping If a student’s primary appraisal indicates that a threat to goals, values, and/ or well-being exists, then the student must decide how to cope. Coping ­consists of efforts to restore well-being by trying to change the external environment or by adjusting one’s internal emotional state to be consistent with the environment’s demands (Folkman et al., 1986). When coping, students are seeking to determine what obstacles they have to overcome to prevent harm and/or maximize the benefits of the situation. To determine how to cope, students evaluate the demands of the situation and their available coping resources, which can include the course guidelines and the instructor or other students in addition to the student’s personal resources. Coping strategies include both strategies to manage emotional arousal (e.g., taking a deep breath, seeking social support, crying) and volitional strategies to refocus on the task at hand (e.g., focusing thoughts; Cascallar, Boekaerts, & Costigan, 2006). These efforts are done with either the goal of returning to wellness enough to learn (learning-focused coping) or withdrawing from the learning opportunity (learning-resistant coping). Learning-focused coping. In learning-focused coping, the situation is threatening but the student adopts the goal of continuing to learn and

144  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

subsequently direct their cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions toward that goal. For some students, learning-focused coping will involve moderating one’s internal cognitive and emotional response. In the following example, a student responds to a peer’s comment: It was just like, it was kind of a shock because I wouldn’t expect someone from the same group as me to make that error because it’s very offensive to people who have been liberated from Spain after all those years of colonization. And it was just like, I don’t know how to explain it, it was kind of like this fiery feeling, like an impulse, that I had to say something, like it was something that I couldn’t just let slip by. And so I didn’t yell at her or anything, but I told her, “Ok it’s not Spanish, it’s either Latino….” I told her what I just said to you…. So I wanted definitely to bring that issue up because I don’t want other students to accept her comment and then learn something wrong. (Gurin et al., 2013, p. 230)

In this example, the student felt a “fiery feeling” and knew they had to respond to their classmate’s comment. However, instead of yelling, the ­student directs her energy toward an explanation. This strategy supports the student’s (and her classmates’) engagement in the learning environment. Other internal strategies include taking a deep breath or using self-talk. Other students will seek to change the external environment to restore their well-being. For example, a student might ask a peer for clarification or for the facilitator to remind classmates about the course guidelines. Instructors can set up and help students practice classroom norms that encourage productive participation even in the face of threat. Although all students are capable of learning-focused coping, students are best able to manage this coping when experiencing threats related to their marginalized identities. In the following example, a white woman in a gender dialogue feels anger but responds in a way to promote learning: [He] went into this spiel about how in a rape scenario, the rapist is the real victim because the rapist is not able to recover from the rape. And I was pissed, you know, I’m not one to hold my tongue, I was right there, “please don’t sit in a room surrounded by women and tell me that a rapist is the real victim in a rape. I don’t think so.” (Gurin et al., 2013, p. 228)

As a woman, the student may have been more familiar with dominant narratives about rape that seek to place less blame on the rapist. If her identity as a woman is important to her, it would be important to challenge such narratives, especially “in a room surrounded by women.” In this way, the student improves the learning environment not only for herself, but also for her peers who may similarly feel harmed by the man’s victim-blaming statement but feel unsafe to speak up. Students use learning-focused coping because they value the content, the learning environment, and their contributions to the classroom. As in the first example, the student notes, “I wanted definitely to bring that issue up

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

145

because I don’t want other students to accept her comment and then learn something wrong.” This student feels responsible for her classmate’s learning and feels efficacious in her ability to help them learn. Students with strong personal motivations to be in the space are more likely to choose ­learning-focused coping when faced with a threat. When faced with their own contribution to systems of oppression, a student with a goal to learn as much as possible is more likely to push through feelings of guilt (learning-focused coping), whereas another student might engage in rationalizations for how they are not complicit (learning-resistant coping). Learning-resistant coping.  In learning-resistant coping, students adopt any goal other than learning in response to threat. The student may instead seek to restore a sense of cognitive equilibrium, may seek to express their anger or sadness, or may withdraw completely from the learning environment. Social justice educators have noted the many forms that resistance can take; some students reason that the instructor is biased, some downplay the significance of oppression, some verbally attack the instructor or peers, yet still others cry (Matias, 2014; Mildred & Zúñiga, 2004; Shapses Wertheim, 2014). These reactions are usually disruptive to the learning process and may require rapid responses from the instructor in order to minimize the disruption. Furthermore, these reactions can be emotionally violent and create feelings of threat in other students and the instructor, especially those with marginalized identities (Matias, 2013; Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017). For individuals holding privileged identities, learning-resistant coping often occurs when they are confronted with information contrary to their beliefs about these identities. As an example, DiAngelo (2010) describes a mandatory workplace training entitled “Race and Social Justice.” A component of the training is when DiAngelo, a white woman, and her co-facilitator, a person of Color, present common barriers for whites seeing racism, including the desire to see people as individuals and not as members of broader racial groups. During a subsequent break, two white participants (“Bill” and “Sue”) approach DiAngelo and Sue declares, “Bill and I think we should all just see each other as individuals.” DiAngelo mentions trying to explain without avail. By the afternoon break, she notes that Sue had left the training. In this example, Bill’s and Sue’s working models appear to include the beliefs that race has not impacted their lives and that the problem of racism can simply be solved by treating everyone as individuals. When DiAngelo and her co-facilitator presented information on the need to see and respond to racism, Bill and Sue were met with a threat to their beliefs. Without knowing more about them, one cannot know whether this threat created a sense of emotional threat or simply cognitive dissonance, but Bill and Sue responded with learning-resistant coping: they confronted the facilitator. When her attempt to alter the learning environment was not successful, Sue withdrew completely.

146  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

Motivations for using learning-resistant coping may differ when the s­tudent belongs to a marginalized or minoritized group. In some cases, ­students of Color may hold dominant ideologies about racism and have a colorblind ideology. In other words, they may believe that we “shouldn’t see race,” and instead, the problem of racism can be solved by treating everyone as an individual—a belief similar to those often held by white Americans. When the student’s colorblind beliefs come under threat, they may utilize similar methods of learning-resistant coping to Bill and Sue. Yet, a student of Color (or any marginalized student for that matter) may also use learning-resistant coping when encountering threat more relevant to their marginalized identity. If a student does not feel safe to challenge their classmate’s problematic beliefs or speak up to redirect classroom discussion, as the white woman and Latinx student in the examples above did (Gurin et al., 2013), they may withdraw. Then, it is imperative for instructors—and educational institutions more broadly—to cultivate spaces in which students feel safe to employ ­learning-focused, rather than learning-resistant, coping strategies. It is important to note that students engaging in learning-resistant coping are not always conscious of the disruptiveness of their actions, and even if they are, may not know how to make their coping more learning-focused. In some circumstances, they may not even possess the tools to respond appropriately. These students are reacting according to past behaviors that have been supported in other contexts. Therefore, compassion is necessary even as an instructor works to curb the student’s negative impact. We believe that giving students the opportunity to reflect and teaching them self-regulation strategies can be effective, but one instructor may not be able to adjust a lifetime of learned behavior.

Beginning and Ending with the Learning Environment Whether the student chooses to adopt learning strategies, learning-focused coping, or learning-resistant coping, their behavior will affect the instructor and other students, which then changes the learning environment. In our model, when the learning environment changes, all students again update their working model and make appraisals. If the appraisal changes so that the threatened student feels safe, then the student may change from coping toward learning strategies. If the student continues to feel threatened, however, they may continue with the same coping strategies or attempt new ones (Cascallar et al., 2006). This cycle continues throughout the diversity experience, with students adjusting each time the environment changes. Student Identity as a Key Consideration Thus far, we have discussed the ways in which a student’s learning is dependent upon their own actions and beliefs. In other words, we have outlined the

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

147

possible courses of action a student may employ when they encounter threat in the learning environment. For many students, some degree of threat, or risk, is critical to facilitate their learning. However, it is equally important for students to feel safe among their peers and instructor(s). What constitutes an optimal level of threat, versus an optimal level of safety, can look very different for students holding marginalized identities (e.g., students of Color, gender and sexual minorities, disabled students, low-income students), relative to those with more privileged identities (e.g., white students, cisgender and heterosexual students, men, able-bodied and -minded students). Below, we unpack this idea in greater detail.

Threat and Safety for the Privileged Student For privileged students, learning from diversity experiences often requires a level of risk-taking, in that they must place their uncertainties, fears, and need for safety to the side to express their viewpoints or to ask the questions that will contribute to the learning of not just themselves but everyone in the classroom. Risk means there are potentially negative consequences: others may not react favorably or admitting an implicit bias to themselves could be damaging to a student’s sense of identity. Students with advantaged identities relative to the context or the topic come into the classroom comfortable, ready to learn, and with many of the social and contextual conditions that are favorable to them. Taking risks is not easy but often well-supported in diversity experiences. Many programs exist simply to create spaces that are safe for privileged students to feel free to express the values and beliefs that are otherwise not “politically correct” and can be damaging to marginalized students sense of psychological safety. For instance, at some institutions there exist courses that cultivate spaces for white students to come together and learn about race and racism, white supremacy, and the ways in which they contribute to the further marginalization of people of Color. Thus, the safety of students with advantaged identities is privileged, perhaps even above the safety of their marginalized peers at the institution as a whole. The privileged student need only be willing to make themselves vulnerable in this space, knowing that their safety and advantage will be preserved.

Threat and Safety for the Marginalized Student For the marginalized student, risk-taking in the classroom looks entirely ­different. As mentioned above, threat in the classroom on many occasions may arise out of experiences that students find psychologically triggering. This may particularly be the case for marginalized and minoritized students when they share the room with peers holding privileged identities. A student of Color may experience threat when a white student challenges the existence of racism in front of the whole class. An immigrant-origin or international

148  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

student may experience threat when a US-born peer begins to characterize immigrants as poor, uneducated criminals. In these situations, whether or not the marginalized student is able to use learning-focused coping, in lieu of learning-resistant coping, depends upon the degree to which that student feels safe in the classroom. Unfortunately, safety for students from marginalized backgrounds is often unattainable due to the pervasive societal ideologies often maintained by institutions of higher education that perpetuate the oppression of students from marginalized groups (Arao & Clemens, 2013). Safety means that the student can fully participate and engage in their learning (Boekaerts & Pekrun, 2016). They have the resources to direct toward learning in the particular environment and context they find themselves in. They are not hungry, they are not upset, they are among people with whom they feel comfortable sharing their viewpoints, and they have the self-efficacy to express their viewpoints and process the information they need to further their knowledge. By this definition, then, there are quite a few contexts in which marginalized students are never safe (Arao & Clemens, 2013). These students have to come into a classroom environment in which there are people and topics that do not offer comfort or safety. The risk is not simply to get negative feedback or self-understanding but to have negative consequences that extend outside of that one learning moment into their lives outside the classroom. When a transgender student challenges a cisgender peer’s transphobic beliefs (e.g., that trans women are not real women or that there are only two genders), the consequences are far more vast. To challenge a problematic belief, a trans student may have to out themselves as trans, which then identifies them as holding an extremely vulnerable identity among a classroom and campus full of cisgender peers. Moreover, should the cisgender student being challenged react unfavorably, the trans student may become triggered and experience damage to their psychological and emotional well-being (Wang, Leu, & Shoda, 2011). The difference for the marginalized student, then, is that spaces dedicated solely to their psychological safety are few and far between. Unlike learning experiences cultivated for the safety of the privileged student, very few formal, institutionalized safe spaces exist for marginalized students. While a student may seek out mental health care to deal with the consequences of threat in the classroom, this requires that (1) the mental healthcare practitioner be sensitive to the student’s identities and needs and (2) the student has the financial means to obtain such care. The difficulty is that, since learning cannot occur without safety or risk, marginalized students may not benefit from diversity experiences in higher education classrooms and co-curricular experiences. One answer to this problem, as some have noted (Arao & Clemens, 2013), is to ask students to be “brave.” But in doing so, one is not just asking our students to be brave; they are asking students to disregard their own safety and sacrifice themselves on the altar of learning for the benefit of more privileged peers. Thus, it is

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

149

the facilitator’s responsibility to ensure that marginalized students feel safe to contribute and to learn. Because even when students have marginalized identities, they may still have a great deal to learn about the history of their identity groups, effective methods for social action, and information about identities that they do not hold. Moreover, diversity experiences can be a valuable opportunity for marginalized students to meet like-minded peers sharing some of their social identities. Then, these experiences serve as a critical source of community building. Educators must honor the sacrifice that marginalized students make by differentially asking students to take risks in the classroom, with consideration of their identities. Higher education practitioners must ask more of students with advantaged identities and be careful to respect the decision of students with marginalized identities to not engage in the learning process. At the same time, educators must give marginalized students hope that their sacrifice is not in vain and will advance the goals of learning and social justice. Implications for Instructors In this chapter, we have argued that participation in and learning from diversity experiences is a product of dynamic appraisals and choices situated within the contexts of each student’s previous experiences and learning environment. The process model in Fig. 8.1 is a cycle: students make appraisals, apply strategies, and appraise again. Because each cycle begins and ends with an appraisal of the environment, the way instructors structure the learning environment and respond to student behavior is key in helping students use learning strategies and learning-focused coping. Specifically, instructors can promote student learning by (1) giving students opportunities to reflect on their appraisals, (2) creating an optimal learning environment, and (3) teaching students how to self-regulate. Each of these can be accomplished by focusing on a student’s metacognitive abilities. Self-regulated learning theories emphasize the importance of metacognition, which is the ability to think about one’s thinking (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman & Labuhn, 2012). Students who are higher in metacognition are better able to activate their prior knowledge and experiences when entering a learning environment. During a learning experience, they are better at monitoring their understanding and adjusting their strategies accordingly (Pintrich, 2000). Diversity experiences are unique from traditional academic contexts because the material is often connected with issues of identity that students may not have reflected on in academic settings. Therefore, students who are generally high in metacognitive ability may fail to apply those skills because the content is so unfamiliar or difficult. In addition, diversity experiences often have norms that differ from traditional classrooms, even when they occur in a classroom setting. For example, students may be encouraged to share their emotions and intimate personal experiences. Thus, instructors will need to be

150  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

intentional about aiding students in self-reflection and metacognition in order to mitigate defensiveness (Bowman, 2010; Bowman & Brandenberger, 2012; Sherman & Cohen, 2002). In the next section, we describe metacognitive self-regulation strategies that instructors can help students develop. These strategies are: (1) give students the opportunity to reflect, (2) create an optimal learning environment, and (3) teach self-regulation strategies.

Give Students the Opportunity to Reflect Instructors can both reduce and normalize feelings of threat by helping students understand the goals of the experience and set norms to support those goals. Many instructors already do this with setting of classroom guidelines or working agreements that emphasize respect, challenging the idea and not the person, and confidentiality. Many instructors also introduce the concept of learning edges and comfort zones to support the understanding that learning may be uncomfortable (e.g., Kaplowitz & Griffin, 2019). We recommend that instructors go further by having students reflect on their individual goals, values, and well-being at the start of a term and identify potential threats that may occur. For example, Matias (2013) gives pre-service teachers a survey at the beginning of her multicultural education course with questions such as “What do you hope to learn? How do you hope to get there in your learning?” and “Have you talked about race and racism before? Who do you feel most comfortable in talking about this topic? Please describe.” Students who are aware of their goals are more likely to and better able to ­self-regulate toward them (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, instructors should accept that students will have multiple goals and not all are focused on optimal learning.

Creating an Optimal Learning Environment After having students identify their goals and values, instructors can use the information to construct an optimal learning environment. For example, if many students have social goals, the instructor can focus on providing opportunities for peer interaction. Instructors might also create small groups of students with similar backgrounds, beliefs, or values and assign them particular readings or activities tailored to their potential points of resistance. For example, a group of students from homogeneous communities might need more content discussing the widespread nature of inequality compared to students from diverse communities. Most importantly, instructors need to make students aware of their motivation for learning and encourage personal investment in the learning process for themselves and others. Motivation for learning is the main predictor of whether students under threat will engage in learning-focused or ­learning-resistant coping. However, not all students enter the classroom with

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

151

the intention to learn or valuing social justice. Instructors can help students be aware of their motivations and can encourage interest in learning, for example by imagining an “ideal world” at the beginning of the course and referring students back to this vision as needed. Instructors must highlight that discomfort and negative emotions are signs of threat to a student’s goals, values, and well-being. Throughout the class, instructors can have students pause to reflect, especially after a particularly challenging or emotional moment. Since students are each part of the environment for each other, one student’s learning-resistant coping can create threats for others. Pausing for reflection can interrupt the cycle and allow everyone the chance to self-regulate in adaptive ways. Mindfulness may be a useful way to frame such reflective moments (Ritchhart & Perkins, 2000).

Teach Self-Regulation Strategies It is important for students to be aware that they might experience threats, but it is even more important for students to know that they are empowered to choose their response to threats. Experiencing threats and having to cope are very common in diversity experiences. The goal, then, should be to choose learning-focused coping as often as possible. Thus, instructors should give students examples of learning-focused strategies that they can use. Students may experience new thoughts and feelings during a diversity experience, so explaining to students what they may feel and how to deal with those feelings normalizes the feelings and equips students to respond appropriately. Students can also help each other use the strategies when there is a shared set of strategies. To facilitate the understanding of coping strategies, instructors can share their own experiences of feeling threat and how they successfully coped. However, instructors must have a superordinate set of strategies to ­regulate students when self-regulation fails. This means instructors should have specific cues that they look for to determine when students are threatened and have specific strategies they use to respond to learning-resistant coping. For example, instructors can assign a “minute paper” if it seems that multiple students are struggling. They can also call for a five-minute break. For cases where a student is going through intense emotional struggle, referral out to a counselor or other support professional may be appropriate. The instructor must keep the learning of the overall group in mind over the needs of one person. Above all, instructors should emphasize the cyclical nature of learning. No one moment is the end of learning. Feelings of threat can be successfully resolved with little harm to others through the use of learningfocused coping. Diversity experiences often emphasize continued growth and development, and instructors can incorporate practicing that development in every class session.

152  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have presented a new process model that explains how students respond to learning opportunities in diversity experiences. We have argued that student responses to learning opportunities are goal-directed and based on their factors such as their identities, past experiences, and motivation. Based on a student’s previous experiences, beliefs, and motivations, they will appraise the learning environment in different ways. When students appraise the environment as safe (i.e., lacking a threat to their well-being, values, and goals), they use learning strategies to engage with the content. When students perceive a threat, they will either engage in learning-focused coping, in which they regulate their emotions, cognitions, and behavior to attempt to learn the content, or they engage in learning-resistant coping, in which they seek to change their internal state or the learning environment to restore their sense of equilibrium. Each student’s reactions feed back into the learning environment to create a cycle throughout the experience. In order to apply the process model to their teaching, instructors can educate themselves on common sources of resistance for their topic. Additionally, they can obtain as much information from their students on their previous knowledge and experiences to prepare for possible threats. As we have noted, instructors can teach students self-regulation strategies, which the following lesson plan is focused on. Finally, instructors must continually invest in their own process of learning and development to create learning environments that provide the most effective opportunities for students to learn about diversity and social justice.

Appendix: Lesson Plan Materials needed: Sheet of paper and writing utensil for each student, copy of Fig. 8.1, and area for recording class guidelines and regulation strategies.

Part 1: Goals and Threats In this section, students identify the goals and values they bring to the experience. Instructor: “Everyone has different goals when they come to an activity like this. Of course, our hope is that you want to learn as much as possible, but as learners we usually have more than one goal. Make a list of three to four goals that you have for today, and then rank them in order of what’s most important to you.” After giving students 2–3 minutes to list and rank their goals, the instructor should explain the learning objectives for the day and the content that will be covered. Then give students a few minutes to identify beliefs and values that are relevant to the day’s learning objectives.

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

153

Instructor: “Since my main goal is to have you meet our learning objectives, this activity is going to be structured toward those goals and this content. Sometimes what happens in the class will conflict with one of your goals or values. When you experience a conflict, you might feel confused, or uncomfortable, or angry, or sad. We call this experiencing a sense of threat or being triggered. On your page, write down some ways that you might feel threatened today.”

Part 2: Process Model In this section, students learn about the process model. The instructor may want to supplement this section with the idea of comfort zones and learning edges. Introduce the model in Fig. 8.1 and explain the multiple pathways. Instructor: “When people experience threat, they try to cope with the threat to make themselves feel better. People respond to threat in different ways. Some people lash out. Some people become silent. Other people try to reason with themselves. We call these responses coping. Some coping is directed at trying to get back to a place where you can learn, and other coping is about just trying to feel better. How you choose to cope will influence me and everyone else in the class. Then we start the cycle again. Can someone give me an example of each type of coping?”

Part 3: Group Norms and Regulation Strategies In this section, students think about how to help themselves and each other self-regulate. Try to create strategies that students can use on their own as well as ways for students to hold each other accountable. Note that some students may feel uncomfortable with other students “calling them out,” so be sure to discuss individual preferences and come to a consensus or majority view on the collective strategies. Instructor: “As I said, going through these cycles is a part of the learning process. Our goal is to help each other spend as much time using learning strategies rather than having to cope. However, sometimes we will feel threatened and need to cope. Fortunately, we can use each other as resources. Let’s make a list of guidelines for behavior to minimize threats to each other. Let’s then identify learning-focused coping strategies to use if we find ourselves or another person on feeling threatened.” After identifying group strategies, have students identify specific ­strategies that they want to use throughout the activity and write those down. Encourage students to keep their lists visible to them.

154  C. M. BYRD ET AL.

References Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. In L. M. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Boekaerts, M. (2007). Understanding students’ affective processes in the classroom. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 37–56). Burlington, NJ: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0123725455/50004-6. Boekaerts, M., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Emotions and emotion regulation in academic settings. In Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 76–90). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Bowman, N. A. (2010). Disequilibrium and resolution: The nonlinear effects of diversity courses on well-being and orientations toward diversity. The Review of Higher Education, 33(4), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0172. Bowman, N. A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A ­meta-analysis of college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 29–68. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310383047. Bowman, N. A., & Brandenberger, J. W. (2012). Experiencing the unexpected: Toward a model of college diversity experiences and attitude change. The Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 179–205. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0016. Cascallar, E., Boekaerts, M., & Costigan, T. (2006). Assessment in the evaluation of self-regulation as a process. Educational Psychology Review, 18(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9023-2. Denson, N. (2009). Do curricular and cocurricular diversity activities influence racial bias? A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 805–838. http://dx. doi.org.oca.ucsc.edu/10.3102/0034654309331551. Denson, N., & Bowman, N. A. (2017). Do diversity courses make a difference? A critical examination of college diversity coursework and student outcomes. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 35–84). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48983-4_2. DiAngelo, R. J. (2010). Why can’t we all just be individuals?: Countering the discourse of individualism in anti-racist education. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(1). Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher education: A critical examination of the influence of educational interventions on racial bias. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 473–524.  https://doi. org/10.3102/00346543074004473. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992. Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (2000). Facilitating learning on diversity. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 9(1–2), 21–39. https://doi. org/10.1300/J051v09n01_02. Griffin, P. (1997). Introductory module for the single issue courses. In Maurianne Adams, Lee Ann Bell, & Pat Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 78–79). New York: Routledge.

8  ENGAGEMENT WITH DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES … 

155

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–367. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.3.01151786u134n051. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zuniga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Jackson, B. W. (n.d.). PASK: Framework for multicultural competency. Amherst, MA: New Perspectives. Mimeograph. Kaplowitz, D. R., & Griffin, S. S. S. R. (2019). Race dialogues: A facilitator’s guide to tackling the elephant in the classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lozano, A. (2010). Latina/o culture centers: Providing a sense of belonging and promoting student success. In L. D. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Matias, C. E. (2013). On the “flip” side: A teacher educator of color unveiling the dangerous minds of white teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(2), 53–73. Matias, C. E. (2014). “And our feelings just don’t feel it anymore”: Re-feeling whiteness, resistance, and emotionality. Understanding and Dismantling Privilege, 4(2), 134–153. Maxwell, K. E., Fisher, R. B., Thompson, M. C., & Behling, C. (2011). Training peer facilitators as social justice educators. In Facilitating intergroup dialogues: Bridging differences, catalyzing change (pp. 41–54). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Mayhew, M. J., & Engberg, M. E. (2010). Diversity and moral reasoning: How negative diverse peer interactions affect the development of moral reasoning in undergraduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(4), 459–488. https://doi. org/10.1080/00221546.2010.11779061. Mayhew, M. J., & King, P. (2008). How curricular content and pedagogical strategies affect moral reasoning development in college students. Journal of Moral Education, 37(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240701803668. Mildred, J., & Zúñiga, X. (2004). Working with resistance to diversity issues in the classroom: Lessons from teacher training and multicultural education. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 74(2), 359–375. https://doi. org/10.1080/00377310409517721. Patton, L. D. (2010). A call to action: Historical and contemporary reflections on the relevance of campus culture centers in higher education. In L. D. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher education: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ritchhart, R., & Perkins, D. N. (2000). Life in the mindful classroom: Nurturing the disposition of mindfulness. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 27–47. https://doi. org/10.1111/0022-4537.00150. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

156  C. M. BYRD ET AL. Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal?: An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shapses Wertheim, S. (2014). From a privileged perspective: How White undergraduate students make meaning of cross-racial interaction (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). New York University, New York. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/docview/1512217631/abstract/183B4D9914F2425DPQ/1. Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2002). Accepting threatening information: Self-Affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721. 00182. Wang, W., Leu, J., & Shoda, Y. (2011). When the seemingly innocuous “stings”: Racial microaggressions and their emotional consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12), 1666–1678. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167211416130. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/ 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015. Zimmerman, B. J., & Labuhn, A. S. (2012). Self-regulation of learning: Process approaches to personal development. In APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 399–425). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-014. Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. (Ratnesh) A., & Sevig, T. D. (2002). Intergroup dialogues: An educational model for cultivating engagement across differences. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845248.

Recommended Reading Boekaerts, M., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Emotions and emotion regulation in academic settings. In Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 76–90). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Johnson, A. G. (2001). Privilege, power, and difference. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J., & Labuhn, A. S. (2012). Self-regulation of learning: Process approaches to personal development. In APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 399–425). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-014.

CHAPTER 9

Critical Teacher Responsibility in Tumultuous Times: Engaging in a Community of Practice Hannah Carson Baggett, Alyssa Hadley Dunn and Beth L. Sondel

Key Terms and Definitions Critical responsibility: Our responsibility as educators to take up sociopolitical and cultural contexts and events in our classrooms that have real, material consequences in the lives of our students. Critical social justice education: A perspective that recognizes how society is stratified “along social group lines that include race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability.” A critical social justice practitioner acknowledges “inequality as deeply embedded in the fabric of society (i.e. structural), and actively seeks to change this” (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2017, p. xx). Communities of practice: Learning communities focused on developing an inquiry stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2015); in teaching, this means engaging in reflective acts and sharing/hearing those reflections with/from others.

H. C. Baggett (*)  Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA e-mail: [email protected] A. H. Dunn  Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] B. L. Sondel  Women and Girls Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_9

157

158  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL.

Starting Out: Research and Community in Tumultuous Times The weeks surrounding the 2016 US Presidential Election posed significant challenges for practicing teachers in K-12 schools. Prior to the election, teachers reported increased acts of bullying in schools and classrooms (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016) and some teachers were sanctioned when they spoke out against vitriolic campaign rhetoric (Branson-Potts, 2016). In the days following the election outcome, many students came to school feeling uneasy, fearful, and anxious (Sondel, Baggett, & Dunn, 2018; SPLC, 2016). Teachers needed to balance students’ socio-emotional needs, their own needs, and perceptions about their professional obligations in their respective contexts (Dunn, Sondel, & Baggett, 2019). In this way, the election underscored what it means for teachers to navigate their sense of responsibility at the loaded intersection of the personal, professional, and political. We came together during this time as a team of researchers intending to explore K-12 teachers’ responses to the election outcome. Two days after the 2016 election, we launched an online questionnaire and used our social networks and social media accounts to spread the link far and wide. This act of research was, in part, rooted in scholarly interest, but also in our need to be in conversation with others who were grappling with how to respond, pedagogically, to these events, as we were. Within two weeks, nearly 1000 teachers had shared accounts of their practices with us. In this chapter, we explore how these data became a project in scholarship about our own teaching and learning (SoTL) and how our analysis and reflection on our teaching practices in the Trump era has pushed us to articulate a critical responsibility in our work in higher education. Though many scholars and educators in higher education promote social justice in their work, the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) is seldom focused on what it means to conceive of social justice and to promote it in and through higher education (for a review, see Leibowitz & Bozalek, 2016). Here, we contribute to that knowledge base about teaching and learning rooted in social justice by articulating a critical responsibility in our work as instructors in higher education. As we processed post-election data collectively and began to identify themes in how K-12 teachers were conceptualizing responsibility, we listened and dialogued about one another’s evolving understandings of responsibility and our own academic journeys, and, together, we undertook a process to understand ourselves better through the work, and to understand the work better through ourselves. In what follows, we draw on existing conceptions of responsibility, social justice education, and communities of practice to contribute to the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education.

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

159

Teacher Responsibility We were drawn to the concept of responsibility because we come to this work as three white women, junior faculty who are watching, participating in, and deeply affected by the events happening in our country, universities, and public schools. As we took up data about teachers’ experiences post-2016 election, we were engaged not only in collective analysis, but also collective meaning-making about what we are responsible doing (and not doing) in response to these same sociopolitical events in our academic positions as practitioners in higher education, and specifically in our work as teacher educators, charged with preparing and sustaining K-12 teachers and teacher leaders. We connected virtually and in person in the days and months after the election and other highly visible sociopolitical events. We connected, for example, after watching students’ fears manifest in the wake of an immigration ban, and after the Parkland, Tree of Life, and Kroger shootings; after watching Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony and as we bore witness to one another’s stories as women and survivors; and many other events with which we could fill these pages. As these moments unfolded in our individual and collective worlds, we grappled with what it meant (and continues to mean) to be personally and professionally responsible and how those responsibilities manifest in our lives as university educators. To whom are we responsible? For what and how are we responsible, especially in our positions of relative power and privilege? Responsibility has been conceptualized as a stable personality trait or characteristic, as situational and related to some sort of criteria, and as part of a general social contract (for an overview of interdisciplinary conceptual models, see Lauermann & Karabenick, 2011). It is often positioned as important because it is tied to individual well-being, performance, and motivation (Lauermann & Karabenick, 2013). For teachers, responsibility may operate with regard to their sense of whether student outcomes (e.g., failures, successes, etc.) are dependent upon their actions (Guskey, 1981); teachers may hold “a sense of internal obligation and commitment to produce or prevent designated outcomes or that these outcomes should have been produced or prevented” (Lauermann & Karabenick, 2011, p. 127). Teacher responsibility is also often related to motivation and moral and professional values. That is, scholars argue that responsibility is “a moral motivation concerning any concrete teaching act” (Oser, 1994, p. 59) and teachers are “guided” by their sense of responsibility and obligation to educational stakeholders (Phelps, 2006, p. 70). This obligation may become taxing, however, as teachers’ sense of responsibility “has important motivational implications in terms of effort investment, persistence, and commitment to students, but can also come at a personal cost such as hard work, lack of sleep, and less family time” (Lauermann, 2014, p. 75). Thus, in this framing, teachers who draw on a sense of professional responsibility as a source of motivation may “give up” some individual liberties when they do so.

160  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL.

Missing from these conceptualizations of teacher responsibility is an acknowledgment that teachers operate within oppressive structures with agency to both reify and resist dominant norms. Conceptions of responsibility are bound up with teachers’ perceptions about students’ abilities and expectations for student achievement, which are shaped by understandings of race, class, gender, and ability (Diamond, Randolph, & Spillane, 2004). A tension here, as we see it, is that teachers receive socializing scripts that are rooted in individualistic ways of thinking about responsibility, much as they receive and transmit messages about individual merit, hard work, ability, and performance (Ladson-Billings, 2006). This socialization is powerful, leading to diffuse ideas about who is responsible not just for education and learning, but for societal change. Even in educational contexts predicated on shared responsibility and agency, teachers and students may have mismatched ideas about responsibility (Bertrand, Salinas, Demps, Rentería, & Durand, 2019). Educational systems increasingly guided by neoliberal principles further shifts what may be viewed as a collective responsibility for justice and equity onto the individual, “combined with the shrugging off of collective responsibility for the vulnerable and marginalized” (Davies & Bansel, 2007, p. 252). Thus, what might it mean to forego conceptions of individual and personal responsibility and situate teacher responsibility in the context of education for justice and equity? Here, we integrate notions of teacher responsibility that are rooted in education toward transformation. Applebaum (2010), for example, explained that white people have a moral responsibility to interrogate and interrupt their complicity in racist and oppressive systems. Building on prior theoretical framing by Young (2006, 2008), she conceptualizes responsibility as involving “exposure and constant critique of norms that produce and hide harm from appearing as harm” (Applebaum, 2010, p. 184). In this work, white people are charged to be critically conscious about, and collectively responsible for, examining how even the most well-intentioned people instantiate and perpetuate racism and oppression. Grounding pedagogical decision-making in this sense of responsibility for justice and equity is not without risk, however, as a “strong sense of responsibility is a necessary condition…because responsibility acts as a motivator for teachers to engage in work that is not institutionally supported” (Silverman, 2010, p. 10). Baldwin (1963) also poignantly illustrated the interrelated nature of responsibility, critical consciousness, and pedagogical risk in his now famous and still relevant “talk to teachers”: Let’s begin by saying that we are living through a very dangerous time… To any citizen of this country who figures himself as responsible – and particularly those of you who deal with the minds and hearts of young people – must be prepared to “go for broke.” Or to put it another way, you must understand that in the attempt to correct so many generations of bad faith and cruelty, when it is operating not only in the classroom but in society, you will meet the most fantastic, the most brutal, and the most determined resistance. There is no point in pretending that this won’t happen.

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

161

It is this complexity between responsibility and teachers’ pedagogy, especially in relation to educative practices that are justice- and equity-oriented, that captured our attention and drove our conversations with one another for the better part of two years.

Responsibility in Higher Education Arguably, teachers of K-12 students might be both implicitly and explicitly guided by a sense of responsibility for other people’s children as they are bound by in loco parentis; that binding does not hold for practitioners in higher education. Instead, instructors in higher education may sense that responsibility for learners is more diffuse, more voluntary, and perhaps even risky to enact given varied cultures and values across disciplines and fields and neoliberal ideas about students as customers or clients. The often siloed nature of organizational structures and disciplines in higher education also leads to widely varying disciplinary conceptions for even valuing teaching and the role of faculty in teaching, perhaps particularly in relation to institutions where research and discovery takes priority at the expense of teaching activities. Proponents of social justice education, in addition to critical scholars of gender, race, and whiteness, maintain, however, that higher education is precisely the space where we should take up issues of equity and justice (Applebaum, 2009; Hurtado, 2007; Ross, 2014), especially given neoliberal ideas that give primacy to productivity and individualism at the expense of collective well-being. We extend this argument to posit that practitioners in higher education are responsible for teaching in service of justice and equity, made salient by the explicit commitments of institutions to critical thinking, developing globally and interculturally competent citizens, and diversity (Ahmed, 2012). This challenge can be daunting, however, especially for those higher education practitioners who have received little, if any, explicit preparation for teaching and/or teaching in service of justice and equity. Here, we emphasize the role of communities of practice as spaces to cultivate and develop thinking and action about responsibility.

Communities of Practice as Spaces for SoTL Though not explicitly taken up in the SoTL literature, we find value in the theorizing around communities of practice as a way to capture what our collaborative work looked like. Communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) are groups of people “who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger, 2011, p. 1). This theorizing situates learning as a collective and sustained endeavor that happens beyond formalized structures and organizations. Although applied interdisciplinarily, communities of practice are formed vis-à-vis education when practitioners work to problem solve and to connect lived experiences to classroom learning. Importantly, an assumption

162  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL.

of communities of practice in education is that “the class is not the primary learning event. It is life itself that is the main learning event. Schools, classrooms, and training sessions still have a role to play in this vision, but they have to be in the service of the learning that happens in the world” (Wenger, 2011, p. 5). As white cis-women, all of us former public school teachers, we work to be critically conscious about the ways that public education functions to simultaneously oppress and privilege, and we position ourselves and our work to resist these systems, albeit with the knowledge that we are complicit in them. We held sadness, outrage, and fear during the campaign and at the outcome of the 2016 election, and we felt drawn to exploring teachers’ work during this time, especially because we are all former public school teachers and current scholars of K-12 education. As we examined data collected from practicing K-12 teachers, many of our conversations were about not just what the data said, but what they meant to us—as scholars and teachers ourselves. Analytical conversations often also included discussions of our relationships to the data, and with one another, in ways that moved beyond the requisite writing of positionality statements. We came to realize that this process was building our understanding of the data and of ourselves, which we conceptualized as a community of practice. While scholars on research teams may not think of themselves as a community of practice, our collaboration did, in fact, align with Wenger’s (2011) conceptions and we felt that, as we worked through our data to write other manuscripts, we were doing “more” than merely analyzing data. In our community of practice, our learning was happening in the world as it was happening in our collaborative dialogue about our teaching practices in higher education. We also see our community of practice as one rooted in an inquiry stance. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) discuss teaching from a stance of inquiry, but, too often, researchers dichotomize teaching and research, or see them as a continuum in which our teaching informs our research and not the other way around. That is, instead of “doing” research about teaching, we are also using our research to shape our understanding of our critical responsibility as teachers, a reciprocity and linking up of theory and practice that is also important in the scholarship of teaching and learning (Farver & Dunn, 2017; Hutchings & Huber, 2008). In order to illustrate our community of practice, we begin each ­section of the following narratives by raising up the voices of K-12 educators from our dataset who evidenced a sense of responsibility in their pedagogical response to the election. We draw on these specific examples to feed our own notions of what is possible in classrooms across age groups and content areas, highlighting teachers’ who anchored their pedagogy to a larger sociopolitical context and the understanding that as teachers, they (we) are responsible for unraveling systems of oppression. We explore, in ongoing dialogue with one another and with our data, what it means to be responsible as higher education practitioners, particularly in service of justice and equity-oriented

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

163

education. We present our findings in the form of a dialogic commentary. This intentionality in presentation allows space for teachers’ descriptions of their post-election work and our dialogue about responsibility to exist alongside one another; it also lays bare our community of practice in which we make meaning and explore how concepts work to inform our practices. What follows is an assemblage of data and dialogue.

“Whitewashing” Mostly I just held the space for them. I did not add to nor detract from their concerns. They did a lot of talking to each other, answering questions and affirming each other. Toward the end of our time together students decided they wanted to do more than just talk so we are trying to organize some student led actions. I was one of [a] few teachers that discussed the election with students. Other teachers either brushed it under the rug or did some other “white-washed” version of how to respond to this election. That is, they told the kids it was important to remember that we have to come together because caring for others is more important (or some other version of this statement). Our principal has been clear that we could talk about it but we are to be “bucket fillers” (i.e., let’s be nice to each other). Essentially, this has led to silence, likely due to the white guilt that lies in the hearts of the majority of the white female (savior) teachers in urban schools. I opened space because my students have expressed interest and disillusionment with our country. They are trying to understand the racism, and support for it, they have been watching over the course of the last year. They are disheartened and feel powerless. My job is to change that, to create the conditions for their empowerment. Inevitably I do this because our collective liberation is tied up in their collective critical consciousness. (Middle School Social Studies teacher from Chicago, 11–20 years of experience, Latina)

Hannah:  There are so many lessons to take from this teacher. Full disclosure: I did not open space for students in our class meetings after the election. That semester, I was teaching graduate students in qualitative methods courses, some of whom were practicing educators and school leaders. That class meeting, I ‘brushed it under the rug.’ Really, I could articulate any number of excuses—having a nasty virus, the timing of the class in relation to the election, etc.—but also at the root of it was that the class was comprised entirely of white students (a rare instance in our College of Education at the graduate level), some of whom aligned themselves with conservative, Christian principles. They often had endorsed color-evasive perspectives in class and engaged in deficit discourses about students and families of Color, which I had challenged regularly. For example, students had been visibly upset (some in tears) when we read a study describing cognitive dissonance among white women who employed African American maids and nannies in the Jim Crow South and another piece about the ways that high school students embraced a curriculum centered on LGBTQ literature. White (hetero) fragility (DiAngelo, 2018) and emotionalities of whiteness (Matias, 2016) were in full swing, and

164  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL.

I was feeling pretty beat down at that point in the semester. That first class meeting after the election, I made some quip about how I was sure that all the students knew how I was feeling about the outcome and we proceeded to their final presentations. Alyssa:  This reminds me of what the social studies teacher above points out, that many teachers ‘whitewashed’ their response to the election, particularly those who felt they were ideological outsiders in their schools. They were uneasy bringing up the election in class because they knew their students would disagree with their personal perspectives. Do you think your students knew how you felt about the outcome, even if you didn’t say it explicitly? Hannah:  Absolutely. I had been outwardly critical of Trump and his ‘platform’ (and, implicitly, his supporters) in class all semester around issues that were manifesting in education policy, public schools, and the ways that certain types of research were being used to justify inequities. But beyond that, in retrospect, I regret this pedagogical stance: my being kind of snarky and cynical and centering my own privilege and whiteness, as if I was the only one whose response to the outcome of the election deserved time and space in our classroom. My decision-making has shifted since then, however. For example, I taught a class the night that Dr. Ford’s testimony wrapped up during the Kavanaugh hearings and devoted time in class to voicing concern, expressing solidarity for survivors, and to providing resources (the RAINN hotline, for example) after we read an example of feminist research. I disclosed to students that I and many women I knew were feeling angry and sad, but also resolute. And since, I’ve chosen to acknowledge many other events in class, like the police shooting of an unarmed Black man at a mall in our state (Zaveri, 2018), immigration raids in communities close to our university, and the homophobic and transphobic rhetoric of a tenured faculty member in our College. I want to be intentional about acknowledging the sociopolitical in our classroom because we do not exist in a vacuum; qualitative methods classes present an opportunity for me to do that work because I can easily draw on empirical readings, present theories and concepts that inform methodology, or offer up qualitative datasets in class that are aligned with the issues happening in our broader contexts. Beth:  Yes, not only do I want to acknowledge that we don’t live in a vacuum, but as a teacher educator I want to model for my students what it means to challenge white supremacy and injustice wherever I see an inroad to do so. I am very aware that my own whiteness makes this process easier. Even as some of my students show resistance and disengagement when discussing movements like Black Lives Matter, one even bringing my materials directly to my department chair and claiming that I was practicing propaganda, we know that this pushback would have been significantly more profound had I been a faculty member of Color.

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

165

Hannah:  Absolutely. And, back to the data that elicited this discussion: this Latina teacher in our dataset is emblematic of the ways that people of Color, and especially women of Color, bear the burden of educating towards critical consciousness, equity, and justice. White people, on the other hand, often do not learn to locate whiteness and those implicit norms rooted in whiteness, which often masquerade as “simply good values or a universal human nature” (Leonardo, 2013, p. 85); we must learn to locate the ways in which those same norms are rooted in cisheteropatriarchal oppression. The work of white women teachers, then, involves a responsibility to deconstruct the ways that whiteness, patriarchy, and heteronormativity operate in and inform the nature of education, and more specifically, curricular and pedagogical ­decision-making. Without engaging in this work to locate and critique, we risk falling into that trap of white saviorism and white guilt—highlighted by this teacher’s calling out of her colleagues’ failure to engage issues that have very real consequences for students’ lives.

“Counter-Revolutionaries” I joined the walkout, and listened. In class the next day I facilitated a short discussion in one class. One student very clearly articulated the POV that things are already bad, this may be no worse. She even spoke negatively of those who she feels are panicking. No other students forcefully answered her. The other classes didn’t want to talk any more about it, and neither did I, so we returned to math. School is not a revolutionary institution, and although there is lip service to “developing critical thinking,” in fact our main job is to teach compliance and conformity. Teachers and teachers’ unions have evolved to be counter-revolutionary, to collaborate with local authority, to join in pretending to want to change the world, while in fact doing the opposite. We need a whole new approach from our union leaders, who are in this sense corrupt upholders of the status quo. We need brave administrators. We need a public which expects actual education rather than a pathway to middle-class consumerist lifestyle. (High School Math teacher from Berkeley, CA, 6–10 years of experience, white man)1

Beth:  The cynicism and frustration in this response is palpable and familiar to me and makes me think about how our responsibility is shaped by institutional contexts. Like this teacher, I’ve often been frustrated by the divergence between the rhetoric and reality within the institutions where I have taught. Trump was elected during my institution’s university-wide determined “Year of Diversity” that included more than 200 “diversity” events, including book clubs, panel discussions, and celebrations. And yet there was little discussion of oppression or white supremacy at any these events. Informed by the work of Sara Ahmed (2012) and Michael Chang (2016), I couldn’t help but ask how these efforts were being used as a marketing tool rather than an actual 1 Participants

are described using self-reported racial identity, geographic location, content area and grade level, years of experience, and gender identity.

166  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL.

effort to dismantle systemic inequality. Meanwhile, the representation of students of Color and retention of faculty of Color continued to be dismal throughout and after this targeted year. Hannah:  We have high-profile units on campus who ostensibly work for “diversity” and “inclusion,” but who regularly obstruct student and faculty efforts for anti-racist programming, for example. Recently, a university administrator nixed a plan outright, with no discussion, to bring Bree Newsome to campus; it was brought forth by a student affairs staff member, also a graduate student, who is a woman of Color. But, that year, a slogan for the institution was “Diversity. Inclusion. Free speech.” So, the ‘free speech’ and messages of Milo Yiannopoulos, who did speak on campus just before the election in 2016, are protected, but the activism and messages of Bree Newsome are not? As an outgrowth of a sequence of events like these, a group of us faculty are now working to determine which student-suggested programming has been obstructed and censored so that we can sponsor it ourselves. Alyssa:  The same has been true at both institutions where I have worked. Now, amidst a swirling controversy of the Larry Nassar sexual assault scandal and the subsequent administrative upheaval, being a faculty member at my current institution is a daily exercise in discrepancies. How does one work for an institution whose rhetoric is so far from reality? What is our responsibility to call out the institution even as we continue to support it with our labor? And how do we engage in this activism and pushback in responsible ways? My colleagues and I organized petitions, protest marches, teach-ins, and art exhibits that featured survivors’ and students’ testimonies. Yet I still wonder if this is enough. Beth:  This teacher engaged in activism after the election, which evidences responsibility outside the classroom, but where does pushback and resistance come in the form of our curriculum and pedagogy? For example, one semester I was told by the director of the program and other administrators (multiple times and in myriad ways) not to centralize race in my course that was titled the “Social Context of Education”. How can we possibly discuss the social context without centralizing discussions of race? I was also instructed to represent “both sides” of the political spectrum. Instead, my co-instructors and I developed lessons about white supremacy, whiteness, and white fragility, not because of our own partisan views, but because empirical and theoretical scholarship supports our responsibility to prepare educators and leaders who will do more than pay ‘lip service’ to equity. In the middle of one class meeting, exactly at the moment I began speaking about whiteness, the program director entered the room (without knocking) and positioned herself in the front corner where all of the students could watch her watching me. She stood with pursed lips. The following week she showed up, unannounced, at

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

167

the door of my co-instructor to inform her that students had reported feeling uncomfortable and “unsafe” (see DiAngelo, 2018). She would not disclose names, nor would she explicitly state how many of the 65 students had come to speak with her. For what it’s worth, our course evaluations that semester were the best I have received in my ten years teaching in higher education. Students, for the most part, felt we had created a classroom culture for critical self-reflection, analysis, and action. This leads me to believe that it was really just the program director who was uncomfortable. But even if that were not the case, even if the students had been upset, their level of comfort is not the determinant of the quality of my teaching. This is despite a neoliberal push to view students as clients and their education as a product to be individually consumed. My responsibility is not to please students, but to instead challenge them to serve the young people and communities for which they will eventually be responsible as school-based practitioners.

“Safe Space” The first thing I told them [my students] was that I can’t stand in front of classes full of African American, Latin@, immigrant, Muslim, LGBTQ, women, and probably some victims of sexual assault, and pretend everything will be okay. But mostly I just let them talk. I was very proud of how open they were with their fears and apprehensions, but also with their bravery… Generally the feeling has been one of cynical resignation, back to white supremacy as usual. I have not tried to sugar coat the implications of Bannon as Chief Advisor, possibly Joe Arpaio as Sec. of Homeland Security, both of which are utterly ludicrous but real possibilities. I have quietly directed many immigrant students and students with immigrant parents to [a community organization] where I volunteer, as a supportive group with good local connections that will not just let them be incarcerated and deported. We will provide sanctuary in our homes, churches, anywhere we can find it, should the need arise as we fully expect. In my rhetoric class (AP English Language) we’re covering the distinctions between normative and meta-ethical arguments, and how we understand those arguments structurally, and what uses we can put them to. So obviously the terrain is good for those discussions…I don’t hide most of my views from students, but I am careful to give them more than enough space to argue their views, and part of what I do is teach them how to disagree with me more effectively, if that is how their views go, so I believe it is a safe space, though hopefully not safe at all for those who would restrict my students’ thinking. (High School English teacher in Georgia, 6–10 years of experience, multiracial man)

Beth:  This teacher, as he also engages in activism outside of the classroom, makes me contemplate to whom we are responsible. I agree with him that attempting to “sugar-coat,” when people’s lives and well-being are in peril, could exacerbate the harm already done. Like many teachers we heard from, this teacher grapples with, but does not give into the pressure to remain ‘neutral’. This reminds me of my friend who teaches high school civics in North

168  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL.

Carolina. In the past, she told me she was careful not to share her partisan identity with her students, but since this election she has decided that hiding her political views would allow her students to perceive her as someone who may align with an administration that is threatening their basic human rights. I have never been great at hiding my politics, but like this teacher and my friend, in this moment, I have even less desire to attempt to do so. My Jewish faith taught me that one of the worst things one could do was remain a silent bystander in the face of injustice. When teaching about current events and contemporary issues, attempting ‘neutrality’ seems synonymous with bystander behavior. This is complicated in teacher education when we’re trying to model what we want from students, both preservice and practicing educators and administrators, which is to create classroom and school environments that allow for discourse and dialogue, the exploration of multiple perspectives. I constantly grapple with how to create space for dialogue and discourse while also being clear about what I see as issues and current events about which we must take a stand. Hannah:  Right, because what about when one of those “multiple perspectives” is, for example, white supremacist? Because justice and equity are not partisan, right? They are just being presented and interpreted as such in the sociopolitical sphere. In both K-12 classrooms and higher education, issues of equity and justice are often presented as ‘controversies’ to be debated. Increasingly in my particular university context, for example, I see ‘viewpoint diversity’ endorsed in curricula and colleagues’ classrooms. For the last several semesters, I’ve encountered end of course evaluations that include how I make ‘offensive generalizations about white people’ and am ‘not inclusive of all perspectives’. I suspect these comments are in response to the ways my pedagogical practices leave no space for deficit rhetoric about students and families of Color, for example, or for homophobic commentary, both of which are overwhelmingly present at my conservative institution in the Deep South. In this way, I don’t think it’s my practices that have changed, but rather that the notion of ‘both sides’ has proliferated with the normalization of Trumpism. And, the language of inclusion has been co-opted to account for a ‘both sides’ mentality, which disregards the ways that there exists, for example, no ‘safe space’ for people of Color when talking about issues of race and racism (Leonardo & Porter, 2010). Indeed, “there are no safe classroom spaces, if one considers that conditions of power and privilege always operate in them” (Boler & Zembylas, 2003; Zembylas, 2017, p. 19). But, in higher education and beyond, marginalized groups are expected to engage in ‘civil discourse’, while dehumanizing perspectives are protected by claims of ‘free speech’ (Strunk, 2018), ultimately recentering the comfort of privileged groups (Zembylas, 2017). Alyssa:  I think the question we’re asking is whether, when, and with what conditions we should create space to disagree. Spaces should not be safe for

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

169

all opinions; all opinions are not equal and if certain perspectives, like Hannah said above, are akin to racism or other exclusionary views, the space should not be safe for them. Yet, this perspective itself is controversial—even though it is rooted in decades of scholarship—because such a stance may lead people to believe that education for equity is so-called ‘indoctrination.’ Recently, there was an article in The New Republic where an education faculty member was reporting on a faculty meeting and said that Trump supporters’ discomfort in higher education was akin to racial microaggressions. But these are not the same thing. The argument about ‘safe spaces’ gets co-opted here to protect virulent and harmful positions. Hannah:  We might instead think carefully about how to engage in pedagogies of discomfort (Zembylas, 2017) “grounded upon the idea that discomforting feelings are valuable in challenging dominant beliefs, social habits and normative practices that sustain social inequities and thus create openings for individual and social transformation” (p. 11). Beth:  In the classroom, we have to be clear that creating space for ‘both sides’ or making sure that students feel comfortable and heard is less important than honoring the humanity and actual safety of those students who are being targeted by state-sanctioned violence and dehumanization.

Toward Critical Responsibility Work in this community of practice has served both pedagogical and methodological endeavors, allowing us to look to the work of practicing K-12 teachers to inform our practices in higher education. It has allowed us to imagine a responsibility for teaching and activism in higher education that underscores the ways that the personal is political is professional is pedagogical; to think about responsibility for education in service of justice and equity; and to push back against the white, male construct of individuality that we see in the ways that teaching, learning, and research are rewarded at individual levels ­vis-à-vis accountability systems. This work has allowed room for us to construct an argument for critical responsibility in our scholarship and in our teaching, rooted in collective commitments to justice and equity in the midst of a sociopolitical context reminiscent of fascism (Giroux, 2018). First, work in our community of practice has pushed us to consider what responsibility looks like for us as scholars and teachers in our Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) that privilege and perpetuate white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy. We know, for example, about racial battle fatigue among students and faculty at PWIs (e.g., Corbin, Smith, & Garcia, 2018), how queer and trans students must navigate hostile campus climates (e.g., Blockett, 2017; Nicolazzo, 2016), how women faculty and students endure dehumanizing and microaggressive contexts and bear the burden of hidden work in the academy (e.g., Acker, & Feuerverger, 1996), and how scholars of

170  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL.

Color experience marginalization, especially women of Color, even in spaces that are purportedly “inclusive” (e.g., Evans-Winters & Esposito, 2018). We draw from these knowledges to posit that our critical responsibility as white cis-women at PWIs is to work to critique individual and institutional lip-service to equity and justice unless they are, in fact, performing in service of equity and justice (Ahmed, 2012). More specifically, as professors of teachers, educational leaders, and educational researchers, we want to be sure that we are not merely preparing what friend and mentor of Beth, Michelle King refers to as “better racists” by providing students with the rhetoric to hide or disguise internalized dominance and/or fragility. Instead, we want to provide opportunities for students, colleagues, and ourselves to constantly reflect on and recommit to shifting our perspective and practices in ways that work to dismantle, for example, the overwhelming presence of whiteness in teacher education (Sleeter, 2001). Some of the ways we attempt this are by centralizing the voices of scholars of Color in our syllabi, developing critical study groups for our white colleagues and students, introducing critical concepts that challenge white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy in our courses, and engaging in outreach projects with public school students and teachers around building critical consciousness. We are also committed to relying on each other and others to reflect back to us our own hidden assumptions and biases. Even as we are committed to the work of racial justice, for example, we know that we are in a constant state of growth and unlearning the supremacy and dominance within which we were raised—we can only ever be “anti-racist racists” (Clark, 1999). And it is indeed easier to recognize where other people have room to grow than it is for us to recognize that need for growth within ourselves. Next, working in this community of practice has facilitated our exploration of what we are willing to put on the line as we work to practice a critical responsibility as practitioners in higher education. Our collective analysis has made us more aware of an epistemology of responsibility, rooted in white supremacist cisheteropatriarchy and individualism. Thus, we grapple with the tension of operating under the assumption of a sense of critical responsibility in systems which are premised on notions of individual responsibility and reward across all education systems. As white women educators, we must question what must be given up in engaging in moves toward equity, and what risks we are willing to take. In our view, a (false) sense of security must be risked in order to educate students toward critical consciousness and activism. In our work in higher education, for example, we often lament the risks that come with working to locate racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia in institutions. As junior faculty, we have worried that maybe centering these locations and critiques in our classrooms (research, service obligations, outreach projects, etc.) will risk our tenure, will garner poor student evaluations, and will malign us for a next job. We have come to recognize the superficiality of these worries; they are not worries for our very lives. That is, worries about our pedagogical and methodological risk-taking are eclipsed by

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

171

the risks that students in our higher education classrooms endure to navigate life: an African-American student’s worry about whether he’ll be pulled over in his own neighborhood for a third time this year; the worries of a student from the Middle East who has canceled her travel plans for winter break amid fears that she will be denied reentry to the USA; the fears of an undocumented student that they may be reported to state authorities were they to apply for admission to a graduate program; the fears of a non-binary student around disclosing their identity to their classmates. Thus, it is our responsibility to address these types of day-to-day burdens—the quotidian risks by virtue of existence, as well as the resilience in navigating them—via our curriculum and our pedagogy to make clear that sociopolitical rhetoric, institutional policies, and everyday burdens manifest in concrete, material ways in students’ lives. Moreover, it is our responsibility to engage students who represent dominant identities in collective conversations about oppression and injustice. While we often worry that pushing white students into conversations about race and racism, for example, has the potential to re-center whiteness and the emotionalities associated with it (Matias, 2016), letting those students ­opt-out or remain silent in class allows them to distance themselves from issues that also affect them, further burdens people of Color for educative work, and potentially puts people of Color “on display” for their white peers. Thus, the work of putting critical responsibility into practice must happen at the expense of a sense of security. We cannot simply provide educators with the technocratic skills that some long for, that they have been told by educational reformers and faculty advisors they need, just as we cannot simply “return to math.” In fact, as Gutiérrez (2013), Gutstein (2003), and others have shown us, math and all content areas are ripe with opportunities to analyze systemic injustice. If we are not willing to put our sense of security on the line, then we do not deserve the responsibility of teaching. This work in our community of practice has also prompted us to address what space we want to leave for students to disagree with us. We want to create opportunity for dialogue and perspective-taking and also model how to do this work in educative contexts. At the same time, there are limits to the “sides” that should be given air and honor in a classroom space, especially when the alternative side to an argument being made in class lecture or course readings is rooted in white supremacist, cisheteropatriarchal narratives (hooks, 2013). We find Jones’ (2018) argument about the fetishization of finding a middle ground instructive here: The middle is a point equidistant from two poles. That’s it. There is nothing inherently virtuous about being neither here nor there. Buried in this is a false equivalency of ideas, what you might call the “good people on both sides” phenomenon. When we revisit our shameful past, ask yourself, Where was the middle? Rather than chattel slavery, perhaps we could agree on a nice program of indentured servitude? Instead of subjecting Japanese-American citizens to

172  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL. indefinite detention during WWII, what if we had agreed to give them actual sentences and perhaps provided a receipt for them to reclaim their things when they were released? What is halfway between moral and immoral?

Attempting to remain neutral or present “both sides” is particularly complicated when teaching practicing and future educators and scholars. That is, it is one thing for a student to have an opinion that may limit their understanding of the world; it is another thing to let an opinion go unchallenged that has tangible and negative effects on classmates, public school students, and future research participants. The risk of “creating space” for perspectives in our classrooms that deny the historical foundations of the USA as a settler colonial project (Patel, 2014) propped up by capitalism, white supremacy, racism, and the erasure of indigeneity, or perspectives that negate the ways that systemic oppression is still manifest in institutions such as schools, only mirrors the “common wisdom” or the status quo that students are already steeped in outside of classrooms. That is, these perspectives are already part of the ethos, the dominant narratives, the “smog” (Tatum, 1997) of our US sociocultural-political context. The greatest complaint that we hear from students is that they feel silenced, judged, or uncomfortable from learning about teaching and scholarship from a justice perspective. We ask then, both ourselves and them: How invested are you in the well-being of the whole (Bettez, 2011)? Might the safety and well-being of classmates, K-12 and university students, research participants and collaborators be more important than your own comfort? This work remains difficult when viewpoint diversity is endorsed by institutions and colleagues within them. We realize the risks associated with this work. We regularly read news stories such as the forced resignation of a Black administrator at an institution close to Hannah’s for tweets about systemic racism and policing. We often hear of and experience backlash against faculty in colleges of education who teach toward equity and justice, those who are tasked with teaching required “diversity” courses, and those who integrate critical perspectives into their curricula. These faculty often face negative critiques in their evaluations, prejudiced remarks, and online and personal harassment, and this is particularly the case when faculty are people of Color teaching white students (Matias, 2016; Perry, Moore, Edwards, Acosta, & Frey, 2009). Though the three of us receive ad hominem commentary in our end-of-course evaluations each semester, which range from character attacks to evaluations of our attire, we recognize that the backlash we experience is minimal when compared to what our colleagues of Color endure. The K-12 teachers’ responses to the 2016 election we have highlighted in this paper, along with our dialogue, urge us to consider: What might it look like if more teachers, across all educational contexts, were guided by a sense of responsibility for justice and equity in their teaching? What if more teachers resisted messages about “neutrality” and myths that “politics” are separate and independent from everyday lived experiences? In this chapter, we have

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

173

attempted to present the ways in which our work in a community of practice has led us to deeper understandings about our critical responsibility as white women scholars and educators. This process has made visible the dynamism between and among scholarship and pedagogy and how we might take lessons from public school educators to inform our teaching practices in higher education. Going forward, we encourage educators and scholars engaged in SoTL to devote time in communities of practice as they work to develop a critical responsibility. We acknowledge that communities of practice can reinforce dominant norms and allow for white fragility, heteronormativity, ableism, and sexism to be perpetuated and supported. This is not what we are calling for. We are calling for the opposite: a critical community of practice in which researchers approach their scholarship, their teaching, and their lives with a justice-oriented, inquiry stance. As white cis-women working together, however, we have likely perpetuated misunderstandings with one another, some of which may indeed be reflected in this chapter. Despite this acknowledgment, we continue to strive for intellectual humility and learning from and with others even as we may fumble in the process. We see value here in documenting our understanding about what a critical responsibility in teaching might look like so that we can further reflect and improve our practice, hold ourselves accountable, and enter our work into broader conversations in the field about teaching in service of justice and equity in higher education. We also acknowledge the risks that come with situating teachers’ practices within institutional/contextual constraints, especially when a critical responsibility for collective well-being does not align with institutional and educational expectations rooted in individualism and a myth of meritocracy. In the midst of this incongruence, however, we urge pedagogical decision-making not based on potential consequences (student/stakeholder backlash), but in making one’s self vulnerable to those consequences (risk-taking) to ascribe to a critical responsibility for justice and equity even as we recognize differing levels of risk for differing people. In our work, we take advantage of the privilege of being able to speak out.

Artifact: Enacting Critical Responsibility In the following narrative, I [Hannah] describe my teaching activities at a specific timepoint on campus as I enacted critical responsibility. This enactment came about as a result of work and learning in our community of practice. A few days before I was to teach a class on data analysis and transcripts in my introductory qualitative methods course, an article was published in the student newspaper on campus detailing homophobic and transphobic statements made on publicly accessible social media sites by a tenured professor. In addition to my original plan to take transcript data from a project with local high school students for the class to continue working with from the

174  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL.

week prior, I also brought in a data set of interviews conducted by LGBTQ Alabamians with community members (see Strunk, Baggett, Riemer, & Hafftka, 2016). I explained to them that as a member of the university community and as an ally and advocate, I condemned transphobia and homophobia and that, in light of these events, I had modified my lesson plan for the day to explore these data for the importance of spaces for affirmation in education. From the community-based project data corpus, we focused on transcript excerpts where participants recounted the ways that having affirming teachers and professors (or not) shaped their understandings of themselves and their contexts as queer and trans folx in Alabama. As a class, we defined and operationalized LGBTQ microaggressions (Seelman, Woodford, & Nicolazzo, 20172) and developed coding schemes around that concept, in addition to constructing inductive definitions for instances of affirmation. As I floated around the room to check in with students in small groups, they shared their coding schemes and had begun to connect participants’ narrations of experiences in education to the ostensive purposes of public education: engaged citizenry, affirmation of humanity, inclusive spaces to learn, and the right to a free, appropriate education. Several students shared their hand-annotated transcripts on the document camera for the class, explaining the instances of affirmation and discrimination they had found, and invoking the operational definitions they had constructed from these concepts. After we had explored these transcripts, we connected these efforts to axiological commitments in qualitative inquiry, identifying the commitments that our research team (i.e., Strunk et al.) had made in undertaking a community-based project with LGBTQ folx in Alabama and what s­ cholar-activism might look like in both research and teaching. Students then did some reflective work about their own axiological commitments, including a sense of critical responsibility, to their lines of inquiry and in their respective disciplines outside of class. In your own community of practice, these guiding questions can support a conversation about your critical responsibility as university educators: • What are the sociopolitical contexts that influence your work, and that of your students, in higher education? • In those contexts, for what are you responsible? To whom are you responsible? • When something unjust happens on campus, do you address it in your class? How about when something happens in your community, state, or country? Do you feel responsible for doing so? How to navigate these instances and potential tensions? 2 Seelman, K. L., Woodford, M. R., & Nicolazzo, Z. (2017). Victimization and microaggressions targeting LGBTQ college students: Gender identity as a moderator of psychological distress. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1–2), 112–125.

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

175

• How do ideas of equity and justice inform those conceptions of responsibility? • What are the risks involved in enacting that critical responsibility in your work as practitioners? How can these perceived risks be mediated?

References Acker, S., & Feuerverger, G. (1996). Doing good and feeling bad: The work of women university teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764960260309. Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press. Applebaum, B. (2009). Is teaching for social justice a liberal bias? Teachers College Record, 111(2), 376–408. Applebaum, B. (2010). Being white, being good: White complicity, white moral responsibility, and social justice pedagogy. Boston, MA: Lexington Books. Baldwin, J. (1963). A talk to teachers. Saturday Review, 46 (pp. 42–44). Bertrand, M., Salinas, S. M., Demps, D., Rentería, R., & Durand, E. S. (2019). “It’s everybody’s job”: Youth and adult constructions of responsibility to take action for school change through PAR. The Urban Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11256-019-00537-y. Bettez, S. C. (2011). Critical community building: Beyond belonging. Educational Foundations, 25, 3–19. Blockett, R. A. (2017). ‘I think it’s very much placed on us’: Black queer men laboring to forge community at a predominantly White and (hetero) cisnormative research institution. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(8), 800– 816. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1350296. Boler, M., & Zembylas, M. (2003). Discomforting truths: The emotional terrain of understanding differences. In P. Trifonas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social justice (pp. 110–136). New York: Routledge. Branson-Potts, H. (2016, November 13). Bay Area teacher put on leave after comparing Trump to Hitler. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from www.latimes.com. Chang, J. (2016). We gon’ be alright: Notes on race and resegregation. Palgrave Macmillan. Clark, C. (1999). The secret: White lies are never little. In C. Clark & J. O’Donnell (Eds.), Becoming and unbecoming white: Owning and disowning a racial identity (pp. 92–110). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education, 24, 249–305. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2015). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press. Corbin, N. A., Smith, W. A., & Garcia, J. R. (2018). Trapped between justified anger and being the strong Black woman: Black college women coping with racial battle fatigue at historically and predominantly white institutions. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951 8398.2018.1468045.

176  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247–259. https://doi. org/10.1080/09518390701281751. Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2004.35.1.75. DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Dunn, A. H., Sondel, B., & Baggett, H. C. (2019). “I don’t want to come off as pushing an agenda”: How contexts shaped teachers’ pedagogy in the days after the 2016 US Presidential Election. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 444–476. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218794892. Evans-Winters, V., & Esposito, J. (2018). Researching the bridge called our backs: The invisibility of ‘us’ in qualitative communities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(9), 863–876. Farver, S. D., & Dunn, A. H. (2017). Swinging with a double-edged sword: Using counterstories to fight for social justice in the classroom. In D. D. Liston & R. Rahimi (Eds.), Promoting social justice through the scholarship of teaching and learning (pp. 177–188). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Giroux, H. A. (2018). Challenging Trump’s language of fascism. Truthout. Guskey, T. R. (1981). Measurement of the responsibility teachers assume for academic successes and failures in the classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 44–51. Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.5951/ jresematheduc.44.1.0037. Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034699. Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 185–196. https://doi. org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0070. Hutchings, P., & Huber, M. T. (2008). Placing theory in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 7(3), 229–244. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1474022208094409. Jones, T. (2018). There’s nothing virtuous about finding common ground. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://time.com/5434381/tayari-jones-moralmiddle-myth/. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 37(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2006.37.2.104. Lauermann, F. (2014). Teacher responsibility from the teacher’s perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 75–89. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.005. Lauermann, F., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Taking teacher responsibility into account (ability): Explicating its multiple components and theoretical status. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 122–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2 011.558818.

9  CRITICAL TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY IN TUMULTUOUS TIMES … 

177

Lauermann, F., & Karabenick, S. A. (2013). The meaning and measure of teachers’ sense of responsibility for educational outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.001. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leibowitz, B., & Bozalek, V. (2016). The scholarship of teaching and learning from a social justice perspective. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(2), 109–122. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2015.1115971. Leonardo, Z. (2013). Race frameworks: A multidimensional theory of racism and education. New York: Teachers College Press. Leonardo, Z., & Porter, R. K. (2010). Pedagogy of fear: Toward a Fanonian theory of ‘safety’ in race dialogue. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(2), 139–157. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2010.482898. Matias, C. E. (2016). Feeling white: Whiteness, emotionality, and education. Rotterdam: Sense. Nicolazzo, Z. (2016). Trans* in college: Transgender students’ strategies for navigating campus life and the institutional politics of inclusion. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Oser, F. K. (1994). Chapter 2: Moral perspectives on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20(1), 57–127. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X020001057. Patel, L. (2014). Countering coloniality in educational research: From ownership to answerability. Educational Studies, 50(4), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/00 131946.2014.924942. Perry, G., Moore, H., Edwards, C., Acosta, K., & Frey, C. (2009). Maintaining credibility and authority as an instructor of color in diversity-education classrooms: A qualitative inquiry. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(1), 80–105. https://doi. org/10.1080/00221546.2009.11772131. Phelps, P. H. (2006). The three Rs of professionalism. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2006.10516436. Ross, S. N. (2014). Diversity and intergroup contact in higher education: Exploring possibilities for democratization through social justice education. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(8), 870–881. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.9 34354. Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2017). Is everyone really equal?: An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. Teachers College Press. Silverman, S. K. (2010). What is diversity? An inquiry into preservice teacher beliefs. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 292–329. https://doi. org/10.3102/0002831210365096. Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002002. Sondel, B., Baggett, H. C., & Dunn, A. H. (2018). “For millions of people, this is real trauma”: A pedagogy of political trauma in the wake of the 2016 US Presidential election. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 175–185. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.017. Southern Poverty Law Center. (2016). The Trump effect: The impact of the 2016 presidential election on our nation’s schools. Retrieved from https://www.splcenter.org. Strunk, K. K. (2018, September 21). Free speech for some, civility for others. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/ advice/2018/09/21/colleges-and-politicians-promote-free-speech-some-insist-civility-others-opinion.

178  H. C. BAGGETT ET AL. Strunk, K. K., Baggett, H. C., Riemer, A., & Hafftka, R. (2016). Community-based participatory research with LGBTQ communities in Alabama and Mississippi. In SAGE research methods cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781526401083. Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11736/A%20 brief%20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf. Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0265052506060043. Young, I. M. (2008). Global challenges: War, self-determination and responsibility for justice. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Zaveri, M. (2018, November 24). Black man killed by officer in Alabama mall shooting was not the gunman, police now say. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/us/alabama-mall-shooting.html. Zembylas, M. (2017). Practicing an ethic of discomfort as an ethic of care in higher education teaching. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–17.

CHAPTER 10

A New Narrative About Emotions and Their Connection to Learning Sarah E. Schoper and Elijah C. Amelse

Key Terms and Definitions Ableism: Discrimination in favor of able-bodied people involving the belief that people with disabilities are not normal and need to be fixed. Feminine: Descriptions or behaviors traditionally associated with women. Masculine: Descriptions or behaviors traditionally associated with men. Neocortex: The location of higher-order functioning in the brain. Neuronal networks: The neuronal pathways followed in the brain when trying to retrieve information. Policing: The maintenance of order and alignment. Racism: Any action or belief that reflects the racial worldview individually and systemically. Commonly integrated into systems of power within an economy. Social Construct: An idea created and accepted by the people in a society. They form the basis for shared assumptions about the world. Synapses: How neurons connect with each other. Toxic Masculinity: Norms associated with being masculine in the culture that harm men and society. S. E. Schoper (*)  Lindenwood University, Saint Charles, MO, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. C. Amelse  Concordia College, Moorhead, MN, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_10

179

180  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE

Although you may not be a neuroscientist nor a cognitive psychologist, you are a human being. Therefore, most likely it is not a surprise to know that your body is comprised of many biological processes, one of which is the neurological process of learning. The brain and its neurological functioning is an area of the human body scientists know little about, yet over the past 20 years, mostly due to advancements in technology, much progress has been made in understanding the process of learning (Allen Institute, 2019). While further insights by scientists are sure to emerge going forward, what is known at this time calls for a revision in the common narrative regarding the involvement of emotions in the learning process. This chapter makes such a call, by first exploring what is known about the biological learning process, with an emphasis on the role of emotions in that process. Second, we explore what such a process means for our understanding of the environment around us. Specifically, we begin by exploring the gendered, racialized, and abled common narrative regarding emotions in the learning process and offer a new narrative of emotions in the learning process. Finally, we explore considerations as to what the new narrative means for those working within higher education and offer practical examples.

The Biological Learning Process1 Biologist James Zull (2002, 2011) claims that learning is a change that physically occurs within our brains. While Zull identifies such change as learning, others may know it as deep learning (see Suggestions for Further Readings: Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984; Lewin, 1947; Piaget, 1936). In other words, this chapter involves the kind of learning that “sticks” with you: 1. Learning that alters the neurological pathways in your brain; 2. Learning that involves experiencing, reflecting, abstracting, and actively testing in a continuous cyclical revolution both consciously and subconsciously; 3. Learning that allows the learner to take control of their learning for themselves, no longer passively acting as conduits of information from others; 4. Learning that filters and expands upon past meaning while allowing the individual to gain deeper and more complex understandings, and 5. Learning that is transformative.

Our brains consist of over 86 billion neurons (Brainfacts, 2018). These neurons connect to each other through a process in which electrical or chemical 1 Despite many being involved in the intentional creation of learning experiences in higher education, terminology regarding the biological process of learning is often unknown, if rarely used, in d ­ ay-to-day practice. Thus, this chapter does not focus on such points. Instead, a brief explanation of the biological process of learning is offered here for those seeking to engage it as practitioners. For more details, including additional neuroscience-specific terminology, regarding this process, please refer to the references, as well as the suggestions for further reading sections later in this chapter.

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

181

impulses are passed through synapses. The process of passing along these impulses from one neuron to another, or to a specific cell, eventually leads to the creation of pathways. Such pathways are what the brain quickly follows when seeking to retrieve information and are called neuronal networks. This oversimplified way of describing the learning process within the brain becomes more complex through further analysis. Sensory Input.  As humans experience their environment, the brain takes in information through sensory input, which it then uses throughout the learning cycle. Sensory input refers to any signals from the outside world of the individual that the brain picks up. Such signals are often acquired in small, raw form and result in electrical or chemical impulses. For example, the images one sees are brought into the part of the brain that integrates the signals nearest the sensory part. Integration means that the individual signals get added up so that whatever is being sensed is recognized as the sum of all the signals. These sums become bigger patterns that compose meaning and move into the motor cortex where the patterns of meaning become ideas, thoughts, or plans; these are then executed, which results in the acquisition of new sensory input. In other words, individuals take in sensory information while having an experience. Next, that information is moved to the integrative cortex through the process of reflection. Through reflection, individuals then create abstract thoughts about their experiences. Finally, individuals actively test their abstractions through the use of their motor brain. This process can occur in mere seconds or take much longer. Our brains can process multiple learning cycles at once while at different locations within each of them. Given the learning cycle and processing described, it can be somewhat easy to identify the challenges that occur when individuals are conscious about the sensory input from the use of their five senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching, and the meaning such input leads them to create. What is less acknowledged is the sensory input of emotions, which is not a fully conscious process. LeDoux (2015) notes that some sensory input bypasses the sensory cortex and goes directly to the amygdala before we are even aware of it. The amygdala is one of the locations within our brain that is key to processing emotions. Thus, one’s brain begins to make sense of emotional sensory input before they are even conscious of it or cognitively understand it. The amygdala forms part of the limbic system, a system involving emotions, learning, memory, and motivation, serving as the center for emotions such as fear, rage, and anger, all of which interact with the learning process. In general, the brain desires safety, happiness, connection, and control for survival. These desires lead individuals toward a multitude of actions, and even if we disagree with the learner’s actions, it is important to understand that the learner came to that action by following the pathways in their brain.

182  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE

Emotions to Feelings. As stated previously, millions of neuronal networks carry electrical impulses and chemical signals back and forth from the brain and the rest of the body. This is one of the ways the brain senses what is happening moment by moment. The chemicals that the brain and the rest of the body send through the bloodstream help to communicate further what is happening in the body. These chemicals also lead to our feelings, and the regulation of these chemicals is done by the hypothalamus. For example, the generation of feelings related to well-being is linked strongly to the release of the chemical dopamine. Dopamine is thought to be the primary chemical modulator of positive feelings, which are mainly in the entire front cortex of the brain. Positive feelings here are what might be considered calm alertness, authentic curiosity, or the feeling of intrigue. When having such feelings, the learner experiences a connection to what is being learned, a desire to learn it, as well as control over their learning. Found in the medial temporal lobe, the amygdala is constantly monitoring our experiences. It is important to keep this scanning process in mind when seeking to help someone learn, if for no other reason than to be intentional when determining what might be scanned by the learner. When individuals become aware of their emotions, they impulsively transform the emotions into feelings (James, 1890). Any of what might be considered negative, high stress feelings such as anxiety can lead the learner to short circuit the full learning cycle and jump ahead to action without full reflection. When the amygdala, ever scanning, processes distress, it sends distress signals to the hypothalamus, which triggers our sympathetic nervous system. Thus, when we are anxious our adrenal glands release the chemical adrenaline, which calls on our body to respond by either fight, flight, or freeze. Adrenaline has also been shown to inhibit the front-cortex functions, which is where judgment and reasoning are done in the brain. Thus, it is hard to make informed decisions when feeling anxious. While our amygdala is constantly scanning to alert us of these moments, Damasio (1994) found that one’s body can develop associations between certain feelings and cognitive tasks. For example, many associate anxiety with attempting to complete math problems. There are ways, however, to get the amygdala to lessen its control thereby engaging the learner in reflection. Smiling faces have been shown to do this, as well as when the cortical brain becomes involved in cognitive tasks such as when the learner is working to find a way to solve a puzzle. The less amygdala involved, the less nervous and afraid the learner will be, and the more likely the learner will fully complete the learning cycle. At this time, science has identified dozens of chemicals, similar to dopamine or adrenaline, connected to various feelings, and there are likely more to discover. The entire brain can be considered to be an organ of emotion, thereby linking emotion, reason, and memory together. Individuals do not think without feeling. Try, for example, to think of a time when you were happy. Are you able to think about that experience without simultaneously

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

183

experiencing some of the feeling of happiness? Thus, it should not come as a surprise to know that our feelings affect our rationality and memory and these effects can, in turn, influence our learning. Yet, learners are often encouraged to set aside their emotions in an effort to be objective when learning. Perhaps, instead of asking learners to not be so emotional, we should help learners build capacity so that when they experience emotions during the learning process, they are capable of reflection and thoughtful response. The brain is a web. All of the connections between thinking and feeling suggest interactions between all parts of the brain. Such interconnectedness is contrary to the common metaphor of the brain acting like a giant filing system in which each new piece of information is stored in separate and discrete files, only to be used when called upon directly. Instead, knowing that there are connections between all parts of the brain helps us to see the brain as more of a web-like structure where a multitude of pathways exist with enough flexibility to create new pathways if needed. This is precisely the case as all structures known to influence emotion and feelings are connected with each other and with the entire neocortex, the location of higher-order functioning, within the brain. Furthermore, more connections run from the amygdala than run toward it. As LeDoux (1996) explains, this is why sometimes emotions tend to overpower cognition. In other words, different sensory signals compete for attention within the brain, and those that are the strongest win out (Kastner, De Weerd, Desimone, & Ungerleider, 1998), and if an emotion signal happens to be the strongest it takes over. For example, feelings become especially distracting to us when we really care about the answer to a problem (Immordino-Yang, 2016; Zull, 2002). Therefore, “It isn’t a sign of weak character when our reasoning is distorted by feelings. It is just nature at work” (Zull, 2002. p. 76). Recognizing the connection between feeling and thought is vital to promoting learning. Long-term memory. If one does not use or repeat things their memory goes dim. Yet, if something made sense or created a strong emotional feeling, one might be able to remember very specific details in the short term and often in the long term too. Long-term memory is a mix of feelings and details that allow us to recall information that comes from one’s lifetime of learning (Nader, Schafe, & La Doux, 2000). An example that demonstrates this point is when you hear a favorite song from your childhood and you suddenly are taken back to the feeling you had as a child and what the song meant to you at that time. Long-term memory is important to the learning process, because it is what learners use to help themselves make sense of whatever is being learned. If one’s feelings are strong enough about an experience, it can alter or damage their understanding of the details of the memory. The harm that

184  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE

intense feelings can do to long-term memory is probably a direct effect of one’s body talking to their brain by way of the chemicals circulating in the blood that were mentioned earlier (Damasio, 1994). Specifically, the chemical cortisol can damage cells when released in large amounts. Furthermore, extreme stress can permanently damage one’s memory centers. An example of such damage is post-traumatic stress disorder, which is a mental disorder in which an individual experiences a familiar sensory cue that triggers traumatic thoughts, feelings, or dreams and applies them to current experiences. On the other hand, adrenaline, as noted earlier, inhibits our creative functioning and frontal-cortex processes but can improve long-term memory (McGaugh & Gold, 1989). In summary, there are feelings that help individuals think and feelings that damage thinking, and they both occur at the same time, all of the time. If as educators, one can discern which feelings are damaging and which are helpful for each student, they can design learning experiences that seek to tap into helpful feelings and enhance student learning. What cannot be done is to ignore the learner’s feelings, as doing so will only leave the learner stuck with their strong feelings, unable to process their experiences in productive ways that lead to deeper meaning. Further, ignoring the learner’s feelings can contribute to the learner feeling unseen, a consideration especially important when utilizing a social justice framework while teaching. Second, long-term memory can be divided into conscious and subconscious. Another name for memories that are subconscious is implicit memories or memories that subconsciously influence one’s actions without their realization. Behaviors, feelings, and beliefs can all be contained in implicit memory, which means educators need to be aware of its existence, as well as memories individuals remember explicitly, or consciously. Like the earlier noted web-like connections between thoughts and feelings, explicit and implicit memories are intertwined. One remembers facts often because they are associated with an implicit feeling, which through reflection become explicit. Regardless, explicit and implicit feelings influence the learning process. In summary, “Feelings can help us remember and make us forget” (Zull, 2002, p. 87), which makes them useful to promoting the learning process. It is known by those studying the connection between learning and feelings that the chance of productive learning occurring is lessened when ignoring the feelings of the learner (Brown et al., 2014; Zull, 2002).

Gender, Race, and Ability and Emotions The American higher education system served, and continues to serve, as a system of white supremacy, patriarchy, and ableism. Thus, students are always already entering into learning environments that prioritize and reward the values and practices of these systems (e.g., efficiency, objectivity, rationality). As educators work to create conditions to welcome and process emotions in our learning environments, it is important to acknowledge and identify

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

185

the systems that one must constantly work against (both internally and ­externally) as well as the expectations from these systems that the learners may bring with them. Educators must interrogate their practices and policies and their relationship to these dominant, oppressive systems. Gender.  The intertwined connections between feelings and thoughts upend the commonplace perspective in society that expressing one’s feelings is gendered, most often associated with femininity and being a woman (Gong, Wong, & Wang, 2018). Although there is a dearth of empirical research demonstrating that women are more emotional, they are often believed to be so (Begley, 2009, para 4). Indeed, expressions of emotion for men are often attributed to situational circumstances, while similar expressions of emotion for women are attributed to women being “emotional” (Feldman & Bliss-Moreau, 2009). Women are perceived as “more emotional,” and their emotions are also often viewed as unstable and irrational. This emotionality is often unwelcome in the dominant framework for learning, where learners must be rational and objective. On the other hand, while men and masculine ways of expressing emotions are considered appropriate in the dominant paradigm, men are often not taught healthy ways of identifying, reflecting, and navigating their emotions. Instead, western culture nurtures toxic, harmful masculinity (American Psychological Association, 2018). Since its inception, student affairs professionals have been viewed as the campus staff who deal with students’ feelings or affective development. This gendered perception is reinforced because a supermajority of student affairs staff identify as women (71%; Bauer-Wolf, 2018, para 2). As a result, it has been hard to recognize that the connection between emotions and thought is not gendered when the population in question lacks a diversity of gender. In contrast, faculty have historically been viewed as interacting solely with student’s brains through cognitive learning in the classroom despite students bringing their emotions and thoughts into all of their experiences (American Council on Education [ACE], 1937, 1949; Keeling, 2004, 2006). Continuing to perpetuate a narrative that separates emotions from thinking only further privileges those that are viewed as able to do so regardless of actual ability. In this circumstance, the dominant narrative privileges those that are men and masculine who already have the greatest amount of agency. As a result, drawing a false divide between emotions and thinking assists in maintaining the gender binary, that one is either a man or a woman and excludes the possibility for variance within and between such socially constructed concepts. Indeed, although 49% of faculty positions are held by women, only 38% of tenure-track positions are held by women (Flaherty, 2016, para 5). This means that the majority of those holding tenure-track positions within higher education are men who are likely operating under the dominant narrative of rationality and objectivity regarding emotions in the learning process. In this circumstance, the dominant narrative privileges

186  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE

those that identify as men and masculine who often already have the greatest amount of agency as mediated by gender. Similarly, the learning process is further gendered by the perception that emotions are feminine; this reproduces the perception that gender is a binary. “Don’t take things so personally” is a phrase sometimes shared when an individual expresses a strong emotional reaction and another person attempts to assist them in processing through that experience. It is also a somewhat sly way to imply that the learner is being too emotional. Yet, the aforementioned biological explanation of the learning process illustrates that to take feeling out of the learning process is to override the full learning cycle, making it less likely that deep learning will occur. Further, taking the feeling out of the learning process is, as we have discussed, likely impossible to do. Instead, what could be done is to take seriously the feelings the learner is sharing, recognizing that doing so is necessary for the learner to move forward in the learning process. We discuss strategies for welcoming emotions in the learning process within the practical section of this chapter. Race.  Another often held view of the dominant narrative regarding the connection between emotions and thoughts can be seen when looked through the lens of race. White racial superiority, also known as white supremacy, is entangled in all the economic and social systems at play in the United States (DiAngelo, 2018; Oluo, 2018). Under a capitalistic system and lens, for those at the top to benefit in times of scarce resources there needs to be people at the bottom. In the United States, race has traditionally used by those in power to rationalize a divide between who should be on the top and the bottom; those with darker skin were placed at the bottom. Thus, it makes sense that the legacy of this history is still prevalent today, and therefore, saturates all aspects of our interactions—including experiences within learning environments. This results in a white expression of emotions being viewed as the norm in the learning process, and the emotions of people of color being evaluated in relation to that norm (Harvey Wingfield, 2010). Such evaluation is only magnified when situated within an environment that was originally structured to enable white individuals, specifically affluent men, to succeed. It is unsurprising then that in such an environment, students of color are often labeled “too loud,” “too quiet,” or “too angry.” Additionally, the centering of whiteness combined with the myth that learning is improved when made easier and faster (Brown et al., 2014) results in a racialized norm of appropriate demonstrable emotions that are often controlled and lacking in strength. This racialized norm of white emotionality only reinforces viewing students of color as not serious, capable, struggling, or, alternatively, as examples of a model minority for those who comply. To add another layer of complexity to this dilemma, most faculty and staff at institutions of higher education are white. In 2017, according to data from the National Center on Education Statistics, 76% of all college and university faculty members were white, compared to 55% of undergraduates. Similar to

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

187

how it is hard to help a fish see the water it swims in, it can be challenging for white individuals to see the influence of their white race in the learning environment. Ability.  Finally, the dominant narrative that emotions need to be “removed” for learning to occur is grounded in ableism. Ableism is “discrimination in favor of able-bodied people,” and “the belief that people with disabilities need to be fixed or cannot function as full members of society” (Zeilinger, 2015, para 3–5). While there are those that may seem more able to hold back their emotions from the learning process, there will also be those that bring their emotions into the learning experience in time or places that are unexpected or unsupported; either may happen because of a disability. Because disability is not always visible nor does it always show up in a prescribed manner, it is often defined as the absence of “normality,” a normative othering of those who do not fit pre-dominant definitions of who belongs according to ability (Charlton, 1998; DasGupta, 2015; Davis, 2010; Scott & Herold, 2018). Further, those in power have historically removed those with disabilities from the postsecondary learning environment, and the result is that those with disabilities and their needs are often overlooked in higher education. As a result, students with disabilities are expected to strategically manage disclosure and the stigma of being abnormal without emotion (Coughlin, 2018; Goffman, 1963; Scott & Herold, 2018). This requires students to disconnect from their bodies and emotions to decide if and how to disclose differing abilities and if and when to ask for help. This further reinforces the dominant narrative of learning where emotions can be set aside from thoughts and, therefore, from the learning process and the learning environment. A revised narrative—one that normalizes having feelings for all participants in the learning process, as well as acknowledging and addressing them—has the potential to bring greater equity and growth into the learning environment. This new, revised narrative will connect to a greater number of learners without ostracizing those displaying their feelings regardless of their gender, race, or ability status. Finally, normalizing emotions in the learning process has the potential to truly transform institutions of higher education by requiring all faculty and staff to develop skills capable of creating and maintaining learning environments where all students are holistically welcomed. Now, we discuss how one working within an institution of higher education operates from this new narrative of the role of emotions in the learning process.

A New Narrative for Emotion in Teaching and Learning in Practice Operating from a new narrative regarding the role of emotions in the learning process requires a normalization of emotions being expressed in the learning environment. This requires all working in higher education to

188  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE

develop specific skills so that they can address feelings more inclusively within the learning process. These skills are predicated on the development of awareness of their own feelings when working with others (Tolman & Kremling, 2017). We propose four areas of consideration in order to embrace and engage with this new narrative for emotions and learning: (1) transition from old narrative to new, (2) building one’s own capacity for identifying and navigating their own emotions in the learning process, (3) creating conditions in which emotions are welcome and explored in the learning environment, and (4) assisting students in their own capacity building regarding emotions. Transitioning from an Old Narrative to the New The dominant narrative in western culture about emotions and learning is the belief that for learning to occur emotions must be set aside ­(Immordino-Yang, 2016). Paulo Freire (2011) labels this narrative in the banking model: “The teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable” (p. 71). Under this model, students are merely passive objects that receive information, that need to be filled. Furthermore, “many teachers believe that if they can make learning easier and faster, the learning will be better” (Brown et al., 2014, p. 9). Unfortunately, much research demonstrates the opposite, that “when learning is harder, it’s stronger and lasts longer” (p. 9). If one was socialized through what Freire (2011) identified as the banking model of education, it is likely that a banking pedagogy for learning has been ingrained in them and influenced their thinking on a subconscious level. The banking model emphasizes the linearity of learning as a connection of two minds, the teacher and the student. This reinforces a perceived disconnection between intervening factors, like emotion, that might interfere with the depositing of knowledge into the brain of the student. This perception reinforces the belief that emotions do not belong in the learning process. To embrace this new narrative regarding emotions and learning, one must first identify and explore their relationship to the old, dominant narrative. While those who experience(d) marginalization through the dominant model of education may more easily see how the dominant model of education marginalizes by disconnecting emotion from learning (DiAngelo, 2016; Kegan, 1994, p. 337), all must work through our relationship to the old and identify and deconstruct the systems we are complicit in that actively punish those who do not conform to dominant models or reinforce systems of oppression. As such, simply identifying with new narrative about emotion is not enough, educators must be intentional in their efforts to explore new ways of considering and enacting this narrative on a day-to-day basis. This is because educators are not only are attempting to change their habits, they are also attempting to change the connections in their brains. Synapses can change based on how much they are used and the importance of the signals. A strong

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

189

synapse is one that fires a lot, and therefore a weak synapse is one that fires rarely. When the strength of a synapse changes, this can change a neuronal network resulting in transformative learning. To do this, educators should begin by identifying patterns and moments in their thinking that indicate value judgments with emotions, such as emotions are bad and not necessary to learn. One can do that by asking themselves these questions to begin a personal exploration of how emotions are involved in the learning process. These are questions one can ask when journaling, processing with a peer, or during another form of reflection. – What am I feeling in this moment, and where is it coming from? – What support do I need to meet my expectations regarding this transition? – What societal factor(s) pull me into the old narrative? – What did I learn growing up about emotions? – If I were to label my emotion, what feeling would I use to identify it? – What are some other experiences I have had in which I have felt similarly? We suggest that one engages in this process with others, as identifying emotions and engaging them is hard when attempted in isolation or when facing institutional barriers to this new perspective. Barriers come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and some are more challenging to see and dismantle than others. For example, if you are a Residence Director in Residence Life and do not have immediate access or control in shifting student conduct from a disciplinary lens to restorative practices, you may still have the opportunity to shift the way student staff violations of the code of conduct are handled in your own department. Likewise, if you are a faculty member teaching within an academic department, you may not be able to dictate a pedagogical approach for your colleagues, but you are able to role model what the new narrative looks like and means for the classroom learning environments you create. Opening the dialogue with others can help one to identify barriers, opportunities, and develop strategies to reconstruct practices, processes, and procedures to acknowledge, validate, and include emotion. Building Your Own Capacity Educators bring their own emotional complexities and previous experiences with them to the learning environment: one’s own emotions are just as relevant and impactful in the learning process. Thus, it is important to build one’s capacity for awareness, reflection, and navigation of their feelings. We are not suggesting the removal or dismissal of one’s feelings but rather the ability to be present with those feelings and curious about how engaging with them may expand the possibilities within the learning process. Recognizing one’s feelings might require them to step away for a moment in order to

190  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE

catch their breath, to take a walk across campus, or to refer the learner to another who is better situated to help them learn. Educators must expand their ability to create space between stimulus and response, particularly when they are operating under high stress. Though we will only be highlighting three here due to space limitations, there are a variety of methods one can use to build capacity. Nonviolent Communication. First, Nonviolent Communication (NVC), based on historical principles of nonviolence, compassion, and being in community, is a practice that can help educators learn to hear the deeper needs of ourselves and others. Developed by Marshall Rosenberg in the 1960s, NVC is grounded in historical principles of nonviolence and the belief that all humans are capable of compassion and empathy (The Center for Nonviolent Communication, 2019). NCV is an excellent tool for expanding our consciousness and the ways in which one engages with themselves and others. In NVC, expressing honestly and receiving empathetically is achieved through four components: (1) observations (as separate from judgments and evaluations), (2) feelings in relation to what one observes, (3) needs, values, and desires that create one’s feelings, and (4) actions one requests to meet our needs and/or desires (Rosenberg, 2015). These steps may seem simple; however, they run counter to many of the ways one may have been socialized to think and express themselves, as well as to hear others. For example, a person could recognize that a peer has started talking while the person was still speaking. Rather than jump to conclusions, through NVC, that person would internally process the situation as: I noticed they started speaking while I was still talking. I’m feeling dismayed, because my need to be understood is not being met. I could then ask if they’d be willing to share back what they heard me say, prior to sharing their own thoughts.

Using this process has the potential to transform the way one connects with themselves and others. Though it will take some time and practice, Marshall Rosenberg (2015) states that, “instead of habitual, automatic reactions, our words become conscious responses based firmly on awareness of what we are perceiving, feeling, and wanting.” NVC models how to create space for conscious responses rather than reactions, and, therefore, contribute to one’s agency and model the possibilities for this type of connection for those around them. Feelings Chart. Second, recognizing the connections between emotion and feeling might help one to identify their feelings by using a feelings chart (Professional-counselling.com, 2019). Feelings charts are tools often used by those working within various helping fields and illustrate visually for individuals a wide array of feelings while often demonstrating what such feelings

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

191

could possibly look like in the form of nonverbal communication. For many folks, sitting with the emotions they are feeling in their body is hard enough, let alone identifying them, and a feelings chart can provide a scaffolding for educators to begin that process. Mindfulness.  Finally, mindfulness practices also assist in building one’s emotional capacity, or the ability to examine “how one experiences oneself” (Epstein, 1995, p. 131). Mindfulness will not make one less anxious nor will it inhibit the release of chemicals connected to feelings. Rather, mindfulness allows one to welcome their feelings and internal conflicts without defensiveness. Epstein (1995) refers to mindfulness not as a tool that is “particularly effective at solving people’s emotional problems” but rather as a tool for “grounding” which can help one find acceptance and be less defensive (p. 135). As a result, mindfulness is helpful because it facilitates a process where one can work through our conflict. While there are a variety of tools, guides, and specific practices for mindfulness, it is simple at its core: (1) set aside (prioritize) time and space for practicing mindfulness; (2) during this time, focus on the present moment; and (3) when one finds themselves drifting to other thoughts or judgments, refocus again on the present moment. However, although it is a simple process, it is not easy. There are a variety of books, videos, and applications that one could utilize to explore and practice mindfulness (see Further Reading list). Creating Conditions to Welcome and Process Emotions in Higher Education In its very creation, the American higher education system served, and continues to serve, as a system of white supremacy, patriarchy, and ableism. Students enter learning systems that prioritize and reward the values and practices of these systems (e.g., efficiency, objectivity, rationality). In this environment, educators need to identify those systems and work to deconstruct and/or reconstruct systems of teaching and learning to create conditions that welcome and process emotions in our learning environments. These systems and their related processes and procedures are ones educators must constantly work against (both internally and externally). Those systems have also shaped the expectations of students with both dominant and marginalized identities and educators need to acknowledge and address those expectations when preparing to teach and connecting with students. As one shifts their narrative to embrace emotions in the learning process, it is imperative that educators maintain efforts in building their own capacity. Bringing this new narrative into our learning environments is often counter-cultural and messy to work through. In this model, learners are not viewed as “vessels” to fill up with knowledge but rather learners who are respected as co-creators of the learning process. Instead of repeating the same learning conditions, educators

192  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE

will simultaneously honor the unique characteristics and experiences of each learner while acknowledging that some processes and experiences are common. Just as students carry experiences and expectations from previous learning environments, they also carry connections in their brain of things that have already learned. While these previous connections present potential complications if their prior knowledge contradicts what they are learning, prior knowledge is the best starting point for learning something new. Helping the learner recognize that what they are learning is not foreign to them and is connected to what they already know can calm their amygdala and, therefore, allow new neuronal connections to occur. Starting with where the learner is at most likely requires the educators to remember their thoughts and feelings from when they learned this material. It also requires the educator to consider any assumptions they might be making about where they think the learner “should” be in terms of their knowledge and learning needs. Identification of such assumptions allows one to design learning experiences that start with where the learner actually is rather than where the instructor desires them to be. For example, if a learner is feeling anxious about an encounter with individuals different than them, which is a common experience when attending an institution of higher education, it will help for instructors to recall their own experiences with diverse others. Furthermore, recalling one’s own experiences with diverse others helps them to broaden their capacity for difference and furthers their ability to demonstrate empathy. Recalling one’s own experiences does not mean that they assume that the learner will navigate their experience similarly, rather it means that the instructor can have choice over the influence of their experiences, as well as the what tools they can use to help the learner recall their own experiences. The prior knowledge the learner brings into the learning environment is fact, is persistent, and is the beginning of knew knowledge (Zull, 2002). Prior knowledge is also associated with feelings: “No one can understand anything if it isn’t connected in some way to something they already know” (Zull, 2002, p. 94). There is a neuronal network in the brain for everything one knows: “No teacher with a wave of a hand, a red pen, or even a cogent and crystal-clear explanation, can remove an existing neuronal network from a student’s brain” (Zull, 2002, p. 101). Instead, what must be done is to build on the learner’s existing neuronal networks. Neuronal networks are connected to the learners’ lived experiences. Thus, the learner may share experiences the educator has not had or considered; being open to hearing such experiences and validating them is vital as doing so helps the educator to partner with the learner in their learning process. To create an environment in which students feel comfortable e­xpressing feelings, one must create and maintain a culture of safety and vulnerability. While exploring successful teams and leadership, Daniel Coyle (2018) referred to this as “designing for belonging” (p. 61). In his book, Culture

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

193

Code, Daniel explores what this design process might look like, the power of leaders sending belonging cues to team members. Facilitating this type of environment requires, “dialing into small, subtle moments and delivering targeted signals at key points” (Coyle, 2018, p. 75). Coyle suggests tips such as, “Overcommunicate Your Listening” and “Embrace the Messenger.” Though this book emphasizes working in teams, much of the stories and exploration translates well to various educational settings. Lastly, and perhaps most simply, in order to promote learning, it is ­necessary to take seriously the feelings the learner is expressing, no matter the feeling (Darby, 2018; Immordino-Yang, 2016; Zull, 2002, 2011). Rather than thinking a learner is overly sensitive or needs to remove their emotions, one needs to acknowledge emotions in order to assist the learner in processing through them. Doing so might mean simply asking the learner how they feel or noting to the learner the feelings the educator observes them expressing. Although one may perceive their feelings incorrectly based on nonverbals, it is likely that the learner will correct the educator by sharing their own assessment of their feelings. By giving naming space for their feelings, the educator is actively shaping the environment, indicating that emotions are welcome and important. Help Others Build the Capacity for Emotion Creating learning environments to help students welcome and process their emotions is not enough, the educator must also create opportunities and tools for them to build their own capacity. Students must also learn to navigate healthy and sustainable ways of existing in the space between stimulus and response. There is no difference in the ways in which one can all learn to build capacity; however, we include this section to note the specific responsibility educators have in assisting students through this process. As one’s students navigate this journey, it is important that the educator ­navigates with them. This requires educators to create and maintain high expectations for themselves and for students, along with a high amount of support. Elaine Shpungin (2019) refers to this type of leadership as operating from a restorative place, doing “with” students. Adapted from the Social Discipline Window to encompass restorative principles, Shpungin describes five potential windows, based on levels of expectations and levels of support, within the Restorative Matrix: restorative (high expectations, high support), righteous (high expectations, low support), rescuing (low expectations, high support), resigned (low expectations and support), and reactive (inconsistent expectations and support). It is important for one to identify their good moments, stressful moments, and if they know how to provide support. If a learner is struggling, rather than lowering expectations, an educator can name a shared vision and help the learner identify what supports they need to reach it.

194  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE

Conclusion The dominant narrative of learning advances the false belief that emotions are not a part of the learning process. In this chapter, we deconstruct that through the articulation of the biological process of learning. Furthermore, we critique the restrictive focus of the dominant narrative in regard to gender, race, and ability status. We propose transitioning into a new narrative, one that is more inclusive of all learners; a new narrative that helps normalize learners having and expressing feelings in the learning process. We believe the use of this new narrative potentially brings greater equity and growth into the learning environment.

References Allen Institute. (2019, March 4), 5 unsolved mysteries about the brain. Retrieved from https://alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/news-press/articles/5unsolved-mysteries-about-brain. American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/files/student-personnel-point-of-view1937.pdf. American Council on Education. (1949). The student personnel point of view. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/student-personnel-point-view-1949. American Psychological Association. (2018). Harmful masculinity and violence: Understanding the connection and approaches to prevention. In the public ­interest. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pi/about/newsletter/2018/09/ harmful-masculinity. Bauer-Wolf, J. (2018, November 2), Student affairs is a diverse profession. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/02/report-student-affairsprofessionals-more-diverse-rest-college-professions. Begley, S. (2009, June 24). How we perceive male and female emotions. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/how-we-perceive-male-and-female-emotions-80559. BrainFacts. (2018, December). How many neurons are in the brain? Retrieved from https://www.brainfacts.org/in-the-lab/meet-the-researcher/2018/how-manyneurons-are-in-the-brain-120418. Bresciani Ludvik, M. J. (Ed.). (2016). The neuroscience of learning and development: Enhancing creativity, critical thinking, and peace in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Charlton, J. I. (1998). Nothing about us, without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press. Coughlin, A. B. (2018). Teaching on wheels: Bringing a disability perspective into the classroom. In M. S. Jeffress (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching with disability: Overcoming obstacles and enriching lives (pp. 17–34). New York, NY: Routledge. Coyle, D. (2018). The culture code: The secrets of highly successful groups. New York: Bantam Books.

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

195

Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: Grosset/Putnam. Darby, F. (2018). Harness the power of emotions to help your students learn. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/ harness-power-emotions-help-students-learn/. DasGupta, S. (2015). Medicalization. In R. Adams, B. Reiss, & D. Serlin (Eds.), Keywords for disability studies (pp. 120–121). New York: NY: NYU Press. Davis, L. (2010). The disability studies reader (3rd ed.) New York, NY: Routledge. DiAngelo, R. (2016). What does it mean to be White: Developing White racial literacy. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for White people to talk about racism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Epstein, M. (1995). Thoughts without a thinker. New York, NY: BasicBooks. Evans, N. J., Broido, E. M., Brown, K. R., & Wilke, A. K. (2017). Disability in higher education: A social justice approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Feldman, L. F., & Bliss-Moreau, E. (2009). She’s emotional. He’s having a bad day: Attributional explanations for emotional stereotypes. Emotion, 9(5), 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016821. Flaherty, C. (2016, August 22). More faculty diversity, not on tenure track. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/22/study-finds-gainsfaculty-diversity-not-tenure-track. Freire, P. (2011). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gong, X., Wong, N., & Wang, D. (2018). Are gender differences in emotion culturally universal? Comparison of emotional intensity between Chinese and German samples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(6), 993–1005. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022022118768434. Harvey Wingfield, A. (2010). Are some emotions marked “Whites only”? Racialized feeling rules in professional workplaces. Social Problems, 57(2), 251–268. https:// doi.org/10.1525/sp.2010.57.2.251. James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York, NY: Holt. Kastner, S., De Weerd, P., Desimone, R., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1998). Mechanisms of directed attention in the human extrastriate cortex as revealed by functional MRI. Science, 282, 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.282.5386.108. Keeling, R. (2004). Learning reconsidered. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: A practical guide to implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: ACPA, ACUHO-I, ACUI, NACADA, NACA, NASPA, & NIRSA. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. LeDoux, J. (1996). The emotional brain. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. LeDoux, J. (2015). Feelings: What are they & how does the brain make them? Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 144(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00319.

196  S. E. SCHOPER AND E. C. AMELSE Ludeman, R. B. (2011). Successful judicial interventions with college men. In J. A. Laker & T. Davis (Eds.), Masculinities in higher education (pp. 193–210). New York, NY: Routledge. McGaugh, J. L., & Gold, P. E. (1989). Psychoendocrinology. New York, NY: Academic Press. Nader, K., Schafe, G. E., & La Doux, J. E. (2000). Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 406, 722–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/35021052. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Characteristics of postsecondary faculty. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csc.asp. Oluo, I. (2018). So you want to talk about race. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group. Professional-counselling.com. (2019). Printable list of emotions and feelings. Retrieved from https://www.professional-counselling.com/list-of-human-emotions.html. Rosenberg, M. B. (2015). Nonviolent communication: A language of life. Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press. Scott, J. A., & Harold, K. P. (2018). Almost passing: Using disability disclosure to recalibrate able-bodied bias in the classroom. In M. S. Jeffress (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching with disability: Overcoming obstacles and enriching lives (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Routledge. Shpungin, E. (2019, June). The restorative matrix: An interactive presentation. Presented at the National Association for Community and Restorative Justice, Denver, Co. The Center for Nonviolent Communication. (2019). What is nonviolent communication? Retrieved from https://www.cnvc.org/learn-nvc/what-is-nvc. Tolman, A. O., & Kremling, J. (2017). Why students resist learning: A practical model for understanding and helping students. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Zeilinger, J. (2015). 6 common forms of ableism we need to eliminate immediately. Retrieved from https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/08/6-commonforms-of-ableism/. Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain: Enriching the practice of teaching by exploring the biology of learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Zull, J. E. (2011). From brain to mind: Using neuroscience to guide change in education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Recommended Reading Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2004). Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2016). Emotions, learning, and the brain: Exploring the educational implications of affective neuroscience. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Jeffress, M. S. (Ed.). (2018). International perspectives on teaching with disability: Overcoming obstacles and enriching lives. New York, NY: Routledge. Khan, S. (2019). Neuronal synapses (chemical). Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/human-biology/neuron-ner vous-system/v/ neuronal-synapses-chemical. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

10  A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT EMOTIONS AND THEIR CONNECTION TO LEARNING 

197

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: 50th anniversary edition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science; equilibrium, and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. https:// doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103. Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Tyng, C. M., Amin, H. U., Saad, M. N. M., & Malik, A. S. (2017). The influence of emotion on learning and memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1454. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01454. Zuckerman, C. (2009, October). The human brain explained. Retrieved from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/ human-body/brain/.

CHAPTER 11

Critical Culturally Relevant Synergism in Higher Education: Equitable Educational Experiences Through Neuroscientific Curricula Christopher J. Kazanjian and Cesar A. Rossatto

Historically, in the United States, English Language Learners (ELLs), underserved, culturally diverse, and transnational higher education students have, and continue, to receive instruction that does not engage critical thinking skills compared to other students of racial and economic privilege (Apple, 2015; Chain, Shapiro, LeBuffe, & Bryson, 2017; Giroux, 2005). These underserved students (usually people of color or economically deprived) often receive a “banking” institutionalized college curriculum based on remedial programs of repetition, memorization, and standardized performance-based assessment (Freire, 1998). As a result, these students have limited accessibility to instruction that facilitates the development of critical thinking. Students are not engaged in a productive struggle: an increase in “brainpower” and self/collective empowerment (Hammond, 2015). Particularly, Latinx youth in US high schools have statistically been the population at the highest risk in terms of low engagement, inadequate socio-emotional education, and limited cognitive stimulation (Hammond, 2015). Many will not complete a higher education degree in a 4–6-year timespan (The Times Editorial Board, 2018). This is due to the disconnect C. J. Kazanjian (*)  El Paso Community College, El Paso, TX, USA C. A. Rossatto  University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_11

199

200  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO

of critical culturally relevant curriculum, language devaluation, negative experiences with peers and teachers, and no sense of belonging to a greater academic culture (Rubin & Kazanjian, 2018). The curricula in secondary schools and freshman years of higher education lack intrinsic motivational didactics and pedagogical practices with specific focus for Latinx students to support their academic achievement to complete higher education degrees1 (Garner, Mahatmya, Brown, & Vesely, 2014). Therefore, in this paper we argue that critical culturally relevant pedagogy is necessary in higher education to support the learning and development of non-white students in the classroom. Critical culturally relevant pedagogy accomplishes learning and brain development via emotional stimulation, which translates into motivation and s­elf-esteem that assists a student’s academic excellence, increase graduation success, and, above all, to critically think about their experiences. A “critical” culturally relevant pedagogy is necessary to deconstruct white supremacy and white privilege as intrinsic components of sociocultural studies that are required for ethnic empowerment.

Critical Culturally Relevant Pedagogy In the late twentieth century, multicultural scholar Gloria Ladson-Billings developed an innovative approach for engaging marginalized youth in schooling through culturally relevant pedagogy (Gordon, Kervin, Jones, & Howard, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 2001, 2014; Pas, Larson, Reinke, Herman, & Bradshaw, 2016). Critical culturally relevant pedagogy denotes the creation of learning experiences that draw on the student’s cultural diversity, a spectrum of culture, language, heritage, experiences, home and social values/realities, to promote holistic growth and academic success (Kazanjian, 2019). Through critical culturally relevant pedagogy each student’s cultural knowledge is a valid part of the course curriculum (Journell & Castro, 2011). The spectrum of cultural diversity refers to areas of heterogeneity, where diversity can designate elements such as history, sexual orientation, or cultural subgroup. Professors can construct critical culturally relevant pedagogies by creating an emotionally stimulating learning experience by incorporating students’ cultural knowledge into lessons. The purpose of critical culturally relevant pedagogy is to empower students to be agents of their own history by bringing their currere realities at the center of classroom curriculum (Pinar, 2011); this has the potential to affirm identity of minoritized populations that otherwise would feel disenfranchised by the schooling experience. For example, economics courses may venture to 1 In

fact, some institutions of higher education are taking the initiative to help Latinx and Black persons graduate with a higher education degree. El Paso Community College (EPCC) is one of them with their work with The Texas Education Consortium for Male Students of Color. This consortium works with EPCC to improve the educational outcomes of male students of color, mainly to help them succeed in higher education and graduate with a degree. However, nationwide, programs like this remain a minority.

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

201

look at income distribution among people of different races and genders in students’ hometowns and then critically discuss what this means for society. The focus on culturally diverse content and curriculum helps to prevent professors from othering and minoratizing ethnic groups in the college classroom and ensures they draw on the diversities and commonalities within each course section. Students are empowered when their voices are heard and respected as they see their college coursework become purposeful and connected to their world. The emotional basis of critical culturally relevant curriculum creates an inclusive space where learning is engaging and relevant. Furthermore, the college classroom is transformed into a learning community that reflects the diverse backgrounds of students in the classroom—this provides the validation that allows diverse learners to have access to an emotional sense of safety and esteem (Cooper, 2012). At colleges and universities with large populations of international students there are bountiful opportunities for students begin to form positive relationships with culturally diverse “others” by building empathy, developing positive attitudes to engaging diversity, and realizing that they have more similarities than differences (Savage et al., 2011). Critical culturally relevant assignments are the vehicles that allow for these diverse relationships to succeed. Culture is highly emotional and utilizing it as a curricular resource in the classroom deepens learning and personal growth. Understanding the neuroscience2 behind emotions provides insights into why critical culturally relevant pedagogies are effective. Emotions are an interconnected holistic experience that involves the body, nervous and endocrine system, and in the scope of this chapter, the brain. Therefore, we argue that stimulating emotions via critical culturally relevant pedagogy will not only improve academic performance for diverse students in higher education but also contribute to their socio-emotional intelligence and significant brain development. First, we provide a brief overview of relevant research on emotions followed by a review of foundational concepts in neuroscience to support our arguments for using critical culturally relevant curricular material in higher education. Then, we offer an in-depth discussion of critical culturally relevant pedagogy and how it stimulates emotions in order to promote brain development. Lastly, this chapter concludes with recommendations and a sample lesson plan. This lesson plan will demonstrate how critical culturally relevant pedagogy may be used in a higher education classroom. Emotions: Resonating with Existential Experiential Curriculum Traditional cultural practices grounded in cooperative group activity generate emotions3 through compassion, appreciation, togetherness, and self-esteem. 2 A

field of study that investigates the functions of the nervous system and the brain. is a psychological term that designates the two-dimensional understanding of an emotional experience in which feelings can be described (Adolphs & Anderson, 2018). We will avoid using the term in this paper due to its limitations in the nomenclature. 3 “Affect”

202  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO

An emotion is a sentient being’s ability to resonate with an experience that globally affects the body and informs it if the circumstance is or is not conducive to growth or health. Emotions are recognized by others through our embodied reactions and behaviors that may extend beyond the limited nomenclature used to classify emotions (i.e., some feel that love cannot be classified as an emotion, but we argue that it should be). Scientific understanding of emotions is in its infancy, while emotional experiences are ancient. Evolutionary science believes that emotions developed from “a complex interaction between genes and environment, between innately programmed mechanisms and learned associations” (Adolphs & Anderson, 2018, p. 167). Proponents of the evolutional science theory of emotion argue that emotional responses become more complex as organisms dealt with habitual challenges from the external world that required memory formation and adaptive responses. Psychology, biology, affective neuroscience, and even primatology provide clues to understand the phenomena of emotions. Within these discourses, there is still much debate. Some researchers feel that emotions are distinct and limited to just the human experience. Others have found empirical evidence that emotions are like constantly blending watercolors, and that humans share emotional experiences equally with all mammals. Regardless of standpoint, as discussed in Chapter 10, educators must realize that emotions are a powerful pedagogical resource for learning, academic performance, personal growth, and a tool of self-empowerment (Goodlad, 2004). Students in Higher education can learn from their emotions, both positive and negative. Although we focus on facilitating experiences through positive emotions in this chapter, negative experiences such as a relationship failure, job loss, friendship dispute, or failures in classes may present opportunities to understand destructive habits and to identify ways to respond to the associated negative emotions that promote student success. Negative emotions such as anger can also be helpful in motivating a student to learn more or gain skills to defeat things like social injustice or racism. When culture is utilized as a curricular resource in the classroom, emotions will inherently be evoked and this will increase the level of student engagement and motivation (Hammond, 2015). When engaging students, instructors must take caution not to develop reductionist understandings of how emotions via critical culturally relevant pedagogy can stimulate learning and engagement. Although certain areas of the brain are activated during an emotional response, the brain does not have programmed modules like a computer has algorithms and buttons (Damasio, 2018). Emotions cannot be reduced to neurobiology: Emotions are not simply brain states. An entire body is involved with emotional states, including the endocrine, neurological, and muscular systems. For example, regions of the brain have an integral part in facilitating or orchestrating emotional states, where the brain and body act simultaneously, interconnected and interdependent (Adolphs & Anderson, 2018). Because of this, holistic engagement is key to motivating learners to learn and overcome academic challenges. Critical culturally relevant pedagogy is the impetus for this

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

203

high level of holistic engagement as it appreciates the learner’s existing worldview and neural networks as the foundation for new neural connections and learned information.

Neuroscience of Emotion: Wiring Culture and Curriculum Together Neuroscience provides insight into how stimulating emotion through critical culturally relevant pedagogy supports achievement in higher education. Although emotions are not solely located in the brain, neuroscience provides insight into the power of emotions for learning. As the brain develops throughout childhood and adolescence, two important growth processes occur: neurogenesis and synaptogenesis. Neurogenesis is the creation of neurons or nerve cells that transmit, receive, and store information. Synaptogenesis is the creation of synapses, or the meeting place between neurons where electrochemical impulses and neurotransmitters pass through (Presti, 2016). The synapses are an important part of white brain matter (WBM), which is a neural network that connects, in part, the gray areas, the prefrontal cortex, and emotional regions in the limbic system. The WBM is integral for the processes of critical thinking, creativity, and regulating emotions (Benedetti et al., 2014; Brambilla et al., 2012; Howell et al., 2013). Students in their early twenties are developing their WBM as well as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), which regulates personal and moral decision. Neuroscience teaches that early life experiences (i.e., personal, family, friends, school) are seminal in constructing the groundwork for neural pathways that will ultimately affect patterned behaviors in life (Cozolino, 2014). The formative years of a person are important for robust neuroplastic changes in the brain. This time is a critical window for connecting formations and changes (Neville & Bavelier, 2002; Stegemöller, 2014; Wu & Gilbert, 2015). During college, traditional-aged students are learning to handle academics while making the personal and moral decisions that will direct their lives. It may be very challenging to make these decisions, because the interconnections and development of the vmPFC and WBM are not fully mature (Cozolino, 2014). This period of time is important for college students to learn how to regulate emotions and make moral decisions, because they may be away from parents, are engaging in new social settings and peer pressures, and are being told that they must take responsibility for their futures. Educators in higher education must appreciate this concern and design curriculum to be relevant to student’s lives. Each culture has a paradigm or worldview for understanding emotions, meanings, and values for moral decisions; thus, critical culturally relevant curriculum will help to accomplish this inclusive task. Keeping the Dots Connected Synergistically: Myelination and Memory Neuroscience helps us understand the one of many processes in learning and development. In student’s late teens and early twenties, the process of

204  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO

myelination (when a fatty glue or glial wraps around the axon) of interconnected axons happens (Damasio, 2018). Myelin enhances electrical conduction, which allows a neuron to fire faster, stronger, and reach other neurons in the brain’s neural network, while preventing electrical leaking when signals are sent (Fields, 2005; O’Muircheartaigh et al., 2013). When the student has highly myelinated connections, performance on critical thinking tasks (i.e., analysis, evaluation, creation) is more successful (Hammond, 2015). Underneath the brain’s temporal lobe lies the hippocampus, a bilateral structure that facilitates the formation, maintenance, and retrieval of memories (Hammond, 2015; Hotaka et al., 2014; Rie, Hotaka, Frankland, & Satoshi, 2016; Stegemöller, 2014). The hippocampus and connected structures consolidate and interconnect new information (e.g., biographical learning) (Cozolino, 2014). Damage to the hippocampus often results in the incapacity to learn, retain, and recall new information. The hippocampus is always adding and revising information to help people adapt to their environment. In addition, this portion of the brain is important for recalling stored information and linking it to new information. That is why when curriculum is culturally relevant, the hippocampal structures are stimulated and long-term potentiation promotes the process of learning. Higher education professionals must help students come to appreciate their hippocampus in the learning and developing process as they seek to perform on academic tasks, while adapting to the college and work environments. Another structure, known as the amygdala, helps organize emotional and somatic experiences (Cozolino, 2014). The amygdala is constantly evaluating the environment for threats or potential circumstances that may enhance our growth. It works with the hippocampus to provide rational social functioning. The amygdala and hippocampus are important for forming and succeeding in positive relationships with others. Although the amygdala has been found to have the chief role in emotional appraisal, the hippocampus is important for adaptation, or forming new memories to adapt to new stimuli. If the new experience or memory is emotionally charged, then it will be myelinated and associated for easier recall. A great portion of memory formation or neurogenesis happens in the hippocampus (Damasio, 2018). When emotions stimulate the hippocampus, the new skills, facts, dates, people, smells, taste, feelings, sights, or sounds become a part of the brain’s network, which helps future stimuli to take on meaning (Presti, 2016). When the brain performs a function in which an association of networks is activated, the process is known as instantiation, or encoding neural networks for abilities, learning, memories, and emotions that are changed and created by our experiences (Cozolino, 2014). Drug usage, sleep deprivation, and high levels of stress will inhibit the development and function of these areas.

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

205

Network Connections and Emotions: As Many Network Connections as Cells in the Human Body The association or linkage between firing neurons is stronger when emotions are involved. College-aged students have had rich emotional experiences (positive and negative) that become the scaffold for current and forthcoming patterns of thought and behavior (Wise, 2004). This is important for providing the foundation for meaning-making, where “meaning is constructed from the multitudes of linked associations that have been acquired through the entirety of one’s past experiences. Meaning is a whole-body experience, and its foundation is memory” (Presti, 2016, p. 230). In this process, college students may reflect on past experiences and use the schema built from those experiences to create meaning from current experiences. The schema or neural networks a student develops are done so by a process called long-term potentiation, or repeated and continued activation between cells or neurons that link them in a neural network (Cozolino, 2014; Hammond, 2015; Presti, 2016; Stegemöller, 2014). The associations created become an influential filter for how a student understands the world, engages new challenges, and develops patterns of thoughts and behavior. In critical culturally relevant pedagogy, instructors can utilize the principle of long-term potentiation to fire new curricular material with established cultural knowledge to create interconnected or new networks for learning and growth. Culture: The World of Being and Well-Being Deep learning happens when lessons are experiential and evoke emotions. As we have discussed, when emotional centers are activated, memories are encoded stronger and associated to more neural networks. Critical culturally relevant lessons stimulate emotions as they bring in the student’s values, histories, and meanings as curricular resources. Culture is the shared ways of thinking, behaving, valuing, and believing that become the framework, resources, and tools for behaviors and cognitive routines. These tools and resources are modified as the person adapts and engages altering environments and circumstances (Cole & Packer, 2011). Culture monitors the success and failure of cultural norms and rituals to adjust and adapt themselves over time (Nieto & Bode, 2012; Sleeter, 2005). Each culture has cognitive resources and worldviews for understanding, dealing, and expressing emotions (Giroux, 2008). A student’s cultural worldview is the cognitive framework for understanding and conceptualizing human nature, their place in society, and a moral compass and value system guided by emotions (Miller, 2011). This schema may be modified, but it becomes the structure for how a college student makes sense of the world and guides behaviors and thoughts (Hammond, 2015). Emotions are stimulated when the lessons in college classrooms reflect realities, such as environmental pollution, which elicits anger, despair, or empathy. In addition,

206  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO

emotional regulation and development influences how a student engages with challenges in college, experiences failure, and chooses a major in the context of family culture. A family can pass cultural worldviews onto the next generation by means of everyday practices in social norms such as meals, play, work, religious acts, schooling, relationships, or how one raises children (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2004). The cultural and social encounters that college students seek, whether with it be in family, friends, or romantic partners, are motivations that are deep in their genes. One brain area for facilitating these activities is called the cingulate cortices. The cingulate cortices are responsible for laying down the frameworks for relationships and encounters. Those frameworks include empathy, emotional attunement, and sense of self. A student’s concept of self is instilled by theier cultural role, family, and society in a way that values and biases are interwoven into their brains to give them a sense of who they are. Those biases against minoritized groups can become entrenched over time. As Cozolino (2014) stated, “racial disadvantages within society appear to accrue over a number of generations, resulting in the compounding of psychological, social, and biological effects” (p. 313). Therefore, minoritized individuals have an immense disadvantage in a society through an accumulation of injustices and internalized opressions that are cemented through emotions and reinforced through the worldviews of majoritized others. However, using critical culturally relevant stimuli that minoritized students are emotionally familiar with, such as daily experiences in other college classes, family and friend rituals, or work, can enhance information processing, which leads to improved learning and further develop and affirm their sense of identity and empowerment (Stegemöller, 2014). For example, hearing music excites dopaminergic areas of the brain (dopamine helps regulate emotional responses, regulates brain’s reward centers, and reinforces learning) (Wise, 2004). For example, listening to Native American cultural songs in an American history course during a unit on western expansion or days of slavery could lead to the firing of neurons connected to that music to be associated with new content (Hammond, 2015). Associations in the brain are made via emotional conduits, and by repeated firing or activation, the connections are strengthened. Ultimately, this allows new information to take on deep meaning by stimulating emotions, what person knows, and what they have learned. Negative Stressors in Adjustment and Learning However, for culturally diverse students attending higher education classes, emotional stress may be prevalent due to cultural differences or because they are first-generation college students. Social, emotional, or intellectual threats can result in distress signals to areas of brain, body, and endocrine system, producing stress hormones (Roozendaal, McEwen, & Chattarji, 2009). Severely stressful or traumatic events may be remembered vividly, but in

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

207

cases of constant daily stressors, the stress hormone cortisol may also make it impossible for students to learn new academic skills and information (Howell et al., 2013). Principally, the neurobiological stress axis “maintains humans’ ability to respond to acute and prolonged changes in their environment and involves the release of the stress hormone cortisol from the adrenal glands” (Oberle, 2018, p. 2). Cortisol at high levels from social or emotional stress in the student’s life inhibits learning for about 20 minutes after the event and can remain at high levels in the body up to three hours (Hammond, 2015). Further, new cultural and educational experiences may cause unhealthy amounts of stress for a student ultimately inhibiting cognitive performance and learning. For students new to a culture, emotionally stressful experiences in college classes will not only inhibit learning but also can affect attitudes toward higher education, the host culture, peers, and lead to the development of a negative self-perception. Emotions are powerful neurobiological factors for academic performance and social success.4 Culturally relevant pedagogy reduces stress in diverse and first time in college students by validating their identities, feelings, and histories as meaningful contributions to the class. This sense of dignity is important for emotional balance, self-esteem, and resilience. Creating Critical Culturally Relevant Curriculum that Activates the Power of Emotion Student cultures provide the resources, values, and habits of thought and behavior that generate self-worth, esteem, and dignity. Through culture, students have meaning-making processes and a deep sense of value and purpose. However, the meanings derived from emotional experiences and feelings may become as diverse as the cultures themselves (Nelson et al., 2013; Ogbu, 1981). Neuroscience has shown us that specific processes in the brain happen when emotions are evoked. When critical culturally relevant, the processes are that much stronger. Within a student’s cultural education, they learn ways of understanding, behaving, and thinking while encoding memories that comprise a culturally relative worldview. Memories and learning are rooted in emotions, which allow students the path to develop engaging levels of intellect and critical thinking skills (Damasio, 2018). Parts of the brain, such as the amygdala and hippocampus, encode memories in long-term memory with stronger myelinated coverings when emotional arousal is present. Having critical 4 Adverse

childhood experiences result in long-term negative effects, such as cognitive impairment and worsened mental disturbances into adult life (Benedetti et al., 2014; Herbert, 2013; Howell et al., 2013). High levels of stress and anxiety has been shown to decrease the health and structure of WBM. This impairs students’ cognitive ability to regulate emotional disturbances (Brambilla et al., 2012). This is why a culturally relevant pedagogical approach is an important preventative measure for culturally diverse students (Bevaart et al., 2014).

208  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO

culturally relevant class lectures that start with deconstruction of white privilege or internalization of whiteness, lab assignments, or outside projects in which emotions are elicited or reflected upon creates a foundation of memories (both academic and personal). A well-documented or remembered past allows the student to imagine a future and generate creative thoughts, which professors can expand into new horizons of knowledge development. The image-making process in the brain is the product of neuronal map making (long-term potentiation), which blends with other maps to create complex maps that represent both internal and external worlds (Cozolino, 2014; Damasio, 2018). For example, a student taking an environmental science class may have an assignment looking at groundwater pollution into rivers. The professor utilizes student’s values and personal knowledge of local Native American culture/history with the river and utilizes that to make the lesson relevant. Students begin to see how industrial plants contribute to the pollution of the river, which affects wildlife and, ultimately, the community’s livelihood and knowledge-making processes that are deeply connected to the land. Critical thinking is developed as students begin to connect course material with the environmental, economic, social, and global realities of pollution and how it affects indigenous peoples and the world. For the goals of multicultural education to be realized, certain conditions must be cultivated. Higher education educators must seek to develop a classroom of diverse relationships and socio-emotional intelligence in a climate of trust, empathy, belonging, and value (Rogers, 1980). If a professor can offer this to their students, it can lead to meaningful growth that will encourage academic success and excellence. Appreciating the neuroscientific foundation and potential of critical culturally relevant pedagogy is important for developing socio-emotional (SE) intelligences. According to Hammond (2015), When we look at the stress some students experience in the classroom because they belong to marginalized communities because of race, class, language, or gender, we have to understand their safety-threat detection system is already cued to be on the alert for social and psychological threats based on past experience. It becomes imperative to understand how to build positive social relationships that signal to the brain a sense of physical, psychological, and social safety so that learning is possible. (p. 45)

It is difficult to change established stereotypes, values, and beliefs. Higher education students need to have a space for critical dialogue when they experience racism or discrimination to learn in a stress-free, safe space (Cozolino, 2014). Helping students build interracial partnerships helps counteract stereotypes, racism, and prejudice to form positive attitudes toward diverse others. Caring for students must be communicated by the professor through multiple avenues such as identity affirmation, creative self-expression, and exploring feelings (empathy) (Rogers, 1980; Sleeter, 2005). Affirming identity

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

209

designates valuing or prizing of the student as a person, which is something instructors can do through words and actions. However, words and actions are limited when their sole purpose for culturally diverse students or ELLs is to make them feel good about themselves. This is problematic because this reflects a deficit model that responds to a presumption that minoritized students are struggling because they have low self-esteem (Hammond, 2015). A student’s self-esteem may already be supported at home. Rather, affirmation should go deeper by recognizing the student’s intrisic value and offer dignity. Using a critical culturally relevant pedagogy provides this support. Identity is emotional. Emotional stimulation insures a meaningful personal learning experience under the facilitation of the teacher. Students may then see themselves as historical agents that can write history as protagonists (Freire, 2018). Given rapid diversification of the classroom, professors utilizing critical culturally relevant pedagogy to stimulate emotions will encounter misunderstandings and failures in communication. However, they must facilitate the class through the clash of values in a way that promotes empathy, understanding, growth, and well-being. Negative emotions can be elicited but caution and discretion must be high; the professor must keep students objective and mindful of their emotions and how to express them in constructive ways. Perhaps the anger expressed in a class discussion was actually a student expressing deepened sadness or disappointment. Further, it is important to recognize that cultural values may be different; a Buddhist worldview on mortality will be different than that of a Catholic. The educator is bestowed the power to engage these modern-day dissonances and conflicts as a means to facilitate understanding and community. Socio-Emotional Intelligence in the Twenty-First Century By knowing the power of critical culturally relevant pedagogy and how it excites emotions for learning and development, professors can begin to help underserved students achieve an equitable chance of academic and personal success (Salmon, Gangotena, & Melliou, 2018). Higher education courses from all departments have the opportunity through critical culturally relevant pedagogy to facilitate the development of the social and emotional learning and intelligences. Socio-emotional (SE) intelligence designates a high functioning of cognitive, behavioral, social, emotional awareness and skills. SE intelligence is reflected in one’s ability to effectively understand and manage emotions, develop diverse relationships, empathize, self-reflect, and make responsible choices (Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, & Weissberg, 2017; Thomson & Carlson, 2017). Skills for healthy relationship building and maintenance help students communicate in empowering ways, empathically listenin, while disputing negative social stressors and pursuing constructive support. SE intelligence results in the increase of quality and meaning of education for students as they begin to understand the relevance of curriculum to their lives (Jones & Khan, 2017).

210  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO

SE intelligence levels during one’s formative years have been strong predictors of academic and social success in life (Bierman, Heinrichs, Welsh, Nix, & Gest, 2017; Thomson & Carlson, 2017). College students learn deeper and exhibit effective academic performance when they can understand and manage emotions, have diverse relationships, develop resilience, be empathic, and develop problem-solving skills. These students are more likely to complete degrees in higher education and exhibit lower levels of mental disturbances and destructive activity (Dorman, 2015; Jones & Khan, 2017; Yang, Bear, & May, 2018; Zeng, Benner, & Silva, 2016). SE intelligence offers culturally diverse students a protective or preventive basis in which to cope and grow in stressful or risk features, such as home conflicts, financial challenges, bullying, and future life challenges. Multidisciplinary Recommendations for the Higher Education Classroom Critical culturally relevant pedagogy’s benefits for learning and brain development via emotional stimulation can be shared by all disciplines in higher education including accounting, biological sciences, math, history, and psychology. Although much of the research and literature focuses on primary and secondary schoolers, the effects of critical culturally relevant pedagogy on the brain and overall development are not unique to that grade or subject area. We recommend looking into Wayne Au’s (2014) Rethinking multicultural education: Teaching for racial and cultural justice to see how critical culturally relevant pedagogy applies to the various disciplines. An emotional lesson offers perspective and insight into the lives of the underserved. The brain is thus stimulated via emotions, particularly areas that deal with critical analysis, empathy, and decision making. To work on an assignment that opens opportunities for empathy with people who are experiencing life challenges engages previously stored knowledge through the hippocampus, which the, amygdala appraises if the situation might be harmful or helpful to themselves. Students can then proceed with relevant projects for social awareness or change. Lesson can be graded by rubric components that evaluate the level of critical thought and effort of the students. Each discipline can relate to the realities of minority populations and the cultures relevant to student’s lives. We recommend that the professor spend time in and develop empathic relationships with people of different cultures to be able to generate project and lesson ideas. A Critical Culturally Relevant Case: The Giver Learning, especially independent learning, happens best in collaboration, particularly dialogic conversations, which are deeply seeded in cultural traditions (Boyd, 2014; Tateishi, 2014; Valdés, 1996). Higher education students have opportunities to understand what they are thinking and experiencing when they are able to hear others. This allows the independent learner to ­re-organizing thoughts, expand the conversation, and enhance cognitive

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

211

routines for learning. Such group activities that are based in growth promoting relationships have the potential to generate deep feelings and emotions. To explicate how critical culturally relevant pedagogy can stimulate emotions and cause cultural knowledge to be linked to new knowledge, see the Appendix for a lesson plan on The Giver for preservice teachers.

Conclusion Many assignments found within higher education classes may be disconnected or standardized to the point that they do not push students outside cognitive comfort zones nor stimulate emotions (Hammond, 2015). These tasks are uninteresting for learners and do not provoke imagination or s­elf-expression. As a result, a culturally diverse learner may become even further alienated from the school, community, and themself (Maslow, 1971; Valdés, 1996). The learner begins to feel that this is reality, that they are average at best, and begins to close off those areas that bring deep meaning to their lives, inner-directional tendencies, senses, and feelings that enable them to feel dignity and significance (Moustakas, 1969). Nothing of their unique being has been affirmed or cared about in a significant way. Emotions are not elicited because the curriculum has no cultural relevancy. The student drifts further toward estrangement. For learning to become deep and meaningful, professors must first asses what critical culturally relevant knowledge from students elicit emotional growth and synergism (Rubin & Kazanjian, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2001, 2014). Critical culturally relevant curriculum is effective in higher education because it seeks to use emotions as keystones for connecting cultural worldviews with new information/skills (Au, 2014; Luna, Evans, & Davis, 2015; Slaten, Zalzala, Elison, Tate, & Wachter Morris, 2016; Sleeter, 2005; Wyatt, 2014). When college material is critical culturally relevant, emotions are evoked that cause stimulate WBM, promote neuroplasticity and long-term potentiation. Professors must be able to provide meaningful cognitive stimulation by allowing students to pair their cultural worldview with the school’s curricular content. Then, students have the opportunity to process this information and couple it with existing cultural knowledge. When higher education classrooms stimulate emotions in students through critical culturally relevant lessons, culturally diverse populations are offered equitable chances of quality, relevant, and stimulating learning. We argue that all disciplines in higher education should utilize critical culturally relevant curriculum as the foundation to their content curricular areas. Altogether, professionals working in institutions of higher education would benefit from emotional training to reduce stress and enhance the socio-emotive health of young adults new to the host culture (Moustakas & Perry, 1973; Moustakas, 1992; Nhat Hanh, 2007). Critical culturally relevant curriculum stimulates emotions in constrictive ways, so that the emotional stimulation creates engaging lessons that contribute to learning and brain development. Firing

212  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO

emotionally based culturally relevant neurons alongside the new curricular information, ultimately builds the neural foundation for students to make the dreams so dear to their hearts into realities and relationships. Ultimately, this becomes a curricular and pedagogical source for hope and love.

Appendix: The Giver Lesson Plan This lesson plan is for an undergraduate level preservice teacher education course that focuses on literacy skills at elementary levels. The class will be learning how to use Lois Lowry’s fiction novel, The Giver to help their students learn about “mood” and “inferencing.” Not only will the preservice teachers be providing an emotionally stimulating experience for their students, but the undergraduate students will also experience the benefits of SE learning as they begin to connect culture and curriculum. Narratives like The Giver are important for stimulating brain integration, which leads to more efficient emotional regulation (Cozolino, 2014). ­High-quality fiction recruits diverse structures of the brain, including systems involved in emotion, memory, knowledge, emotion, and sensations. The stimulation in the neural networks make narratives a unique way for both synthesis of emotion and knowledge. The neurons between emotion and knowledge fire simultaneously so that neural connections are made among networks that were not previously established. Stories also give preservice teachers and the children they will teach, frontal lobe stimulation, that allows them to an outline for coordinating successful strategies to manage and overcome life challenges (Cozolino, 2014). The adversity that the protagonist experiences allows us to use our imaginations in relating how we seek to overcome our own mountains, while developing empathy. In The Giver, the fictional society has no knowledge of the past, and an old man known as “the Giver” is designated to retain those memories as part of imaginary third space. Memories are emotionally charged, and in the Giver’s society this done to prevent suffering and promote peace. There is no happiness or pain, color or music, anything relating to emotions is absent from this world. The job of the Giver is seen as an arduous task. Yet, the next Giver, Jonas, is a boy that is meant to hold the memories and emotions of the past. He feels they are not a burden but an empowerment for a meaningful and adventurous life.

The Giver Lesson Plan To begin the lessons on mood, the professor will introduce the preservice teachers to art pieces from different cultures such as paintings5 such as Edvard Munch’s The Scream (1893), Claude Monet’s Woman with the 5 Professors and teachers may go about selecting appropriate art pieces without essentializing students and their backgrounds, making assumptions, and honoring their evolving identity/identities, by knowing students as individuals. Deep relationship building is essential for learning, and the teacher must know the student and the community she/he lives. See works by Carl Rogers, Clark Moustakas, and Irvin Yalom for research on relationship formation.

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

213

Parasol- Madame Monet and Her Son (1875), Arshile Gorky’s The Artist and His Mother (1936), Amrita Sher-Gil’s Self-portrait (1931), Diego Rivera’s Dance in Tehuantepec (1928), or Pierre-Auguste Renoir’s Bal du moulin de la Galette (1876). The lesson will be more effective if the professor chooses paintings that reflect student’s culture or experiences (e.g., students from Mexico may find Diego Rivera or Frida Kahlo relevant). This exercise supports the student’s cognitive ability to identify emotional underpinnings of a situation or of a person and be able to empathically relate. Particularly, this lesson stimulates the anterior cingulate cortex (one of many structures stimulated), which facilitates “monitoring personal, environmental, and interpersonal information…shifting attention based on conflicting or changing information, as well as the use of past learning for rapid decision making” (Cozolino, 2014, p. 103). The development of this area allows the students to develop social-emotional intelligence and emotional attunement by experiencing a sense of self. The professor utilizes this identification/discussion exercise in moods to relate it to The Giver. Asking students to then form groups and to identify the moods of certain scenes in the book allows the students to generalize the process from the painting exercise. Together, students begin to hear their own thought process and those of peers, with relevant information being linked to this new skill. With each mood discussion of painting, the students may also begin to learn about their heritage culture. Groups can work to learn about different cultures while sharing pieces of their own. It is important to have preservice teachers experience the lessons they wish to create for their students. When preservice teachers are mindful of the emotions within a lesson and culture, it may provide opportunities to modify the lesson to their future classroom’s needs. Then the professor transitions into work on inferencing. Inferencing is the student’s ability to draw conclusions based on evidence, deduction, and reasoning. While in group discussion and written reflection, students may begin to compare cultural values of either those discussed in the paintings or their own, while relating it to The Giver. In the book, “sameness” has replaced all the emotional breath from the lives of people, including things like love and color. Students begin to reflect on the meaning of their cultural values for color and such things as love, laughter, family, music, and language. Revisiting paintings reinforces the skills of mood finding as well. In the discussion of color, bringing up Claud Monet’s work can be beneficial. Monet had a fascination with how colors appeared at certain times of daylight—seen in his usage of bright, vibrant paints, and short brush strokes. Tying this into the mood lesson, the teacher asks, “how would our art/life be different if we didn’t have color as a form of expression?” The students realize the emotional underpinnings of these cultural elements and how important they are in daily life. Accessing the emotional memories of these elements, the students begin to inference themes of the book’s absence of color, emotions, love, etc. Utilizing this critical culturally relevant approach to developing literacy skills ultimately helps the preservice teachers and their students become literate in school and the world.

214  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO

References Adolphs, R., & Anderson, D. J. (2018). The neuroscience of emotion: A new synthesis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Apple, M. W. (2015). Reframing the question of whether education can change society. Educational Theory, 65(3), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12114. Au, W. (2014). Decolonizing the classroom: Lessons in multicultural education. In W. Au (Ed.), Rethinking multicultural education: Teaching for racial and cultural justice (2nd ed.) (pp. 84–94). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Benedetti, F., Bollettini, I., Radaelli, D., Poletti, S., Locatelli, C., Falini, A., … Colombo, C. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences influence white matter microstructure in patients with bipolar disorder. Psychological Medicine, 44(14), 3069– 3082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714000506. Bevaart, F., Mieloo, C. L., Donker, M. C., Jansen, W., Raat, H., … van Oort, F. V. (2014). Ethnic differences in problem perception and perceived need as determinants of referral in young children with problem behaviour. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(5), 273–281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s00787-013-0453-3. Bierman, K. L., Heinrichs, B. S., Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., & Gest, S. D. (2017). Enriching preschool classrooms and home visits with evidence-based programming: Sustained benefits for low-income children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12618. Boyd, P. (2014). Learning conversations: Teacher researchers evaluating dialogic strategies in early years settings. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(4), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2014.968532. Brambilla, P., Como, G., Isola, M., Taboga, F., Zuliani, R., Goljevscek, S., … Balestrieri, M. (2012). White-matter abnormalities in the right posterior hemisphere in generalized anxiety disorder: A diffusion imaging study. Psychological Medicine, 42(2), 427–434. Chain, J., Shapiro, V. B., LeBuffe, P. A., & Bryson, A. M. (2017). Academic achievement of American Indian and Alaska native students: Does social-emotional competence reduce the impact of poverty? American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal of the National Center, 24(1), 1–29. Cole, M., & Packer, P. (2011). Culture and cognition. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), ­Cross-cultural psychology: Contemporary themes and perspectives (pp. 133–159). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Cooper, K. S. (2012). Safe, affirming, and productive spaces: Classroom engagement among Latina high school students. Urban Education, 48(4), 490–528. Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Damasio, A. (2018). The strange order of things: Life, feeling, and the making of cultures. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). ­Social-emotional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Development, 88(2), 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12739. Dorman, E. (2015). Building teachers’ social-emotional competence through mindfulness practices. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1/2), 103–120.

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

215

Fields, R. D. (2005). Myelination: An overlooked mechanism of synaptic plasticity? Neuroscientist, 11(6), 528–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858405282304. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. The edge, critical studies in educational theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed (4th ed.). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic. Friedman, T. L., & Mandelbaum, M. (2011). That used to be us: How America fell behind in the world it invented and how we can come back. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Garner, P., Mahatmya, D., Brown, E., & Vesely, C. (2014). Promoting desirable outcomes among culturally and ethnically diverse children in social emotional learning programs: A multilevel heuristic model. Educational Psychology Review, 26(1), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9253-7. Giroux, H. (2008). Against the terror of neoliberalism: Politics beyond the age of greed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Giroux, H. A. (2005). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York, NY: Routledge. Goodlad, J. (2004). A place called school (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Gordon, C. S., Kervin, L. K., Jones, S. C., & Howard, S. J. (2017). Qualitative process evaluation of an Australian alcohol media literacy study: Recommendations for designing culturally responsive school-based programs. BMC Public Health, 171– 210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4031-3. Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Herbert, J. (2013). Cortisol and depression: Three questions for psychiatry. Psychological Medicine Psychological Medicine, 43(3), 449–469. Hotaka, F., Zhang, Y., Archbold, G., Rie, I., Karim, N., & Satoshi, K. (2014). Enhancement of fear memory by retrieval through reconsolidation. ELife, 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02736. Howell, B., McCormack, K. M., Grand, A. P., Sawyer, N. T., Zhang, X., Maestripieri, D., et al. (2013). Brain white matter microstructure alterations in adolescent rhesus monkeys exposed to early life stress: Associations with high cortisol during infancy. Biology of Mood and Anxiety Disorders, 3(1), 21. Jones, S. M., & Khan, J. (2017). The evidence base for how we learn: Supporting social, emotional, and academic development. In National commission on social, emotional, and academic development. Aspen, CO: The Aspen Institute. Journell, W., & Castro, E. L. (2011). Culturally relevant political education: Using immigration as a catalyst for civic understanding. Multicultural Education, 18(4), 10–17. Kazanjian, C. J. (2019). Culturally responsive secondary education: Exploring cultural differences through existential pedagogy. Multicultural Education Review, 11(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2019.1567094. Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crafting a culturally relevant social studies approach. In E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities (pp. 201–215). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.K.A. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 74–84.

216  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO Luna, N., Evans, W. P., & Davis, B. (2015). Indigenous Mexican culture, identity and academic aspirations: Results from a community-based curriculum project for Latina/Latino students. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(3), 341–362. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.759922. Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. New York, NY: Viking Press. Miller, R. L. (2011). Multicultural identity development: Theory and research. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology: Contemporary themes and perspectives (pp. 509–523). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Moustakas, C. E. (1969). Personal growth: The struggles for identity and human values. Cambridge, MA: Howard A. Doyle Publishing Company. Moustakas, C. E. (1992). Psychotherapy with children: The living relationship. Greeley, CO: Carron Publishers. Moustakas, C. E., & Perry, C. (1973). Learning to be free. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Nelson, J. A., Leerkes, E. M., Perry, N. B., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., & Marcovitch, S. (2013). European-American and African-American mothers’ emotion socialization practices relate differently to their children’s academic and social-emotional competence. Social Development, 22(3), 485–498. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2012.00673.x. Neville, H., & Bavelier, D. (2002). Human brain plasticity: Evidence from sensory deprivation and altered language experience. Progress in Brain Research, 138, 177–188. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/ docview/72684865?accountid=7027. Nhat Hanh, T. (2007). The art of power. New York, NY: HarperOne. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Oberle, E. (2018). Social-emotional competence and early adolescents’ peer acceptance in school: Examining the role of afternoon cortisol. PLoS ONE, 13(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192639. Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413–429. O’Muircheartaigh, J., Dean III, D. C., Dirks, H., Waskiewicz, N., Lehman, K., Jerskey, B. A., & Deoni, S. L. (2013). Interactions between white matter asymmetry and language during neurodevelopment. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(41), 16170–16177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1463-13.2013. Pas, E. T., Larson, K. E., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016). Implementation and acceptability of an adapted classroom check-up coaching model to promote culturally responsive classroom management. Education and Treatment of Children, 39(4), 467–491. Pinar, W. (2011). The character of curriculum studies: Bildung, currere, and the recurring question of the subject. Berlin: Springer. Presti, D. E. (2016). Foundational concepts in neuroscience: A brain-mind Odyssey. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Rie, I., Hotaka, F., Frankland, P. W., & Satoshi, K. (2016). Hippocampal neurogenesis enhancers promote forgetting of remote fear memory after hippocampal reactivation by retrieval. ELife, 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17464. Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

11  CRITICAL CULTURALLY RELEVANT SYNERGISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION … 

217

Roozendaal, B., McEwen, B. S., & Chattarji, S. (2009). Stress, memory and the amygdala. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 423–433. https://doi. org/10.1038/nrn2651. Rubin, D. I., & Kazanjian, C. J. (2018). Finding place in displacement: Latinx youth and schooling along the borderlands. Journal of Critical Though and Praxis, 7(1), 25–37. Salmon, A. K., Gangotena, M. V., & Melliou, K. (2018). Becoming globally competent citizens: A learning journey of two classrooms in an interconnected world. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(3), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10643-017-0860-z. Savage, C., Hindle, R., Meyer, L. H., Hynds, A., Penetito, W., & Sleeter, C. E. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: Indigenous student experiences across the curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2011.588311. Slaten, C. D., Zalzala, A., Elison, Z. M., Tate, K. A., & Wachter Morris, C. A. (2016). Person-centered educational practices in an urban alternative high school: The Black male perspective. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies, 15(1), 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14779757.2016.1139501. Sleeter, C. E. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2004). The cultural animal: Twenty years of terror management theory and research. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 13–34). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Stegemöller, E. L. (2014). Exploring a neuroplasticity model of music therapy. Journal of Music Therapy, 51(3), 211–227. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1627711339?accountid=7027. Tateishi, C. A. (2014). Taking a chance with words: Why are the Asian American kids silent in class? In W. Au (Ed.), Rethinking multicultural education: Teaching for racial and cultural justice (2nd ed., pp. 149–157). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. The Times Editorial Board. (2018). Editorial: Tackling low college graduation rates for black and Latino students. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www. latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-college-graduation-rates-20181226-story. html. Thomson, R., & Carlson, J. (2017). A pilot study of a self-administered parent training intervention for building preschoolers’ social-emotional competence. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45(3), 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10643-016-0798-6. Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Wise, R. A. (2004). Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(6), 483–494. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/ docview/71944794?accountid=7027. Wu, S. W., & Gilbert, D. L. (2015). Measuring neuroplasticity in children using brain stimulation. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 57(6), 499. https:// doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12716.

218  C. J. KAZANJIAN AND C. A. ROSSATTO Wyatt, T. R. (2014). Teaching across the lines: Adapting scripted programmes with culturally relevant/responsive teaching. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 22(3), 447– 469. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2014.919957. Yang, C., Bear, G. G., & May, H. (2018). Multilevel associations between s­ chool-wide social-emotional learning approach and student engagement across elementary, middle, and high schools. School Psychology Review, 47(1), 45–61. https://doi. org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0003.V47-1. Zeng, S., Benner, G. J., & Silva, R. M. (2016). Effects of a summer learning program for students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 39(4), 593–615.

Recommended Readings Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands: The new mestiza: La frontera. San Francisco, CA: Spinsters/Aunt Lute. Au, W. (2012). Critical curriculum studies: Education, consciousness, and the politics of knowing. New York, NY: Routledge. Giroux, H. A. (2005). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York, NY: Routledge. Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Moustakas, C. E., & Perry, C. (1973). Learning to be free. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus, OH: C. E. Merrill Pub. Co. Rossatto, C. A. (2005). Engaging Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of possibility: From blind to transformative optimism. New York, NY: Rowan & Littlefield. Sleeter, C. E. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

CHAPTER 12

Understanding the Failure to Help Marginalized Students Succeed in Higher Education: A Social Theory Perspective of the Science of Teaching and Learning Stefan A. Perun

Many students from historically marginalized racial/ethnic, cultural, and economic groups enroll in higher education and never fulfill their aspirations of earning a credential (Shapiro et al., 2019). The widespread failure of higher education to help these students succeed is oftentimes obscured by an institutionalized fuzzy logic of merit that rests upon the American “achievement ideology” (MacLeod, 2004), which precludes teachers and students from identifying how their social practices inhibit educational success. Framing minoritized student failure as an individual failure leads to a “commonsense” discourse that defines the problem as a student’s cognitive, motivational, or circumstantial deficiency (Bell, 2007). Bensimon (2007) argued that most understandings about student success in higher education are centered upon student features. That is, the predictability or assessment of student success is often considered in terms of the student’s socioeconomic background, college preparedness, cognitive ability, individual effort, or institutional choice. She described how professors’ perceptions of minority students in particular can influence how professors perceive their role and the role of the institution in educating their students. Specifically, she argued, the extent to which professors perceive their students S. A. Perun (*)  Department of Public Administration, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_12

219

220  S. A. PERUN

as arriving at college with cultural barriers to learning (e.g., inherently low motivation) dictates that professor’s perceptions of what they or their institution’s responsibilities are in the student’s success. Bensimon suggests “framing student success as a learning problem of practitioners and institutions,” rather than one of student features (p. 446). Meeting Bensimon’s (2007) call to frame the problem of student success as a learning problem for practitioners and Bell’s call to provide “clear ways to define and analyze oppression” (p. 2), this chapter offers a theory of social practice perspective of the science of teaching and learning to illuminate how professors might better meet the fundamental learning needs of their students in diverse settings. To this end, three salient features of the science of teaching and learning are considered. First, all learning builds upon prior knowledge (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, & Norman, 2010; Bain, 2004; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Ramsden, 2003). Second, meaningful learning requires professors and students to have a growth mind-set (Brown et al., 2014; Dweck, 2016). Third, student motivation is shaped in large part by their learning experiences (Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Ambrose et al., 2010; Dweck, 2016; Weinstein, 1998). This critical examination rests upon Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of practice to understand students as rational actors seeking to demonstrate competency in the practices of the dominant discourse—or “ways of being in the world” (Gee, 2012)—yet constrained in their effort to learn those practices by the roadmap of their “class condition,” or habitus (Bourdieu, 1977). This framework helps illuminate how students who have imbibed the social practices of class conditions not valued in higher education face significant challenges to understand what is expected of them and how to learn what they need to know for success. The analysis suggests students whose family and compulsory education inculcated a habitus that differs significantly from the one needed for success in higher education are further marginalized in college classrooms when professors unknowingly design courses and enact pedagogies that require prior knowledge the students do not possess (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990).

A Theory of Social Practice for the Science of Teaching and Learning Bourdieu (1977) observed that to understand human action one must see that it is “the product of strategies (conscious or unconscious) oriented toward the satisfaction of material and symbolic interest,” which “are organized by reference to a determinate set of economic and social conditions” (p. 36). For Bourdieu, individuals act in ways that maximize their accumulation of social capital—in large part because it is readily convertible into economic capital—by adhering to socially acceptable practices within and between groups. That is, individuals from the same group compete for finite social

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

221

capital (e.g., most popular in high school) just as individuals from different groups compete for finite social capital (e.g., acceptance into a selective university). In both within- and between-group interactions what constitutes socially acceptable practices are decided by those who are in power and represent the “official interest” of the dominant culture. One’s level of conformity to these practices determine whether one wins or loses in the game of accumulating social capital. Importantly, the rules may change, but they still maintain the social stratification based upon the inequitable distribution of social capital if they continue to obey the rule of reproducing what is already social capital (Bourdieu, 1977). While rational actors take practical action to increase their social capital under the constraints of socially acceptable behavior in fields of social practice, the genesis of social action is “habitus” (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Habitus is a “system of durable, transposable dispositions… function[ing] as structuring structures… [which form the] principles of the generation and structuring of practices and representations which can be objectively ‘regulated’ and ‘regular’ without in anyway being the product of rules… goals… [or] conscious aiming at ends…” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 72). In other words, habitus is the “strategy-generating principle” rational actors use to structure their social interactions. Habitus is inculcated in individuals through the experiences that result from prolonged exposure to the environment of one’s class condition. Three important features underpin the idea of habitus. First, habitus, is a strategy-generating principle; thus, it permits freewill in rational actors since there are infinite variations of potential actions one can generate from their habitus. However, habitus, as a durable structuring structure, inculcated through prolonged past experiences, also constrains the actions of rational actors to those that are harmonious with their generating principles. That is, any individual action is at once innovative—drawing creative freedom from one’s habitus—and inhibited—conscribed by the limits of reasonableness perceived through the same habitus. Bourdieu referred to this dualistic nature of habitus as “conditional freedom.” Second, Bourdieu (1977) argued that individuals are not continually making self-interested calculations based upon perfect information in fields of practice such that they include or exclude themselves from competition based upon their estimation of the probability of winning; rather, rational actors rely on the “ethos” of their habitus, mostly unconsciously, to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable action. Third, rational actors—constrained as they are by the objective reality of their class condition and operating according to their ethos, which together constitute habitus—habitually reduce the gap between the desirable and probable (Bourdieu, 1977). That is, rational actors only desire the social possibilities objectively available in the structure of society because all other possibilities are unthinkable.

222  S. A. PERUN

Taking the three features together, one might consider for example a Latina from a low SES family and an educationally weak urban high school background who aspires to attend an Ivy League University. Here, as the gap between the possible and the probable widens, the actor experiences a commensurate increase in negative social sanctions inclining her to “refuse what is anyway refused and love the inevitable” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 77). Importantly, the rational actor has much at stake since she is likely to be rebuked in both groups. First, the Latina may pay a social price for seeking a higher education if it does not conform to the official interests of her social group (i.e., solidarity in the material and existence characteristics of her class condition). Second, there is a high probability that she will face rejection from the other group (i.e., higher education, also expressing solidarity in the material and existence characteristics of class condition through admissions requirements), because she lacks the desired background and is therefore labeled as deficient. In this example, the rational actor’s habitus will likely make application to the Ivy League University undesirable (and maybe even discouraged by those who would advise her), because the act is a wide departure from reasonableness as defined by both groups. Conversely, social acceptance is the reward for those who conform to the proper social order, which is accomplished by acting in accordance with the roadmap of one’s habitus inculcated by one’s group over time. Bourdieu (1977) refers to this as the “honor game.” For group members to obtain and maximize their social acceptability, or honor, there emerges a fuzzy logic that masks the arbitrariness of the rules governing social interactions. The arbitrariness of this logic continues unquestioned because nonconformity or questioning the legitimacy of what is expected risks dishonor. Essentially, fuzzy logic is maintained because individuals just go along with what is presented as self-evident. As a result, often act in their self-interest to maximize their honor and reduce the risk of dishonor that would result from either (a) violating the social norms of one’s group or (b) engaging in social practices for which one does not have the habitus to do in ways the group would find acceptable. From this perspective, the fuzzy logic of a group can be understood as nested among and within larger groups who also practice fuzzy logic to maintain their group’s official representation. The result is a self-evident, unquestioned hierarchy of social classes that reproduce their relation to each other. For Bourdieu (1977), this unquestioned nature of things (or doxa) explains how the self-evident reproduction of class relations works to elide the absurd arbitrariness of the rules governing the social interactions of all groups. That is, one set of social practices is not better or worse than any other, rather they are just different. It is the official interest of the members of the group in power that establishes the valued social practices against which all others are judged. In this way, both habitus and fuzzy logic reify seemingly objective class taxonomies. The doxa requires only that all the groups of a society experience the self-evident reality of objective structures, which are at once created by and create habitus.

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

223

Education, Habitus, and the Reproduction of Class Relations One’s habitus is developed through prolonged exposure to the environment germane to one’s class condition. The education achieved through prolonged exposure to one’s class condition is the product of “pedagogic action” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Pedagogic action is the process by which arbitrary social practices valued by a group (the content to be taught) is inculcated (the action) in individuals. Pedagogic action inculcates the valued social practices of one group to the exclusion of the social practices valued in other groups. Habitus formation comprises all past experiences beginning with primary pedagogic action—the pedagogic action in one’s family of origin—that provides an encompassing education in mannerisms, language, worldview, ethos, and so forth, that are germane to the class condition of one’s birth. Primary pedagogic action continues uncontested until one begins to also experience secondary pedagogic action through compulsory education (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). The formal education system works to inculcate the social practices valued in the dominant culture of society to the exclusion of the social practices of all dominated cultures. The legitimacy of this endeavor is made possible by the education system’s authority to grant credentials, which is derived from its relative autonomy (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). That is, the education system is not apparently controlled by any one group or groups in the power hierarchy, thus appearing as a neutral and natural credentialing authority. The secondary pedagogic action is formal schooling, with all authority granted to it by those who require its credentials and those who seek credentials through it. This pedagoci action relies upon those mechanisms of knowledge transfer (i.e., certain language signifiers, certain forms of language exchanges, shared cultural perceptions, specific social practices, communications through shared symbolism, etc.) that are germane to the members of the dominant social group (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Gee, 2012). The use of a secondary pedagogic action that is most familiar to those born into an environment germane to the dominant social group becomes the concealed mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion under the guise of merit. In this way, the primary pedagogic action of the dominant social group is reproduced by teachers—who represent their own level of authority derived from their apparent autonomy achieved by conformity to the social practices of the dominant group. The development of habitus from infancy to adulthood roughly takes the path of inculcation of mannerisms, language patterns, worldview, and ethos, germane to an individual’s class condition at birth, which is then carried into the formal education system where only the mannerisms, language patterns, worldview, and ethos, germane to the dominant culture, are valued (Gee, 2012). Accordingly, secondary pedagogic action systematically devalues social practices from dominated cultures. In this way, a student’s habitus

224  S. A. PERUN

is either affirmed—in the case where there is little gap between primary and secondary pedagogic action—or symbolically violated—in the case where the gap between primary and secondary pedagogic action is great (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). The students who possess the habitus that both generates and decodes social actions privileged by the dominant culture excel in school, thus “meritoriously” earning their places in society. This reproduces the advantages already inherent in birthright (i.e., habitus developed through primary pedagogic action), reifying the objective nature of the power relations. In contrast, those students who have the habitus that generates social practices not valued in the education system are believed and/or believe themselves as not meriting the social capital (and the resulting social and economic mobility) earned through seemingly objective, free competition in apparently autonomous institutions of learning. Habitus can be changed through sustained secondary pedagogic action when it produces the “internalization of the principles of a cultural arbitrary capable of perpetuating itself after the pedagogic action has ceased and thereby perpetuating in practice the principles of the internalized arbitrary” (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990, p. 31). Here, it may be said that the role of higher education is essential to inculcate, through pedagogic work, the dominant culture. The difference between K-12 and higher education is that in higher education students are voluntarily requesting acculturation in order to achieve social and economic mobility. The voluntary nature of higher education relies on habitus in a way that formal schooling does not. Rational actors knowingly or unknowingly minimize the gap between the objective constraints of the social structure and the subjective ethos of their habitus by taking “reasonable” (as opposed to “unreasonable”) actions (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). For many students from dominated cultures, the secondary pedagogic action of their K-12 school did not help them develop the habitus needed to demonstrate preparedness for college or prepared enough to compete for admission in even somewhat selective colleges or universities. For the subset of these students who aspire to earn a college credential, they self-select into non-selective colleges and universities, oftentimes taking pre-college-level courses in a last attempt to develop the social practices valued in the dominant culture. For example, Chen’s (2016) analysis of the 2004/2009 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal and 2009 Postsecondary Education Transcript studies revealed that 68% of students who started at community college and 40% of those who started at a 4-year institution enrolled in developmental education. And, only 49% and 59%, respectively, completed their course(s) in the 6 years following their enrollment. The evidence suggests that widespread failure is in part because the pedagogies generally enacted in these courses are not particularly conducive to student learning (Callahan & Chumney, 2009; Cox, 2015; Grubb, 2013). Moreover, the same evidence suggests many of the courses focus mostly upon discrete skills (i.e., parts of a sentence, word types, grammar rules, mathematical notations, mathematical

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

225

operation rules, etc.) that are oftentimes not even fully understood or explicitly known as such to those who can readily demonstrate mastery because of their sustained exposure to the conventions through primary pedagogic action. It seems reasonable that when students experience failure in their course, or the prospect of failure because they observe a vast difference between the social practices they know and the ones needed for success, they fail or stop out (see, for example, Cox, 2009). As Bensimon (2007) points out, these rational decisions are oftentimes explained by students, professors, and administrators as a matter of the students’ cognitive, motivational, or circumstantial deficiencies. In this way, the fuzzy logic of individual merit ensures the misrecognition of the role higher education plays in reproducing social stratification.

The Science of Teaching and Learning Over the last two decades, the science on teaching and learning has overwhelmingly concluded that students are not empty vessels to be filled with knowledge but active learners who construct knowledge for themselves through observation and application (e.g., Ambrose et al., 2010; Bain, 2004; Bransford et al., 2000; Brown et al., 2014; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Lang, 2016; Ramsden, 2003). The authors of these book-length treatments of the subject have compiled and synthesized qualitative and quantitative measures of teaching and learning from every corner of education. The robustness of the literature and the subsequent meta-analyses suggest widespread agreement that all learning builds upon prior knowledge (Ambrose et al., 2010; Bain, 2004; Bransford et al., 2000; Brown et al., 2014; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Ramsden, 2003), students and professors alike must believe students can learn (Brown et al., 2014; Dweck, 2016), and the extent to which these things can be achieved depends in lager part upon course design and pedagogy (Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Ambrose, et al., 2010; Dweck, 2016; Weinstein, 1998). Since all learning is built upon prior knowledge, something cannot be meaningfully known until it is integrated with how one already understands things. The process of integration begins with students sensing the presentation of new knowledge and then sorting out relevant from irrelevant facts to develop a working understanding of what something is and how it works (Mayer, 1998). This working understanding exists in short-term memory and may be readily drawn upon to respond to stimulus in the short term (e.g., an assessment of knowledge). If the new knowledge does not make into long-term memory, it can also be easily discarded after it is no longer needed. Meaningful learning—defined by Mayer (1998, 2002) as knowledge and understanding useable to solve novel problems in future contexts— is achieved when students move their understanding of the new knowledge from their short-term memory to long-term memory by integrating it with all of their existing knowledge (see also Bain, 2004; Bransford et al., 2000; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Ramsden, 2003).

226  S. A. PERUN

Creating the context in which this learning process can take place is oftentimes referred to as a learner-centered approach to course design and pedagogy to distinguish it from teacher- or content-centered approaches (Bain, 2004; Ramsden, 2003). The research generally suggests engaging students in some relevant and/or interesting problem in a learning activity that requires them to reflect upon their current understanding, assess what of the new knowledge is needed to solve the problem, apply the requisite new knowledge to solve the problem, receive feedback from the professor about the application of new knowledge, and then try again with a refined understanding (Bain, 2004; Bransford et al., 2000; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Ramsden, 2003). The evidence suggests that the extent to which this pedagogic action is sustained, students who possess a habitus that does not generate actions to meet the demands of the learning activities will integrate new knowledge that does and eventually develop a habitus that provides the generating principles that can be applied to future contexts. That is, the application of the new knowledge helps students move the knowledge from their short-term memory to their long-term memory through the integrative process whereby the new knowledge is synthesized with existing knowledge. Students who integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge by successfully solving novel problems are better positioned to apply this knowledge in the future across a variety of contexts (Bransford et al., 2000; Lambert & McCombs, 1998; Ramsden, 2003) and more likely to believe that they can learn new knowledge and solve other novel problems in the future (Dweck, 2016). Conversely, learning contexts that only promote superficial or passive learning (Bain, 2004; Mayer, 1998, 2002; Ramsden, 2003) result in students drawing upon their existing habitus to generate strategies to meet the expectations in a course. Students whose habitus produces actions that do not demonstrate conversancy in the dominant culture and do not experience the kind of sustained pedagogic action necessary to develop a new habitus, will fail. Take for example a college student who is asked to write a five-paragraph essay to practice writing a persuasive argument or develop a thesis about some research topic. The course design and pedagogy might provide an example of a five-paragraph essay, cover the topic, highlight important points about persuasion, and/or how to write a thesis statement. However, if the student do not possess a habitus that helps them understand the logic and purpose of a five-paragraph essay, then they will not be able to meet well the expectations of the assignment. The student can only draw upon their current understanding of the purpose and process of written assignments to engage the activity. For example, the student may have never been asked to generate an original thought about a topic or asked to practice systematically articulating an original thought in written form. Perhaps in previous learning experiences the student has been passed for paraphrasing the ideas written by others or offering only personal reactions. In any case, the student is likely to reproduce

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

227

what they know and therefore not meet fully the expectations of the assignment despite the seemingly comprehensive “teaching” that preceded it. The student is likely only to develop the habitus to generate a five-paragraph essay for the assignment and future contexts to the extent that the learning process is infused with uncovering the logic of why and how five-paragraph essays are a valued social practice in the dominant culture. The extent to which a student’s existing knowledge is insufficient for a given learning activity, as is the case in this example, the existing knowledge presents a limit to learning (Ambrose et al., 2010). Students are not able to access and assimilate new knowledge when doing so requires a requisite knowledge that students do not possess. Accordingly, to help this student learn the social practices valued in higher education, the course design and pedagogy must first uncover the student’s current knowledge, introduce the new knowledge necessary to engage in the learning activity, and provide enough practice to help the student integrate the new knowledge with their old. Course designs and pedagogies that make any assumptions about students—even those appropriated for a “standardized” course context (i.e., prerequisite completed, freshman English, college algebra, etc.)—will, by definition, oppress students who for whatever reason do not possess the habitus necessary to meet the expectations of the course. Moreover, Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1990) framework suggests that changes in one’s habitus such that it generates actions that meet the expectations of a given course and beyond require sustained pedagogic action. Therefore, if student learning is to be free from oppression, especially in diverse settings, course design and pedagogy at every level ought not to make taken-for-granted assumptions about what students do or should know. Another impediment of existing knowledge is when it produces a hard to identify misunderstanding of the new knowledge (Ambrose et al., 2010). For example, a student from a working-class background might be introduced to the value of a five-paragraph essay and thoroughly taught how to construct one. However, the assignment might require the student to critique the argument of a published author. If the student has a working-class habitus, they may not be able to generate the strategy necessary to meet the expectations of the assignment as authority figures go unquestioned in their culture (see Ashley, 2001; Bartholomae, 1985; Bizzell, 1986; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). Despite seemingly sound course design and pedagogy, the student’s prior knowledge leads them to misunderstand what the essay is supposed to accomplish and why. In this case, helping the student succeed requires tracking down the misunderstanding (which is obscure in itself) and then starting the learning process over (i.e., new knowledge, relevant facts, short-term memory, practice to integrate with existing knowledge in long-term memory) in the ways necessary to understand how and why critiquing authority is a valued social practice in the dominant culture. In this case, the professor must not only teach the student the work to be critiqued and how to critique

228  S. A. PERUN

an argument, but also uncover a student’s prior knowledge that impedes their learning. Finally, if a student’s prior knowledge is in contradiction with the new knowledge, then a student might be inclined to disagree and/or disregard the new knowledge altogether (Ambrose et al., 2010). In this way, the professor has great power to shut down a student’s learning. To the extent that the valued social practices and their corresponding beliefs and assumptions are taught to the exclusion of dominated social practices and beliefs, especially without any acknowledgment of the arbitrary and oppressive nature of both the dominant social practices and pedagogic action to inculcate them, students are likely to resist the dishonor of being symbolically violated. The challenge for course design and pedagogy is not only to acknowledge how valued social actions in the dominant culture are arbitrary and oppressive but also to allow students to contribute to the discussion revealing what they see from their perspective, which may include critiques of the professor (Fox, 1990, 2015). Fox (1990) described this idea as a pedagogy of participation whereby students draw the conclusion that their observations of the dominant culture are welcomed in the classroom. Further, they can see how the social practices generated by their habitus are valued and considered alongside those of the dominant culture. In the example of a five-paragraph essay, meeting this challenge might include defining what is valued about the five-paragraph essay and exploring parallel communication practices in the students’ cultures, and then inviting them to produce corresponding texts to be used alongside assigned texts (see, for example, Bartholomae & Petrosky, 1986). Course designs and pedagogies enacted in diverse settings should, at a minimum, help students develop their cultural dexterity (Paris, 2012). Even if some aspects of the dominant culture remain the standard of judgment, students will have contributed to that judgment and both the professor and student alike will be able to acknowledge the symbolic violence it entails. The concern for helping students maintain their motivation by preserving their honor demonstrates how building upon prior knowledge is intertwined with their continued motivation to learn (Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Ambrose et al., 2010; Dweck, 2016; Weinstein, 1998). Given Bourdieu’s (1977) framework, a student’s assessment of reasonableness will be made based upon their perception of the difference between what they believe they know and what they believe they need to know in order to be successful. That is, students must believe that they can learn what is being taught. More specifically, students cannot assume or be led to believe that they are either good or bad at a certain subject or task (Dweck, 2016). These fixed ­mind-sets, as Dweck calls them, impede student learning on both counts. Students who believe they are good at something are not inclined to work particularly hard or avoid learning situations whereby they risk disconfirming their belief. Students who believe or are told to believe that they are not good at something are inclined to not try as the efforts seem futile, or even illogical

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

229

(Ambrose et al., 2010; Dweck, 2016; Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Weinstein, 1998). For students to maintain their motivation, they must believe that they are capable of the effort necessary to learn and that the required effort will in fact result in achievement of the learning, typically demonstrable through a grade on an assessment. Considering the central role that both prior knowledge and motivation play in student learning, course design and pedagogy have tremendous impact on a student’s success or failure in a course. The professor must pay equal attention to how individual students are interacting with the course content and how individual students are interacting with the professor’s course design and pedagogy (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003; Cox, 2009). The professor is the only person positioned to uncover a student’s existing knowledge, to learn how to present new knowledge in the ways that students can make sense of it, to provide the practice opportunities necessary to integrate the new knowledge into existing knowledge, and to help students maintain their motivation by valuing their existing knowledge and helping students demonstrate that they are successfully integrating new knowledge.

A Framework for Enacted Course Designs and Pedagogy While a professor might be able to enact pedagogies more accessible and culturally relevant than not, there is no way to account for all the possible antecedents that students bring to their learning. Accordingly, impactful teaching requires an iterative process whereby the professor establishes learning goals for a lesson centered upon conceptual understanding and then engages students in learning activities and assessments that help students uncover for themselves what they need to know about the logic of the dominant culture in order to understand and practice new knowledge. This process is likely best kept informal until students demonstrate mastery in practice since formal assessment is likely too late to help students develop their understanding and risks reinforcing the idea that the student is somehow deficient. Importantly, not formally assessing students until they achieve mastery is not meant to suggest that standards be lowered or course timelines altered. Rather, students should be held accountable with formal assessments only after the professor has made every effort to help each student achieve meaningful learning. The building blocks of meaningful learning in a course are the lesson plans that establish the learning goals for a topic, idea, and/or skill, the learning activities to achieve the learning goals, and the mode of assessment to ensure each student has achieved the learning goals. In this way, lesson plans collectively contribute to the demonstrable achievement of course objectives. Given the framework laid out here, the most important aspect of a lesson plan is flexibility so the professor can study their students and identify what the students need in order to achieve the learning goals. The most important role of the instructor is to uncover how students are interacting with the materials in the course, to identify individual antecedents that need to

230  S. A. PERUN

Fig. 12.1  Enacting lesson plans that meet the needs of students in diverse settings

be engaged to help students understand and master the new knowledge, and only then to intervene accordingly to help students learn. The general process for enacting lesson plans that meet the needs of students in diverse settings might look something like this (Fig. 12.1). Several classroom-level examples of lesson plans that allow for this teaching and learning process to take place can be found throughout the extant literature. There are several examples of impactful course designs and pedagogy in math—and STEM-related courses by extension—that focus upon developing student understanding rather “teaching” discrete procedures to be practiced by rote (e.g., Cox, 2015; Hinds, 2009, 2011; Schoenfeld, 1992). For example, in one impactful lesson that Cox (2015) observed, the professor presented students with a fraction written on the board and then asked them “what does this mean?” The professor noted on the board all the ways in which students explained what the fraction meant. The professor then had students generate questions that would solve the division problem and relied on other students’ responses to answer each in turn. The learning activity taught the students that they can extract meaning out of mathematical expressions and that there are several possible representations of the same notation. As importantly, the lesson provided the professor the opportunity to uncover each student’s current understandings and engage those understandings with insights for students into the logic of the discipline. In this case, the professor helped students to learn that division is typically written as a fraction. Here is a sample lesson plan based upon the article (Table 12.1). There are also several examples of course designs and pedagogy for English—and humanities courses by extension—that would likely facilitate

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

231

Table 12.1  Sample lesson plan helping students develop mathematical literacy Lesson plan element

Lesson plan

Learning goals

Students will understand the logic of mathematical expressions that communicate fractions Students will be able to express a division problem in multiple ways Students will understand why expressing division problems as fractions is a valued social practice in the dominant culture Students will see how to solve division problems using multiple approaches Students will be presented with a division problem and asked to generate a question that would solve the problem Students questions will be written on the board and each discussed in turn by the whole class The discussion will ask students to demonstrate their understanding of division and fractions by explaining how they would answer the questions developed by other students Students will be asked to recall relevant terms and ideas already taught in the course and introduced to the new idea of “division is written as a fraction” The professor will consistently make explicit the convergences and divergences of the students’ logic and the logic of the discipline (math) The student’s questions, if answered, would solve the division problem presented The student can explain how they would answer the questions asked by other students The student demonstrates conceptual understanding by correctly applying the skills in future coursework

Learning activities

Assessment

the teaching and learning process described above (e.g., Bartholomae & Petrosky, 1986; Callahan & Chumney, 2009; Carter, 2006; Cox, 2009; Grubb, 2013; Hillocks, 1999; Shaughnessy, 1977; Soliday & Gleason, 1997; Sternglass, 1997). Perhaps one of the more comprehensive treatments is Bartholomae and Petrosky’s (1986) report of the English course they developed at the University of Pittsburg for students deemed underprepared for the standard curriculum. The course was designed to have student text considered alongside typical college-level texts to help students find their voice and see value in writing. One lesson plan that seems particularly helpful for uncovering the logic of written communication in the dominant culture relied upon using the students’ texts to identify common challenges writers face and develop strategies to meet those challenges. The students’ texts were the result of an in-class essay responding to a specific prompt about a section of a traditional English literature text read and discussed for more than a week. After the students submitted their essays, the professor graded them and selected an essay or two that highlighted some shared challenge(s) students had in the assignment—such as answering the prompts, organizing ideas, communicating ideas clearly—to be used as a handout for the entire class to discuss. A lesson plan based upon this course design might look like this (Table 12.2).

232  S. A. PERUN Table 12.2  Sample lesson plan using student texts alongside typical college-level texts Lesson plan element

Lesson plan

Learning goals

Students will be able to identify a shared challenge they faced in the writing assignment (or challenge X) Students will be able to identify the same challenge in their own text or identify how they avoided or overcame that challenge Students will understand both the logic of the writing challenge and the logic of overcoming or avoiding the challenge Student will understand why the feature of the assignment that created the challenge(s) is a valued social practice in the dominant culture All students will be presented with another student’s writing that highlights a shared challenge of the assignment Students will be given question prompts to help them identify and uncover for themselves the focal challenge, and asked to read the essay individually and answer the prompts A whole class discussion will follow and ask students to: a) answer the prompts and discuss each in turn, b) describe what challenge(s) the students faced that the essay highlights, c) describe the ways in which the focal student’s writing met and did not meet the challenge(s) and, d) describe other potentially more effective ways to meet the challenge(s) in future writing exercises The professor will consistently make explicit the convergences and divergences of the students’ logic and the logic of the discipline (English) The student identifies challenges evidenced in the essay The student can articulate the strategy and underlying logic to overcome the challenge The student evidences a diminution of the focal “error” in future writing assignments

Learning activities

Assessment

These example lesson plans drawn from the extant literature demonstrate how one might construct a lesson plan that creates a context in which every student’s antecedents can be uncovered and engaged to achieve meaningful learning. Regardless of what is to be taught and learned, guiding questions might help develop similarly learner-centered lesson plans, a compilation of which would help ensure a more accessible course design and pedagogy (Table 12.3).

Conclusion: Overcoming Deficits and Deficiencies Bourdieu and Passeron (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990) outline a compelling theoretical framework to understand the nature of human social practice and the role of education in reproducing class relations in society. Actors do not fully create their reality, as presumptions of pure agency might suggest; rather an actor’s actions are continually conscribed by their habitus, which is inculcated through their exposure to pedagogic action

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

233

Table 12.3  Guiding questions to develop learner-centered lesson plans Lesson plan element

Questions to ask

Learning goals

1. Do the learning goals focus upon understanding the logic underling the concept or skill to be learned? 2. Does achieving the learning goals demonstrate meaningful or deep learning such that the concept or skill could be applied in other contexts? 3. Are the learning goals understandable and clear to all students? 4. What taken-for-granted assumptions have I made about the student’s antecedents, prior knowledge, and academic skills in constructing the learning goals? What do I need to know from the students to test these assumptions? 1. Are the learning activities well-aligned with the learning goals such that I can helps students see how engaging the activities will achieve the goals? 2. Do the learning activities provide students numerous, low-risk, face-saving opportunities to practice and maybe fail using their understanding of the new knowledge being taught? 3. Do the learning activities provide the students and me numerous, low-risk, face-saving opportunities to assess the student’s antecedents relevant in learning the new knowledge? 4. Do the learning activities provide students with numerous, low-risk, face-saving opportunities to receive formative feedback from me that engages their relevant antecedents? 5. Do the learning activities provide students with numerous, low-risk, face-saving opportunities to receive formative feedback from me that demonstrates (a) the logic of the discipline or field of study, and (b) make explicit why and how the convention being practiced is valued in the dominant culture? 6. Will the learning activities help me avoid providing answer and instead help students construct their own knowledge and draw their own conclusions? 7. What taken-for-granted assumptions have I made about the student’s antecedents, prior knowledge, and academic skills in constructing the learning activity? What do I need to know from the students to test these assumptions? 1. Are there numerous, low-risk, face-saving opportunities to assess learning? 2. Does the assessment measure understanding of the logic underpinning the concept or skill? 3. Have I assessed every student?

Learning activities

Assessment

containing the objective reality of their class condition. Accordingly, habitus can produce infinite variations of possible actions, as long as the actions are harmonious with its principles. In this way, social mobility may be a matter of personal agency but only when there are fields of practice that facilitate and legitimate individual action. Since higher education typically privileges the actions originating from a habitus germane to the dominant culture, the

234  S. A. PERUN

disadvantage for students from dominated cultures compounds as one progresses until (self)exclusion seems the only reasonable action. The process of (self)exclusion is concealed by the fuzzy logic of merit, as succeeding actors accept their meritoriously earned credentials, failing actors accept their cognitive, motivational, or situational deficiencies as self-evident, and mediators of the system point to both as proof of the logic. Bourdieu’s insights into the role of education to reproduce prevailing class relations provide a constructive perspective to consider how course designs and pedagogies can subtly oppress students who come from dominated cultures. However, in using this framework, it is difficult to not advance a deficit perspective of either students or professors. For the students, the move away from cognitive, motivational, and circumstantial deficiencies is predicated upon accepting some level of cultural deficiency, which is a deficit of the students and their communities even if the dominant culture is understood as both arbitrary and predicated upon historical physical and symbolic violence. For professors, this argument may suggest that (a) they are contributing to systematic oppression by maintaining the social practices of the dominant culture as the standards of judgment in higher education and (b) any students not developing conservancy in the aspects of the dominant culture that they are teaching is a failure to help those students learn. The former does not require professors to reject the standards of social practice valued in the dominant culture or accept all other social practices as equal; however, it does require professors to acknowledge the position they hold as individuals who have demonstrated considerable mastery of the valued ways of being in the world that have historically been privileged through the accumulation of wealth and power that resulted from physical and symbolic violence of dominated groups and how their course designs and pedagogy may make ­taken-for-granted assumptions about prior knowledge and motivation that are not true. According to Bourdieu and Passeron (1990), the professor’s misrecognition of the gap between privileged and subordinated habitus is likely only to emerge in the form of “pedagogical challenges” rather than an observation of one’s unawareness of student needs. Under the guise of merit, professors conclude that the students are deficient, and students internalize their failure as a matter of capability. Both misrecognize that the typical education in the dominant culture “gives training and information which can be fully received only by those who have had the training it does not give” (p. 128). While the argument does suggest that student failure is failure to teach them, there are limits to the logic. Indeed, there are many student dynamics that are outside a professor’s control. Still, assuming at least a practical acceptance that the social practice of the dominant culture is the standard against which others are judged and that students from dominated cultures freely choose higher education because they want to develop the social capital of the dominant culture (at least to the extent that they desire to convert it into economic capital). Professors have accepted the role of providing such

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

235

social capital, so they are responsible for helping every student. This seems particularly important in diverse setting where considerable work is required from both students and professors to develop the habitus that generates social practices valued in the dominant culture. Perhaps an appropriate perspective for the instructor might be to hold oneself accountable for student learning by ensuring that each student’s current understandings were uncovered, new knowledge was taught in ways that all students could access without accepting dishonor, and opportunities to practice were sufficient to help students integrate new knowledge with their old.

References Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). The researcher base for APA’s ­learner-centered psychological principles. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 25–60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ashley, H. (2001). Playing the game: Proficient working-class student writers’ second voices. Research in the Teaching of English, 35(4), 493–524. Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems (pp. 403– 417). New York: Guilford Press. Bartholomae, D., & Petrosky, T. (1986). Facts, artifacts, and counterfacts: Theory and method for a reading and writing course. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Bell, L. A. (2007). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge. Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441– 469. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0032. Bizzell, P. (1986). What happens when basic writers come to college? College Composition and Communication, 37(3), 294–301. https://doi. org/10.2307/358046. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society, and culture (R. Nice, Trans., 2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Callahan, M. K., & Chumney, D. (2009). “Write like college”: How remedial writing courses at a community college and a research university position “at-risk” students in the field of higher education. Teachers College Record, 111(7), 1619–1664.

236  S. A. PERUN Carter, S. (2006). Redefining literacy as a social practice. Journal of Basic Writing, 25(2), 94. Chen, X. (2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-Year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes (NCES 2016-405). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142. https:// doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119. Cox, R. D. (2009). The college fear factor: How students and professors misunderstand one another. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cox, R. D. (2015). “You’ve got to learn the rules”: A classroom-level look at low pass rates in developmental math. Community College Review, 43(3), 264–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552115576566. Dweck, C. S. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success (Updated ed.). New York, NY: Random House. Fox, T. (1990). Basic writing as cultural conflict. Journal of Education, 172(1), 65. Fox, T. (2015). Basic writing and the conflict over language. Journal of Basic Writing, 34(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205749017200112. Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Grubb, W. N. (2013). Basic skills education in community colleges: Inside and outside of classrooms. New York: Routledge. Hillocks, G. (1999). Ways of thinking, ways of teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hinds, S. (2009). More than rules: College transition math teaching for GED graduates at The City University of New York. New York, NY: The City University of New York. Hinds, S. (2011). More than rules: Lessons from an innovative remedial math program at The City University of New York. New York, NY: The City University of New York. Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lang, J. M. (2016). Small teaching: Everyday lessons from the science of learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. MacLeod, J. (2004). Ain’t no makin’ it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-income neighborhood (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive theory for education: What teachers need to know. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 353–378). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology, volume 2: Teaching for meaningful learning (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3 102/0013189X12441244. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334–370). New York, NY: Macmillan.

12  UNDERSTANDING THE FAILURE TO HELP MARGINALIZED STUDENTS … 

237

Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Huie, F., Wakhungu, P., Bhimdiwala, A., & Wilson, S. E. (2019). Completing college: Eight-year completion outcomes for the fall 2010 cohort (Signature Report No. 12c). Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Soliday, M., & Gleason, B. (1997). From remediation to enrichment: Evaluating a mainstreaming project. Journal of Basic Writing, 16(1), 64–78. Sternglass, M. S. (1997). Time to know them: A longitudinal study of writing and learning at the college level. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Weinstein, R. S. (1998). Promoting positive expectations in schooling. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 81–112). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Recommended Reading Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bartholomae, D. (2005). The tidy house: Basic writing in the American curriculum. In D. Bartholomae (Ed.), Writing on the margins (pp. 312–326). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Carter, S. (2006). Redefining literacy as a social practice. Journal of Basic Writing, 25(2), 94. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder. Hull, G., Rose, M., Fraser, K. L., & Castellano, M. (1991). Remediation as social construct: Perspectives from an analysis of classroom discourse. College Composition and Communication, 42(3), 299–329. Levinson, B. A. U. (2011). Symbolic domination and the reproduction of inequality: Pierre Bourdieu and practice theory. In B. A. U. Levinson, et al. (Eds.), Beyond critique: Exploring critical social theories in education (pp. 113–138). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 91, 33–40. Rose, M. (2005). Lives on the boundary: A moving account of the struggles and achievements of America’s educationally unprepared (Rev ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books. Rowlands, J., & Gale, T. (2017). Shaping and being shaped: Extending the relationship between habitus and practice. In J. Lynch, J. Rowlands, T. Gale, & A. Skourdoumbis (Eds.), Practice, theory and education: Diffractive readings in professional practice (pp. 91–107). New York, NY: Routledge. Shaughnessy, M. P. (1976). Diving in: An introduction to basic writing. College Composition and Communication, 27(3), 234–239. Widin, J. (2018). Academic literacy support: Challenging the logic of practice. In J. Albright, D. Hartman, & J. Widin (Eds.), Bourdieu’s filed theory and the social sciences (pp. 67–80). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Willis, P. E. (1981). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs (Morningside ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

CHAPTER 13

Association Awareness: Pedagogically Reframing Difficult Dialogues Addrain Conyers, Christina Wright Fields, Martha Lucia Garcia, Michele Rivas, Daria Hanssen and Stacy A. S. Williams

Key Terms and Definitions Association: Association is the process of forming mental connections or bonds between sensations, ideas, or memories; something linked in memory or imagination with a thing or person (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Biases: Adams, Lee, Goodman, and Joshi (2016) define biases as attitudes often based on unexamined stereotypes, or overly generalized assumptions and beliefs about groups of people that are embedded in the dominant culture and that many people reproduce through their attitudes and behaviors.

A. Conyers · C. W. Fields (*) · M. L. Garcia · M. Rivas · D. Hanssen · S. A. S. Williams  Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected] M. L. Garcia e-mail: [email protected] M. Rivas e-mail: [email protected] D. Hanssen e-mail: [email protected] S. A. S. Williams e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_13

239

240  A. CONYERS ET AL.

Debriefing: According to the Patient Safety Network (2019) and the American Counseling Association (ACA, n.d.), debriefing typically encompasses the processing of a simulated or real event, that affords its participants the possibility to learn from the experience and consider ways of improving performance in those situations. Difficult Dialogue: Difficult dialogue is understood as any conversation that creates a sense of discomfort in both the listener and speaker (Singleton & Hays, 2005). Implicit Bias: Implicit bias refers to the attitudes or stereotypes that impact our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner (Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity, 2015). Implicit Association Test (IAT): The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy). The main idea is that making a response is easier when closely related items share the same response key (Project Implicit, 2011). Microaggressions: Sue et al. (2007) described microaggressions as everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely on their marginalized group membership. Institutions of higher education should serve as culturally safe places where the leaders of tomorrow can mature academically, emotionally, and culturally; however, post-secondary institutions struggle with providing inclusive spaces because of the influence of dominant culture (i.e., colonization, white supremacy, heterosexism, sexism, ableism, etc.) on institutional norms and practices (Smith-Maddox, 1999). Inclusive spaces are compromised by explicit and implicit bias acts, which marginalize underrepresented groups. These acts can appear in various guises ranging from explicit hate crimes to implicit administrative policies. Hate incidents on college campuses are rising, and students do not want silence but action that can ensure their safety (Bauer-Wolf, 2019). Much of this safety hinges on the ability of the institution to facilitate courageous dialogue on challenging topics such as prejudice, discrimination, biases, and microaggressions. These difficult topics, conscious or unconscious, have historically plagued society and are displayed on college campuses. Many institutions prefer to bring external experts to campus to facilitate these challenging conversations, despite having existing internal personnel capable of engaging in the difficult dialogues. Numerous challenges may arise by bringing in paid outside consultants that include but are not limited to: expenses, potential disruption in campus culture, assumption of a one size fits all solution, and disregard for underlying issues (Bauer-Wolf,

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

241

2017; Vedder, 2018). Allowing faculty to facilitate these difficult conversations serves numerous benefits for the college. First, students begin to view faculty as a social justice resource because they experience firsthand the faculty’s commitment and investment toward social change (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2009). Second, colleges are able to leverage resources by utilizing existing personnel, increasing the likelihood of sustainable diversity efforts. In efforts to create a culturally safe place on campus where students could uncover their implicit biases in a nonthreatening and non-defensive manner, we designed a faculty led workshop to explore student implicit biases. We wanted students to become aware of their attitudes or stereotypes that affect their understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner, which can often lead to unintentional and detrimental consequences in the classroom and their careers (Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity, 2015). Faculty wanted to uncover ­student biases in hopes of proactively changing their perspectives and igniting social change within our students and campus. An interdisciplinary approach was implemented that included faculty who were mental health professionals, psychologists, social workers, sociologists, and educators. The faculty taught, assessed, and debriefed students on implicit bias and its consequences. First, the faculty defined the terms and shared examples in a fun and lighthearted manner. Next, students took the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to reveal their unconscious attitudes and biases toward groups of people different from their own and discover potential prejudices that lurked beneath their awareness (Sleek, 2018). Last, faculty led a debriefing session with students to process their thoughts, emotions, and reflections from their IAT results. As such, this workshop pedagogically reframed difficult dialogues through engagement in challenging topics; participants were encouraged to make the implicit explicit. Through a faculty led workshop, participants were challenged to reflect and consider their own implicit biases while being supported through debriefing sessions. This chapter will apply an existing pedagogical framework, Race Pedagogy and Faculty Preparation, for reframing difficult dialogues through faculty led work. While the model is designed for an undergraduate audience, it is adaptable for professional development workshops, trainings, and seminars. It can also be modified to focus on specific demographics (e.g., race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, etc.). We will begin by exploring how post-secondary institutions support difficult dialogues among students ­ to openly discuss their diverse perspectives. Next, using this pedagogical model, we will share our Association Awareness workshop for encouraging courageous conversations about implicit bias outside of the classroom. The chapter will conclude with an explanation of the next steps for Association Awareness specifically and supporting difficult dialogues in the classroom more globally.

242  A. CONYERS ET AL.

Pedagogically Reframing Difficult Dialogues In the current educational climate, difficult dialogue is understood as any conversation that creates a sense of discomfort in both the listener and speaker (Singleton & Hays, 2005). Difficult topics often challenge individual perspectives, value systems, and sense of self. This questioning may challenge the perception of self as a good or equitable person. These challenges to self-perception can create anxiety-like symptoms for participants and may require the facilitator to be versed in both process (i.e., emotion management of both listener and speaker) and content (Singleton & Hays, 2005). Unless a facilitator is well trained in managing emotions and discomfort, participants may retreat (DiAngelo, 2016). By understanding these challenges, a facilitator can reframe the difficult dialogue so it is more inviting and engaging for students. Classroom Challenges: Addressing White Invisibility DiAngelo (2016) discusses the challenges that we face in our classrooms when approaching the conversation about race and difference, particularly with students from dominant and privileged communities. There are many privileged backgrounds (i.e., race, class, gender, sexual identity, religion, etc.), but the social, cultural, and historical preeminence of race as a form of classification continues to be one of the prominent causes of difficult dialogues. The first challenge is having students associate whiteness as a privileged identity. For example, having a student identify as “white,” is imperative in disrupting and challenging their attitudes and beliefs about whiteness. It is the first step in addressing white invisibility. According to DiAngelo and other authors (Murray-Johnson, 2019; Sue, 2015), many whites do not consider whiteness a race and struggle with the social construction of whiteness. Open and honest conversations about race with white students or individuals from dominant cultures can also be met with defensiveness (DiAngelo, 2016). This defensiveness tends to be guided by two key ideologies: individualism and objectivity. According to the ideology of individualism, race is irrelevant as we are all unique and stand apart from the crowd (DiAngelo, 2016). DiAngelo further noted that objectivity refers to the idea that it is possible to be free from all bias. American history, jokes, traditions, media, song lyrics, news, textbooks, religion, and literature support these ingrained and unconscious ideologies. These aspects of our culture shape group identity and make it difficult to explore “whiteness” and the experience of being white, without some pushback (DiAngelo, 2016). Our understanding of ourselves develops in relation to others. For instance, the concept of smart has little to no meaning without the concept of naive. Likewise, being Black has no meaning without the contrast of being white. In fact, Sue (2015) notes that race talk in predominantly informal white spaces is mediated by the politeness principle. For example, in these spaces

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

243

talking about race is considered rude or impolite. In tertiary spaces, Sue (2015) highlights that race talk is mediated by the academic protocol, which promotes rational discourse that is logical and devoid of emotions. Dialogue about race is fraught with emotions; in contrast, the academic protocol in the classroom avoids emotions and, once again, silences discussion about race, ethnicity, or culture. Consequently, race talk is muted by silence and ultimately neither students nor faculty develop the appropriate skills to engage in difficult dialogues. Dialogues about differences and race in a predominantly white space frequently result in students from majority groups feeling singled out, attacked, shamed, guilty, accused, insulted, judged, scared, or angry. These intense feelings may coalesce into tears (DiAngelo, 2016). Additionally, the white student may try to control the conversation by changing the topic. For example, conversations about race become discussions about class or gender. Furthermore, the student may become arrogant and deny that racial inequality exists, present with hostile body language, walk out of the classroom, argue with the faculty, emotionally withdraws, or report the faculty to the Chair of the Department. Faculty response: Facilitating difficult dialogues. While inherent challenges are present when identities intersect, engaging in difficult discourse can provide students with a unique opportunity to challenge assumptions and develop empathy and understanding for others while learning about their own views on the topic (Ramasubramanian, Sousa, & Gomlin, 2017). When instigating and facilitating difficult dialogues, conflict is inherent in these interactions. Hence, facilitators are often faced with a multitude of ways to respond (DiAngelo, 2016). Facilitators may choose not to provide feedback and hope the situation will go away. If they choose to provide feedback, they are often hyperaware of their tone and delivery. This hypervigilance is important in reducing tensions and facilitating an open non-judgmental space for intergroup dialogue. Furthermore, facilitators need to accept that the conflict does not dictate that the person is oppressive. Finally, if facilitators choose to respond they need to do so in a way that does not ascribe blame but promote dialogue in a safe space (DiAngelo, 2016). Scholars purport that dialogue about difficult topics can be successful when one stands their own ground, while being open to other points of view (Heath et al., 2006). This ability to be open is a process that may be triggered by cognitive dissonance and requires a sustained effort for growth. For example, Singleton and Hays (2005) share four strategies: (1) stay engaged; (2) experience discomfort; (3) speak your truth; and (4) expect and accept non-closure, for staying engaged in a difficult conversation. He argues that participants should stay engaged despite the emotions that are triggered, by not letting their heart and mind wander. Facilitators need to highlight that difficult dialogue is fraught with emotions and individuals may feel some

244  A. CONYERS ET AL.

discomfort initially. Furthermore, participants should be encouraged to speak their truth by openly sharing their thoughts, feelings, and opinions. Finally, individuals need to recognize that they may experience non-closure at the end of a session. This lack of closure underscores the process nature of intercultural dialogue. Effective intercultural dialogue entails an open and respectful exchange of views to foster self-reflection through understanding and deconstructing one’s own privileges and biases (or lack thereof). By taking these student and faculty challenges into account, faculty members identified a pedagogical framework designed to facilitate difficult dialogue. Difficult Dialogue Framework Due to the challenges of facilitating race dialogue, the faculty members in this workshop adopted an existing framework to facilitate and reframe difficult dialogues. Williams and Conyers’ (2016) pedagogical framework encompasses three main components: faculty awareness, students, and facilitation skills (as shown in Fig. 13.1). The first step to faculty preparation is faculty awareness, “Faculty preparation is composed of awareness of self and others and the development of skills (i.e., strategies, process) to facilitate race conversations” (p. 247). In essence, an instructor should be aware of their realities and biases, be aware that students may have different experiences,

Fig. 13.1  Race pedagogy and faculty preparation

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

245

and possess the skills to facilitate the dialogue. The next step focuses on students; faculty should understand that students might have different experiential realities from the faculty and their own classmates. These experiential realities can vary based on social demographics and lead to various biases. Faculty cannot be aware of every student’s experiences therefore it is imperative that faculty are unassuming and inclusive in their pedagogical approach. The last step highlights the need for faculty to have effective facilitation skills due to the aforementioned challenges in topics, and faculty and student backgrounds. Sound facilitation skills can mitigate potential conflict and resistance that occur in discussing challenging topics. These skills include but are not limited to: establishing ground rules, increasing student participation, and ensuring an emotionally safe environment (Williams & Conyers, 2016). Rothschild (2003) states that there is not a one size fits all model to facilitate race talk or managing difficult dialogue in the classroom. Williams and Conyers (2016) acknowledge that pedagogical approaches need to be both flexible and adaptable to the audience (see Fig. 13.1). While students bring with them their own experiential and empirical experiences, faculty who engage in facilitating race talk also bring their pedagogical and experiential histories into the classroom. Williams and Conyers (2016) argue there is an art to race pedagogy that necessitates an understanding of the context and self. Faculty members whose aim is to create inclusive spaces first need to understand the self, specifically in relation to the topics they wish to explore. Williams and Conyers (2016) argue that a faculty member’s exploration of the self requires understanding the blind spots of their content expertise (i.e., empirical knowledge), the intersection of identities in and outside of the classroom, and examining the implicit and explicit bias that are attached to the topics faculty wishes to facilitate with students. In addition to faculty self-awareness, one should also be aware of student demographics. Managing and facilitating inclusive spaces require faculty to understand the student body (i.e., demographics), their experiences (i.e., realities), and exposure to differences (i.e., biases and resistance). By understanding their students, faculty are then able to modify classroom experiences for their students. Finally, race pedagogy requires faculty have access to an array of facilitation skills that manage the process and allow participants to engage successfully in these exchanges. Williams and O’Donnell (2017) note, “dialogue is the main currency of statecraft, diplomacy, negotiation, mediation and peace building” (p. 275). Hence, healthy dialogues between groups have the capacity to bring individuals together and to promote inclusive practices. This pedagogical model was instrumental in designing this workshop because it focused on faculty facilitating difficult dialogues within their own institution. The faculty were self-aware of their own biases, cognizant of their student body, and familiar with facilitation of difficult dialogues through their various professional roles (i.e., instructors, consultants, and researchers).

246  A. CONYERS ET AL.

Association Awareness Workshop Institutions are faced with creating and supporting inclusive learning environments that both challenge and support students’ personal and professional growth. As previously mentioned, challenges arise by bringing in external experts. One of the biggest challenges is the assumption of a one size fits all model which may not consider existing campus dynamics and institutional culture. Higher education institutions can leverage existing resources such as faculty to facilitate these difficult conversations and support diversity sustainability efforts (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2009). Association Awareness is an interactive workshop in which participants have the opportunity to explore the often hidden associations and biases they hold through a two-part session (see Table 13.1 in Appendix). This multidimensional workshop is designed to facilitate difficult conversations in a nonthreatening inclusive manner; this begins with the title of session, Association Awareness, which is commonly referenced as A2. The title is intentionally designed to spark interest and remove trigger words that can easily arouse emotions (i.e., bias, discrimination, prejudice, etc.). As discussed in Williams and Conyers (2016) framework, the facilitators were aware of the undergraduate student audience and wanted to tailor a title that would limit resistance to a challenging conversation. The goal is to have participants become aware of their implicit association and biases in an engaging yet thought-provoking manner. Approximately 20–30 undergraduate students participated per session. Some students attended voluntary, while others were required by course instructors. The sessions lasted for approximately an hour. One facilitator was tasked with conducting Part I and two debriefers conducted Part II; both the facilitator and debriefers were campus faculty. Part I of this workshop involved an introductory conversation about common associations in society and the completion of the IAT. In Part I, the facilitator facilitated inclusive discourse by introducing participants to implicit association and bias through an interactive presentation. The facilitator wanted to create a welcoming space where participants could explore the concepts and understand how implicit bias exists in everyday life. We wanted to change their reality or understanding of implicit bias; we wanted participants to not be apprehensive about the term. After participants were familiar with implicit bias, they were instructed to take a specific IAT. During Part II, participants engaged in a facilitated debriefing session where they reflected upon the new discoveries as a result of the test. The debriefing sessions were co-facilitated by campus faculty from different backgrounds (e.g., gender, race, religion, ability, nationality, language, etc.) and disciplines. Participants worked together to understand, identify, and at times challenge their common associations and biases. Students began to unpackage their thoughts and feelings about their implicit biases. They engaged in self-reflection process by understanding the impact of bias on one’s perspective. Participants explored their feelings associated with their IAT test results:

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

247

Were their test results what they expected or hoped for? How did they feel about their results? Did they have an implicit bias? Part I: Facilitating Inclusive Discourse Earlier we argued that inherent in any exchange of ideas are the perspectives of the individuals involved. Conversations on demographic differences (e.g., race, class, gender, sexuality, etc.) can be difficult due to the divisive nature of the content; usually one group is being viewed as the oppressor and the other, the oppressed (DiAngelo, 2016; Singleton & Hayes, 2005). Emotions can arouse when participants share the same demographic identity of the topic being discussed (Sue, 2015). Conversations on implicit bias engulf the same challenges because one group can be viewed as the oppressor and the other the victim. Everyone, regardless of cultural background, possesses biases. Throughout the workshop, facilitators should be aware of opportunities to share their own associations and biases. This sharing can help establish rapport and relatability. Creating a safe space through associations. The first part of this workshop focused on understanding the concept of association at its core. To navigate around the aforementioned challenges at the beginning, the facilitator removed humans and their demographics from the focal point of the discussion. Instead, students walked into a room where rival images were being projected in a constant loop. For example, the slides would include images of, but not limited to New York Yankees vs Boston Red Sox; Starbucks cup sitting next to a Dunkin Donuts cup; Apple iPhone with a Samsung Android phone; and a tree in summer vs winter. As discussed in the Williams and Conyers (2016) framework, understanding and utilizing the student’s experiential realities can help mitigate resistance during difficult dialogues. After everyone is seated, the facilitator immediately begins a discussion on images in the slide show to establish relatability. This relatability can be strengthened if the facilitator explicitly acknowledges their preferred images and reasonings. The facilitator chose images and utilized language that was relatable to the audience (current traditional undergraduate students). Immediately students started to associate and choose various items, teams, and products over the respective rival. These everyday commercial products provided a nonthreatening outlet for the facilitator to provide a discussion on associations as students preferred certain products. As the students laughed or complained about products, they agreed they held associations and biases on products based on experiences, socializations, and what they have been taught via family, friends, and media outlets. This short, 2–3 minute introduction provided a foundation for rapport and mutual discourse that was important later as the conversation intensified.

248  A. CONYERS ET AL.

The facilitator continued to focus on the concept of association by providing a definition of association. To maintain relatability and rapport, the facilitator utilized a basic dictionary definition of association from ­Merriam-Webster online dictionary (2019): “the process of forming mental connections or bonds between sensations, ideas, or memories; something linked in memory or imagination with a thing or person.” The definition is simple but informative. Next, the facilitator slowly presented images and had the audience speak aloud their associations with the images. For example, the facilitator would put up an image of three dots, a big one in the center and two smaller ones on the top that resembled a mouse. Without hesitation, the audience screamed “Disney,” “Mickey Mouse,” or “pancakes.” The facilitator used this positive energy to help the audience understand the power of association with such a simplified image. This continues with approximately 4–6 additional images. It is important to incorporate an image that might garner negative emotions to gradually prepare the students for difficult conversations. For example, the facilitator can put up the image of a “swastika” which usually arouses negative emotions because of its association with Nazis, Holocaust, and hate. The facilitator should educate them that the symbol itself is ancient and has religious connotations in certain cultures. However, what matters is that the symbol still garners negative ­emotions based on their associations. At this stage of the workshop, it is time to make the transition from inanimate objects to people. At this phase, it is important that facilitators acknowledge with participants that associations can lead to biases (Williams and Conyers, 2016). While the two terms are used synonymously, there is a difference. An association is when a person connects someone or something to a feeling, thought, or memory. Adams et al. (2016) define biases as attitudes often based on unexamined stereotypes or overly generalized assumptions and beliefs about groups of people that are embedded in the dominant culture and that many people reproduce through their attitudes and behaviors. In short, a bias is a prejudiced attitude that usually results in an unfair outcome for someone or something; an association can lead to a bias. The difference in these concepts should be explicitly stated during the workshop. We can have associations and biases with symbols and objects, but most importantly, we can have biases toward groups of people. Facilitators should stress that these biases are a product of socialization and unless examined will manifest in our subconscious resulting in implicit bias. Our daily interactions are guided by implicit biases, which are biases in judgment and/or behavior that results from subtle cognitive processes that often operated at a level below conscious awareness and without intentional control (National Association of School Psychologists [NASP] Social Justice Taskforce, 2019). Implicit biases are mental constructs that are pervasive and operate outside our awareness. These biases may favor the dominant group

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

249

in society. If implicit biases are not made explicit, they have the tendency to foster prejudices and promote discriminatory practices. At this stage of the workshop, it is important to monitor and gauge the mood of the room. The goal is to have the audience processing the information provided to them. This is a good opportunity to offer an example or two to illustrate the concepts as participants are reflecting on more provocative terms such as bias and implicit bias. Facilitators can engage in and model self-reflection by sharing an example of one of their own implicit biases. At this stage, this example can focus on any implicit bias, not limited to people (i.e., animals, food, or automobiles). By modeling the behavior, facilitators are strengthening their relatability with participants. Implicit Association Test (IAT).  At this stage of the workshop, after concepts have clearly been defined, it is time to have students take the IAT. The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy). The main idea is that making a response is easier when closely related items share the same response key (Project Implicit, 2011). Most participants have personal mobile devices that provide a sense of privacy, which is important when examining internal biases and attitudes. You can have individuals directly type in the address or, like for this workshop, we created a quick response (QR) code that can be scanned by a mobile smartphone and it will take them directly to the website. It is important that facilitators choose the appropriate test for the participants (e.g., gender, political, race, religion, sexuality, disability, etc.). The appropriate test can be determined by the audience, goals of the workshop, and the educational background of the debriefers. We recommend all participants take the same test to ensure uniformity while recognizing autonomy in their test results, emotions, and reflections. The test will take approximately 10 minutes to complete and the group will move to the final stage of Part I. Consequences of implicit bias: Microaggressions.  After the facilitator has acknowledged that everyone has completed the test and have their results, it is important to discuss the consequences of implicit bias on everyday interactions. Microaggressions are everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely on their marginalized group membership (Sue et al., 2007). Sue et al. (2007) argue that obliviousness to the damages of microaggressive attitudes or behaviors will only continue to “insult, demean, alienate, and oppress marginalized groups” (p. 273) At this point, the participants have gone from rival images to their own implicit biases being revealed via IAT. It is important before the next stage of the workshop that the facilitator acknowledges the importance of uncovering implicit biases within ourselves and prepares

250  A. CONYERS ET AL.

the students to participate in the upcoming difficult dialogues in Part II of the workshop. Thus, unearthing implicit biases in both facilitator and student is imperative to facilitating inclusive discourse. In creating inclusive spaces, it is imperative we acknowledge our lens and biases. It is vital that the meaning behind triggered emotions is explored. Successful facilitators do not control the content but attend to the process or learning by observing, encouraging the exploration of feelings, and attending to the issue, rather than ignoring the discomfort (Williams & Conyers, 2016). Inclusive facilitators are ­self-reflective and aware of how communication (i.e., verbal/nonverbal) creates safe havens for students to engage in difficult and courageous conversations. At this stage, the workshop will transition to Part II where the debriefing will occur. Part II: Debriefing as a Tool for Cultural Exploration and Learning During the planning phase of Association Awareness 2, our team anticipated the potential for emotional reactions from participants throughout the workshop, particularly after taking the Implicit Awareness Test (IAT). According to the American Counseling Association (ACA, n.d.), effective debriefing opportunities need to occur immediately after the event. To address potential reactions to the test, we determined that a safe space would be made available for participants after each workshop. Debriefing is recognized as a valuable tool in a variety of disciplines, and it is defined as a potentially growth-promoting dialogue between two or more people. According to ­ the Patient Safety Network (2019) and the ACA (n.d.), debriefing typically encompasses the processing of a simulated or real event that affords its participants the possibility to learn from the experience and consider ways of improving performance in those situations. Moreover, in clinical education debriefing is most often used post-simulated exercises to solidify learning. For instance, debriefing is considered an essential component of simulated clinical training for nursing students, who are better able to integrate experiences in their clinical practice (Cant & Cooper, 2011). In medicine, debriefs are used to encourage reflection, enhance collaboration, and bonding among teams that deal with a crisis (Gururaja, Yang, Page, & Chauvin, 2008). Creating and supporting safe spaces for dialogue.  Perhaps the most significant value of debriefing is its potential for creating a space where people can hold difficult dialogues regarding the feelings and reactions related to an event. The importance for growth-conducing difficult dialogues has been highlighted in the literature (Wallin-Ruschman, 2018; Watt et al., 2009) and positioned as the occasions for meaningful interactions that require a safe environment in order to be productive. Thus, in any kind of debriefing, an important aspect is to create psychological safety (Patient Safety Network,

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

251

2019). According to the ACA (n.d.), for a debriefing session to be safe and have educational and psychological benefits, the group must follow certain rules that include reinforcing and clarifying the boundaries of confidentiality, welcoming and affirming individual perspectives, encouraging reflexivity and expression of feelings, and securing support and universality. The power of affording safe spaces for holding these difficult dialogues in learning environments amplifies the promise for the participant’s courage to consider new options and the potential for learning and for social action (Patient Safety Network, 2019; Wallin-Ruschman, 2018). By doing so, each participant’s owning of their reactions and thoughts serves as a catalyst for a process of awakening through emotional maturity and cognitive complexity (Wallin-Ruschman, 2018; Wilkinson, 2011). Each debrief was co-facilitated by two or three teams of faculty members who were trained in facilitating difficult conversations and conducting crisis intervention. The debriefing of the whole group consisted of approximately 20 participants. Each debrief session was structured similarly: introductions, recount of the test experience, naming emerging reactions, unpacking reactions and thoughts, and highlighting lessons for the future. Specifically, participants were welcomed as they walked into the room and a brief introduction followed. After introductions of the debriefers, ground rules were established. These ground rules were adapted from Gill et al. (2010) “Best Intentions Workshop Guide.” After participants agreed to the ground rules, the debriefers began the difficult dialogue by making a statement to direct attention to each person’s feelings, as related to the workshop. If there was no response, debriefers asked someone to describe “what happened in Part I.” Students described what they recalled, particularly the impact the “soft drink” preference exercise had on them. Similar to Part I, the debriefer established relatability by disclosing their personal soft drink preference and highlighting the institution’s preference that was visible via the vending machines on campus; this resulted in renowned laughter. The debriefers began to transition to the more serious aspects of the workshop, understanding, and unpackaging one’s implicit biases. Participants were encouraged to raise questions and to describe how they were feeling. It is important for debriefers to understand the mood of the room to effectively navigate the difficult discourse. An individual’s emotions can be unintentionally mistaken for avoidance, disinterest, or resistance (Williams & Conyers, 2016). This was used as an opportunity to gently encourage students to get in touch with the emotions associated with becoming aware of their unconscious choices. On one occasion, the debriefer made a distinction between describing a thought and a feeling in an attempt to deepen the awareness as students were only describing an intellectual response. The debriefers were helping the students be aware of their associations in order to understand the impact of stereotyping and

252  A. CONYERS ET AL.

personal bias on everyday interactions. Some students caught on and were able to shift to access their emotions, while others could not. The debriefers made every possible attempt to kindly push participants out of their comfort zone to verbalize and unpack the nature of their reactions and thoughts while fostering a safe environment. Participants also had access to the expression of reactions of others in the room (ACA, n.d.), which in many cases normalized the experience and fostered engagement and disclosure of emotions. The debriefers worked to cultivate and expand social awareness in the participants while also operating from a developmental framework that highlights the nature of thinking and emotional processing. Debriefings: Unpacking responses to the implicit awareness test. The debriefs were designed to create a space where students could make sense of the workshop experience and the IAT. Students discussed both their intellectual and emotional reactions to the event, the IAT, and their results. The debriefers provided guidance and support, allowing the students to be with their feelings, while connecting them to an understanding of the impact of implicit bias on the recipient. In some cases, students acknowledged feeling hesitant and unsafe to bring up these issues in daily interactions and valued the opportunity afforded by a safe space. Some students acknowledged they had thought about these issues but had never spoken about them in the context of the college. These students discovered they held some level of unintentional bias or automatic reactions that were revealed by the test reacted in one of three ways: became defensive and questioned the methodology and reliability of the test; described feeling guilty and surprised by the results; or assumed responsibility and determined to do something about the new awareness gained. Some of these reactions might have extended beyond the debriefs. The facilitators believe that the purpose of evoking reactions to taking the test and debriefing its results can be the needed catalyst for awareness and transformation. Not all of the participants welcomed the notion of having an implicit bias while others denied its existence. Many students denied having biases and questioned the quality and legitimacy of the test. Others provided rationale for why the results indicated they preferred one group over another and used the opportunity to make a case for their position. In some groups, one or two students dominated the conversation by consistently imposing their viewpoints and the rationale for their thinking. Debriefers should be observant of what is happening within the group, by recognizing what is being said, what is not being said, who is saying certain things, and who is not engaging. During the workshop, debriefers encouraged reclusive participants to engage by shifting the conversation away from individuals who dominated the dialogue. However, some participants expressed feeling discouraged and were unwilling to share their personal thoughts and reactions. Despite our best intentions, the aforementioned challenges of facilitating difficult dialogue were present; however, the

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

253

debriefing strategies were able to mitigate some of the tension through self and group reflection.

Closing Reflections Implicit bias is woven into our society’s tapestry because people can unconsciously internalize attitudes, beliefs, or stereotypes that can influence their understanding, actions, and decisions on others. Becoming aware of the associations with time to debrief allows individuals to unpackage and unroot the foundations of their implicit bias. Classrooms are optimal environments to reduce the impact of implicit bias, increase student self-awareness, and development of empathy skills. If this workshop is to be replicated, a few things should be taken into account. Williams and Conyers (2016) recommend that preparation is an important factor in facilitating difficult conversations. First, the facilitator should be aware of the influence of their own educational and experiential realities’ influence on the presentation. This background can be compounded with the position and ranking of the facilitator (i.e., power and privilege). For example, if you are facilitating a discussion on gender bias and you are also the director for gender studies or the women’s center, you should be aware of your position and personal experiences in relation to gender bias. Next, the facilitator should be aware of the workshop participants and understand there can be a plethora of educational backgrounds and experiences as it pertains to the workshop topic. The workshop facilitators should consider the institutional type and participant demographics in relation to the workshop. The surrounding context of the workshop (i.e., classroom, conference, or training) can provide insight on the participant’s expectations. Finally, the facilitators should be equipped with facilitation skills to foster healthy dialogue. These skills include, but are not limited to: ground rules, educational background on the topic, and the ability to encourage healthy dialogue. In this chapter, we pedagogically reframed implicit bias (see Table 13.1 in Appendix) through faculty led equity work and created an actionable and pedagogical tool (i.e., practice sample) that was a tailored made solution that considered our institutional resources, context, and demographics. Our interdisciplinary approach encouraged faculty to become proactively involved with difficult dialogues outside of the traditional classroom space. A constant theme throughout the workshop was constantly maintaining a safe space at every stage. This faculty led effort leveraged the expertise of various faculty members, while simultaneously integrating pedagogical approaches from various human services fields (e.g., education, psychology, social work, and criminal justice). Students who participated in the activity were afforded a space to have difficult dialogues about implicit bias.

254  A. CONYERS ET AL.

Appendix See Table 13.1. Table 13.1  Workshop outline to explore the hidden associations and biases 

/HVVRQ3ODQ7LWOH$VVRFLDWLRQ$ZDUHQHVV$ 6HVVLRQ)DFLOLWDWRU*XLGH 2XWOLQHLVDGDSWHGIURP*LOO7KRPSVRQ7HDOHWDO %HVW,QWHQWLRQV:RUNVKRS *XLGH 6(77,1*,16758&7,21$/287&20(6 $WWKHHQGRIWKLVZRUNVKRSWKHSDUWLFLSDQWZLOO $FNQRZOHGJHWKDWELDVLVLQKHUHQWLQRXUSHUVSHFWLYHV 8QGHUVWDQGWKHLPSDFWRIVWHUHRW\SLQJDQGSHUVRQDOELDVRQHYHU\GD\ LQWHUDFWLRQV 5HFRJQL]HVHOIUHIOHFWLRQDVDPHWKRGIRUXQGHUVWDQGLQJRQH¶VRZQELDVHV 0$7(5,$/65(6285&(6 &HOOSKRQHODSWRSWDEOHWRURWKHUHOHFWURQLFGHYLFHWRDFFHVVWKH,QWHUQHW 3URMHFWRUDQGFOLFNHU 3RZHU3RLQW3UHVHQWDWLRQV$WWHQWLRQ*UDEEHU,PDJHVDQG$VVRFLDWLRQ $ZDUHQHVVOHVVRQ &217(17$1'3('$*2*< $QWLFLSDWRU\6HW(OLFLW3ULRU.QRZOHGJH $WWHQWLRQJUDEEHURIULYDODQGFRPSHWLQJLPDJHVWRHVWDEOLVKUHODWDELOLW\ &HQWUDO)RFXV3XUSRVH6WDWHPHQW 3DUWLFLSDQWVHQJDJHLQVHOIUHIOHFWLRQDERXWRQH¶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

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

255

References American Counseling Association (ACA). (n.d.). Fact Sheet #11. Retrieved from https://www.counseling.org/docs/trauma-disaster/fact-sheet-11—debriefing. pdf?sfvrsn=e762cd50_2. Association. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/association. Bauer-Wolf, J. (2017, October 13). Colleges search for answer to high spending on controversial speakers. Retrieved January 3, 202 from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/13/colleges-search-answer-high-spendingcontroversial-speakers. Bauer-Wolf, J. (2019, February 25). Hate incidents still on the rise on college campuses. Retrieved January 3, 2020, from https://www.insidehighered.com/ news/2019/02/25/hate-incidents-still-rise-college-campuses. Cant, R. P., & Cooper, S. J. (2011). The benefits of debriefing as formative feedback in nurse education. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(1), 37–47. DiAngelo, R. (2016). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for White people to talk about racism. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Gururaja, R. P., Yang, T., Paige, J. T., & Chauvin, S. W. (2008). Examining the effectiveness of debriefing at the point of care. In K. Henriksen, J. B. Battles, M. A. Keyes, M. L. Grady (Eds.), Simulation-based operating room team training: Advances in patient safety: New directions and alternative approaches. Vol. 3: Performance and Tools. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43676/. Heath, R. L., Pierce, W. B., Shotter, J., Taylor, J. R., Zorn, T., Roper, J., & Detz, S. (2006). The process of dialogue: Participation and legitimation. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 341–375. https://doi. org/10.1177/0893318905282209. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity. (2015). Understanding implicit bias. Retrieved from http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/research/ understanding-implicit-bias/. Murray-Johnson, K. (2019). (En)gauging self: Toward a framework for race talk. Adult Learning, 30(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159518805890. National Association of School Psychologists Social Justice Task Force (NASP). (2019). Retrieved from https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/diversity/social-justice/ implicit-bias-a-foundation-for-school-psychologists. Patient Safety Network. (2019). Debriefing for Clinical Learning. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primers/primer/36/ Debriefing-for-Clinical-Learning. Project Implicit. (2011). About the IAT. Retrieved from https://implicit.harvard. edu/implicit/iatdetails.html. Ramasubramanian, S., Sousa, A. N., & Gonlin, V. (2017). Facilitated difficult dialogues on racism: A goal based approach. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 45(5), 537–556. Rothschild, T. (2003). “Talking race” in the college classroom: The role of social structures and social factors in race pedagogy. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003. tb00528.x.

256  A. CONYERS ET AL. Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2009). Developing social justice literacy: An Open letter to our faculty colleagues. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(5), 345–352. https://doi. org/10.1177/003172170909000508. Singleton, G. E., & Hays, C. (2005). Beginning courageous conversations about race. In G. E. Singleton & C. Linton (Eds.), Courageous conversations about race: A field guide for achieving equity in schools (pp. 18–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Sleek, S. (2018). The bias beneath: Two decades of measuring implicit associations. Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/ the-bias-beneath-two-decades-of-measuring-implicit-associations. Smith-Maddox, R. (1999). The social networks and resources of African American eighth graders: Evidence from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988. Adolescence, 34(133), 169–183. Sue, D. W. (2015). Race talk and the conspiracy of silence: Understanding and facilitating difficult dialogues on race. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271. Vedder, R. (2018, April 9). How to improve campus intellectual diversity: Have more outside speakers. Retrieved January 3, 2020, from h t t p s : / / w w w. f o r b e s . c o m / s i t e s / r i c h a r d v e d d e r / 2 0 1 8 / 0 4 / 0 9 / improving-campus-intellectual-diversity-more-outside-speakers/#5176b8707522. Wallin-Ruschman, J. (2018). I thought it was just knowledge but it’s definitely a lot of guts: Exploring emotional and relational dimensions of critical consciousness development. The Urban Review, 50(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11256-017-0427-8. Watt, S. K., Curtis, G., Drummond, J., Kellogg, A., Lozano, A., Tagliapietra, G., & Rosas, M. (2009). Privileged identity exploration: Examining counselor trainee’s reactions to difficult dialogues. Counselor Education & Supervision, 49, 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2009.tb00090.x. Wilkinson, R. T. (2011). Increasing counselor self-awareness: The role of cognitive complexity and metacognition in counselor training programs. Alabama Counseling Association Journal, 33(1), 24–32. Williams, S. A. S., & Conyers, A. (2016). Race pedagogy: Faculty preparation matters. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 38, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841 806.2016.1239396. Williams, S. A. S., & O’Donnell, N. (2017). Becoming a person of dialogue. Journal for Perspectives of Economic Political and Social Integration, 22(1), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1515/pepsi-2016-0014.

Recommended Reading Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W. J., Castaneda, C., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zuniga, X. (2013). Readings for diversity and social justice. Routledge: New York. Anti-Defamation League [ADL]. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.adl.org. Adams, M., Lee, A. B., Goodman, D. J., & Joshi, K. Y. (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

13  ASSOCIATION AWARENESS: PEDAGOGICALLY REFRAMING … 

257

Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom, L. (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Brookfield, S., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for democratic classrooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Difficult Dialogues. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.difficultdialogues.org/. Gill, A., Thompson, B., Teal, C., et al. (2010). Best intentions: using the implicit associations test to promote reflection about personal bias. MedEdPORTAL, 6, 7792. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.7792. Love, J. M., Gaynor, T. S., & Blessett, B. (2016). Facilitating difficult dialogues in the classroom: A pedagogical imperative. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 38(4), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2016.1237839. Nash, R., Bradley, D., & Chickering, A. (2008). How to talk about hot topics on campus: From polarization to moral conversation (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Paul, A. M. (1998). Where bias begins: The truth about stereotypes. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199805/ where-bias-begins-the-truth\-about-stereotypes. Sauders, H. H. (2011). Sustained dialogue in conflicts: Transformation and change. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Teaching Tolerance. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.tolerance.org/.

CHAPTER 14

Adult Learning and Critical Contemplative Pedagogy in Higher Education Maryann Krikorian

Key Terms and Definitions Adult Learning: The process of making a new or revised interpretation of an experience, informing subsequent understanding or action during adulthood. College Students: Adult learners including military pupils, career-changers, international students, and learners from multidimensional backgrounds enrolled in an educational program at any level within an institution of higher education. Constructivism: A philosophical paradigm grounding truth claims in the context of life experience and social interaction. Contemplative Pedagogy: A teaching and learning philosophy that fosters focused attention to the present moment, ongoing reflection, and a strong sense of self-awareness as it relates to course content. Critical Pedagogy: A teaching and learning philosophy that develops a critical consciousness toward praxis, reflection-action in the form of social analysis, and political engagement as it relates to course content. Critical Contemplative Pedagogy: A teaching and learning philosophy that offers a narrative of non-duality, interdependence, impermanence, intentionality, and political consciousness as it relates to course content. Distortions in Learning: An uncritical interpretation that appears to be incompatible with the experiences of adult learners, provoking undesirable feelings. M. Krikorian (*)  Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_14

259

260  M. KRIKORIAN

Habits of Expectation: A set of expectations assimilated predominantly from culture that filter and formulate interpretations. Impermanence: The essence of constant change. Institutions of Higher Education: Public and/or private colleges, universities, and community college establishments. Intentionality: The mental states that reflect direction and purpose toward a given goal. Interdependence: The understanding of mutual dependence and accountability to each other. Meaning-Making: A particular interpretation and/or evaluation of life experiences, encouraging or discouraging transformative learning. Mental Schema: A set of preexisting assumptions developed and founded on data from past experiences to decipher new encounters. Non-duality: The state of an undivided awareness and/or spirit of non-separateness. Political Consciousness: The awareness of the political sense of self and how it relates to the world. Positivism: A philosophical paradigm considering truth claims to be justified if scientifically evidenced to describe the external world. Post-positivism: A philosophical paradigm focusing on causal relationships to develop probabilistic theories to describe the external world. Pragmatism: A philosophical paradigm assessing the elemental unit of knowledge against practical application. Social Solidarity: The essence of community through shared values among diverse populations. Subjectivity: A first-person narrative based on internal perspectives or personal experiences. Transformativism: A philosophical paradigm situating knowledge claims within a political agenda with a problem-solving orientation for social justice, creating shifts in perspective. Worldview: A specific philosophy or understanding of the world. For centuries, mainstream higher education has prioritized the progression of Western civilization by means of global competition and economic wealth (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009). Historic trends evidence a relationship between industrial productivity and concepts of knowing (Rossi & Braun, 2014), drawing attention to traditional epistemic paradigms in favor of objective, material, and individual values above human welfare and wholeness (Goldstein, 2018). The over-emphasis on this particular value system may limit the human development and growth process, calling into question whether the human cost associated with the over-emphasis on Western values is at all worth it (Palmer, 1983, 2004, 2017). In this regard, it is vital to explore the hidden assumptions of traditional epistemic paradigms in higher education culture to further holistic human development and transformative adult learning (Mezirow & Associates, 2000).

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

261

This chapter calls Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) in Western culture to reconsider traditional epistemic paradigms that work against holistic human development and transformative adult learning. The objective is to lay the foundation for variables contributing to distortions in adult learning to advance the argument for new ontologies, epistemologies, and pedagogies in higher education. An additional aim of this chapter is to further conversations in the field specific to transformative learning theories, situating adult education in the context of higher education culture to support socially just teaching and learning practices, such as critical contemplative pedagogy. Through the lens of transformative adult education, critical contemplative pedagogy offers a narrative of subjectivity, social solidarity, and meaning-making to problematize Western traditions for personal and social liberation in contrast to traditionally adopted paradigms in higher education culture. During adulthood, meaning-making is often based on past familiarities. Mezirow (1990) explains how a set of preexisting assumptions act as a guiding frame to cognitively structure sense perception in the adult mind. Preexisting assumptions are developed and founded on data from past experiences that help to decipher new encounters with information stored in memory, also known as mental schemas (Sternberg & Williams, 2010). Culture plays a role in affirming or contradicting mental schemas in the human mind (Mezirow, 1990). Established mental schemas then reinforce, positively or negatively, habits of expectation in adulthood. Mezirow (1990) describes habits of expectation as a set of expectations assimilated predominantly from culture that filter and formulate interpretations. It is likely that cultural assimilation and upbringing facilitate the type, and extent, of formative learning that occurs, which develops habits of expectation in adulthood. More often than not, adults rely on existing assumptions and/or schemas as they offer somewhat of a cognitive shortcut when interpreting new events and experiences. Mezirow (1991) contends the socialization process constructs an uncritical concept about the world and how it operates during childhood development. He suggests that such an unexamined approach to Western socialization may reinforce faulty or non-helpful habits of expectation biased toward Western tradition, distorting the adult learning process. He goes on to explain distortions as, “perspectives of adults that have not been fully developed … [or exposed to] critical judgment” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 119). Further, Geuss (as cited by Mezirow, 1991) describes adult learning distortions as, “focusing on either the analytical or the global … defining categories too broadly or too narrowly, being either reflective or impulsive… and dealing with either the concrete or the abstract when the other is necessary for understanding” (p. 129). Generally, adults may develop distortions in learning when personal experiences are construed as unfamiliar from habits of expectation informed by Western culture. Therefore, Mezirow (1990) calls to mind the need to distinguish adult learning as, “the process of making a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of an experience, which guides subsequent understanding, appreciation, and action” (p. 1). From this viewpoint,

262  M. KRIKORIAN

adult learning moves beyond established habits of expectation to shifts in thinking by formulating new or revised interpretations and meaning-making. The tension between Western values and opposing worldviews influences the probability of adult learning distortions (Mezirow, 1990; Purpel, 1989, 1999). It is time traditional epistemic paradigms are demystified to balance Western interests with concepts such as ethics, morality, and characteristics through critical contemplation (Kaufman, 2017). The demystification of dominant mainstream narratives provides adult learners with a sense of internal freedom and agency to challenge distortions in learning (Palmer, 1983, 2004, 2017). The next section outlines examples of traditional epistemic paradigms, rooted in objectivism, materialism, and individualism, that affect adult learning (Mezirow, 1990, 1991).

Deconstructing Epistemic Paradigms In order to reach the goal of meaning-making, there must be set criteria that aids in the verification process of determining what is true and/or believable (Mezirow, 1990). These standards of authentication derive from epistemic paradigms. Paradigms have a rich history in branches of philosophy, representing a philosophical position based on, a set of basic beliefs … that deals with ultimates or first principles. It represents a worldview that defines for its holder, the nature of the world, the individual’s place in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts … The beliefs are basic in the sense that they must be accepted simply on faith (however well argued); there is no way to establish their ultimate truthfulness. (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, pp. 107–108)

Creswell (2014) highlights the use of similar and interchangeable terms for “paradigms” in the literature to include “worldviews” and “ideologies.” These concepts represent a set of foundational beliefs and/or values about the nature of reality that influences knowledge theories. To date, philosophical foundation of knowledge theories continues to influence and shape the culture of IHEs (Noddings, 2012). The following outlines some of the more traditional epistemologies adopted in higher education culture: (a) positivism/post-positivism, (b) constructivism, and (c) pragmatism. Next, I share traditional paradigms in higher education and their impact on adult education. Positivism and Post-positivism In the nineteenth century, the conceptualization of positivism emerged in the form of the scientific method. Positivism attempts to explain and explore relationships in logical terms, aiming for generalizable truth applicable to a universal population (Creswell, 2014). Through the lens of positivism, there is only room for a single truth claim supported by a set of verifiable statements

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

263

regarded as fact (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Alternatively, p ­ ost-positivism is a lens that allows for challenges to notions of absolutism, leaving room for question-posing (Creswell, 2014). Post-positivism views truth claims as highly probable. The probability of certainty allows for the framing of sources of knowledge as fact. These two worldviews share a common goal to control the elemental unit of knowledge in order to prove what it means to know. As such, the rigid concept of knowing validates only a single truth claim deemed worthy against standards of the scientific method and discredits other forms of knowing that lack empirical evidence. In the realm of higher education, positivism and post-positivism position faculty as the ultimate authority and disseminator of truth, which requires students to act as receivers of objectified knowledge. Culturally speaking, the objective nature of the two worldviews reinforces a distant and binary way of thinking in pursuit of certainty (Darder et al., 2009; Palmer, 1983, 2004, 2017). Resultantly, an o ­ ver-emphasis on modern science as the only path to “Truth” causes a disjuncture between emotion and reason in Western rationality (Palmer, 1983, 2004, 2017; Purpel, 1989, 1999). To illustrate, the intense focus on objective knowledge in higher education culture numbs human emotion as it requires adult learners to disconnect, detach, and fragment their being in relation to the material world (Palmer, 2004, 2017). With this perspective, the exclusion of emotion begins to dehumanize the human experience, which causes adult learners to believe that truth claims are only provable when quantified by the external and tangible world (Palmer, 1983, 2017). As a result, the suppression of other forms of intelligences such as emotional intellect may transpire into feelings of inauthenticity. Adult learners may begin to hide or silence the real-self, therefore masking ­elements of knowing that are not considered worthy in higher education culture such as subjectivity (Palmer, 1983, 2004, 2017). Thus, emotional numbing may likely cause undesirable feelings of unhappiness in adult learners during the higher education experience (New, 2015; Rivard, 2014). Moreover, polarized ways of thinking may derive from intense abstraction and objectification. The over-simplification of life’s complexity forces interpretations and evaluations of life experiences to form into one of two categories: “things are right or wrong, good or bad, the best or the worst, a success or a failure” (Ben-Shahar, 2009, p. 12). Binary thinking heightens mannerisms of extremism and authoritarianism, which hinders the ability for adult learners to maintain balanced thinking and neutrality (Belenky & Stanton, 2000). Therefore, discounting the gray areas of life may accentuate the worst-case scenario (Ben-Shahar, 2009) and cause adult learners to be more susceptible to fear and depression during their higher education experience (New, 2015; Rivard, 2014). Constructivism In the theory of constructivism, truth claims are constructed and based on life interpretations of the world (Creswell, 2014). Knowledge is interwoven with historic and cultural perspectives, so it is interdependent with subjectivity.

264  M. KRIKORIAN

Through a constructivist lens, knowledge is substantiated by consensual truths, which opens the possibility for restructuring and developing new understandings for more sophisticated meaning-making. The ultimate goal of constructivism is to understand and describe human phenomena through social interaction (Creswell, 2014). This paradigm describes the nature of knowledge as contextual, diverse, and complex. Through a constructivist paradigm, the educational experience is seen in the form of continued understanding based on historic and cultural contexts. In the classroom, the role of faculty is to act as a facilitator of learning by encouraging students to learn via the exposure to diverse and social experiences. In cultural terms, the act of knowing is based on particular value systems that draw connections between knowledge, politics, and power (Noddings, 2012). However, critics argue that constructivism falls short in how it transfers theory to practice for a more action-oriented approach to the disruption of existing social injustices (Creswell, 2014). For example, constructivists require the act of social connection over social distancing to reach consensus and validate truth claims. Instead, an emphasis on individualism in Western culture is given weight (Purpel, 1999, 1989). The contradiction between individual and community may condition adult learners to compete against one another for merit and recognition even if it comes at the cost of the common good (Darder et al., 2009). In spite of this, human beings innately develop the urge to form two types of identities during human development, individual and communal (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). As a result, an over-emphasis on individualism may cause the compartmentalization of identity formation, which may lead to a conflict between the needs of individual versus community. More specifically, Western higher education culture reinforces and prioritizes individualism through competition and merit, setting the foundation for a hierarchal power structure in democratic IHEs where one does not exist (Palmer, 1983). In a meritocracy, where few reap the benefits, B ­ en-Shahar (2009) explains how adult learners may rely on methods of defensiveness and distrust to achieve, preceding any interest in the common good. Consequently, some adult learners overlook the importance of a social solidarity. In this environment, adult learners may develop a survival of the fittest mentality, learning to adopt skeptic, distrusting, and egocentric mannerisms to sustain their livelihood (Mezirow, 1990). The notion of scarce resources continues to support individualism by conditioning isolating behavior. For this reason, a survival mentality may prompt feelings of loneliness; loneliness is an epidemic being reported at growing rates in higher education culture (Brown, 2018; Soni, 2019). Pragmatism Pragmatism justifies the nature of reality through real-world experiences (Creswell, 2014). This paradigm moves away from the theoretical dimensions of knowledge toward the practical elements of knowing. For

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

265

example, through the lens of pragmatism, truth is only verified when the whole experience is reflected in practice (James, 2017). In general, the aims of pragmatists are to substantiate knowledge through methods of inquiry and exploration (Noddings, 2012). In fields of education, pragmatism opposes factual statements in absolute terms. The general goal of this paradigm is to justify truth claims on the basis that those claims provide practical sense. Through a pragmatist approach to teaching, faculty guide the process of learning via the integration of ­real-world experiences to explore, discover, and construct knowledge (Noddings, 2012). In mainstream culture, this paradigm calls for knowledge representative of practical application in service to a democratic and just society. Yet, opponents of pragmatism argue that all forms of knowledge do not proceed from action. Legg and Hookway (2019) argue practicality only implies inference. The authors explain how the essence of a social structure depends on the prioritization of certain ethics. As such, practical experiences that support social functions infer a preferred social efficiency rather than claims of certainty. In addition, practicality does not account for truth claims inclusive of the immense complexity of human life. Therefore, critics dispute the idea that truth is solely founded on its usefulness in real-life settings, which maintains concepts of knowing formulated by individual consciousness. For example, in Western culture, the constant focus on performance and practical application may translate the idea of human existence to human capital value (Darder et al., 2009). In view of this, emphasis placed on practical application for public results may generate tension between achievement and self-worth, conditioning adult learners to equate productivity with the notion of innate worthiness (Mezirow, 1990; Purpel, 1999, 1989). For example, in Western higher education culture, achievement and performance are commonly materialized and earned by rewards. This places emphasis on extrinsic and material accomplishment such as grades, merit, and honors (Purpel, 1999, 1989). The fixation with material achievement may instill false assumptions that said outcomes will ultimately bring happiness and fulfillment (Ben-Shahar, 2009). Adult learners who interact with the world from a place of earned human dignity in place of innate human dignity depend too heavily on external factors of motivation and achievement as a means of self-validation (Brown, 2010). Moreover, an over-emphasis on practical knowledge may skew the way adult learners perceive their professional and personal journey of becoming and/or self-actualizing. For some, the desire for material accomplishment may deem the intangible process of human development and growth as insignificant and inconvenient. The desire for achievement may create a hyper-focus on the destination (Ben-Shahar, 2009), limiting the ability for adult learners to focus on the present moment (Tolle, 2004). For that, Ben-Shahar (2009) calls out Western culture’s “obsession with the next promotion, the next prize, the next milestone” (pp. 10–11). As a result, adult learners who seek to evidence their sense of worthiness through external accomplishment remain at a high risk for mental stress and anxiety (Flaherty, 2018; Rivard, 2014).

266  M. KRIKORIAN

The philosophical paradigms described in this chapter provide insight into traditional epistemologies commonly adopted in mainstream higher education culture. If it is of further interest, the reader is invited to follow-up on the epistemic ideologies presented (see Suggested Readings at the end of the chapter). Although each paradigm was not discussed at length, the understandings and examples, albeit brief, are sufficient enough to further conversations in the field for more transformative approaches to teaching and learning in higher education. Ultimately, Roth notes (as cited by Mezirow, 1991), “distortion is inescapable, but we can hope to identify and artfully use our distortions … by refining and contextualizing them better” (p. 119). To this end, becoming aware of the philosophical foundations of higher education may aid in the contextualization, and over-identification with Western values that formulate paradigms in IHEs.

Transformativism The purpose of this section is to set the stage for transformative adult education in the context of higher education. To date, statistics for adult learners who experience anxiety, depression, and loneliness are escalating, emanating a need for a transformative paradigm in higher education culture (Flaherty, 2018; Rivard, 2014; Schmalz, 2017; Soni, 2019). For example, college students have reported the lowest rates of emotional health since 1985 (New, 2015), and one in six Americans do not believe they are thriving in any area of their life (Rivard, 2014). IHEs might consider adopting transformative ideologies, epistemologies, and pedagogies to disrupt old habits of expectation to develop, “a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of an experience, [guiding] subsequent understanding, appreciation, and action” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 1). Transformative shifts in thought aim to uncover the sometimes hidden, cultural, and academic rules of higher education for greater meaning-making abilities of adult learners. A transformative paradigm is one way to aspire toward teaching and learning approaches in support of holistic human development and transformative adult learning. Transformative paradigms move past the uncovering of social inequality toward advocacy and action for equal opportunity (Creswell, 2014). During the 1980s, transformativists called for social critique and political action with the goal of differentiating a transformative worldview with preexisting worldviews that did not adequately address issues of inequity. It was no longer sufficient to call out and question systemic oppression by privileging and othering groups of people based on characteristics such as, race, gender, socio-economic status, and abilities, among other characteristics. Instead, transformativism pushed a political agenda with a social-action directive to reform and transform issues of oppression in service to social equity and equality. In this framework, the concept of knowledge is formed within existing political agendas in a given culture. Guba and Lincoln (1994) explain that,

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

267

“generalizations can occur [within] the mix of social, political, cultural, economic, ethnic, and gender circumstances and values” (p. 114). That said, truth claims are formulated at the intersection of many cultural and political domains. The elemental unit of knowledge is diverse, relative, and transactional in nature. Through a transformative lens, knowledge is only verifiable when it is constructed with those from historically marginalized backgrounds and utilized to further a social justice agenda. Through a transformativist approach, the purpose of education is to disrupt existing hierarchal power structures to avoid future oppression of historically underserved communities. Transformative pedagogies include group dialogue and critical thinking to deconstruct issues of oppression with a problem-solving orientation for social justice. Through transformative pedagogies, critical consciousness can be reached, and as a result, adult learners may feel empowered to act against oppressive methods of educational practice to transform, lead, and shape a new society aligned with the true virtues of Western democracy (Freire, 1970/2018; Mezirow & Associates, 2000). It is socially just and equitable to think of human development and adult learning as a continuum along which adults differ. That is why IHEs must reconsider traditional epistemic paradigms in the promotion of more transformative ideologies, epistemologies, and pedagogies. Critical contemplative pedagogy is a useful transformative lens to reframe teaching and learning decisions (Kaufman, 2017). Zajonc (2010) explains, “profound ontological shifts require an extraordinary freedom of thought, one where the conventional patterns and habits of thinking are broken and replaced by a new and more fluid conception of reality” (p. 15). Through the lens of transformative adult learning, critical contemplative pedagogy is one method to challenge conventional habits of expectation representative of more fluid concepts of knowing in higher education culture. Critical Contemplative Pedagogy The multidimensional essence of the human experience offers a broader more transformative ontology, epistemology, and pedagogy for adult learners. To illustrate, Kaufman (2017) proposes an innovative pedagogy for consideration, grounded in the intersection of critical and contemplative pedagogical philosophies in higher education culture. He explains, contemplative pedagogy is often posited as an inner-directed practice of helping students find balance and wholeness in their lives, whereas critical pedagogy is generally seen as a form of education that is outer-directed and attempts to foster radical social change. (Kaufman, 2017, p. 2)

The merging of the two approaches call for an integrative higher education experience by encouraging aspects of holistic human development and transformative adult learning for personal and social liberation.

268  M. KRIKORIAN

There is a rich history of critical theories rooted in philosophies of liberation, an ethic of care, and social solidarity. While Paulo Freire (1970/2018) is considered by most to be the father of Critical Theory, many others moved this work forward in the field (e.g., Darder, 2012; Giroux 2012; hooks, 1994; Macedo, Dendrinos, & Gounari, 2003/2015; McLaren, 2007). Critical pedagogues speak out against the corporatization of education, advocate for the importance of challenging the system, and emphasize the value of integrating culture into education. To translate this work into practice, Freire (1970/2018) recommended strategies of dialogue and honesty to challenge others out of a state of alienation and into a state of connection and community. He believed individuals maintain the power to transform the world through praxis, which is the cyclical process of action and reflection in pursuit of social transformation. Critical pedagogues continue to advocate for dialogue, reflection, and action in pursuit of a universal ethos of connection and care. In sum, critical theorists trust that a moral renewal will inspire adult learners to lead a more democratic society and just world. Contemplative practice dates back to the 1990s and continues to form varied and emerging understandings in higher education (Kaufman, 2017). Zajonc (2013) describes contemplative pedagogy as, “a wide range of educational methods that support the development of student attention, emotional balance, empathetic concern, compassion, and altruistic behavior” (p. 83). Zajonc (2010) grounds contemplation in the ability to sustain contradiction to settle tensions and conflicts by holding two opposite entities together in truth with the goal of a more integrative learning experience. In design, contemplative exercises include a multitude of views from an array of disciplines to promote introspection, discovery, and creativity for purposes of developing self-actualization. Contemplative theorists believe that ethical and moral development is crucial to the process and exploration of the self in relation to the world. Overall, the benefit of emotional balance and personal well-being is a major learning outcome of contemplative education. Critical contemplative pedagogy encourages abstention from absolutism and emancipation from Western tradition and opens the door of opportunity to experience a human awakening and/or consciousness that may better prepare adult learners with the skills necessary to actively negotiate a world of tension and conflict. The integration of the two approaches may provide teaching and learning techniques that support holistic human development and transformative adult learning. Kaufman (2017) identifies five dimensions reflective of critical contemplative pedagogy within individual frameworks. The shared elements at the intersection of critical and contemplative pedagogies are as follows: (a) non-duality; (b) interdependence; (c) impermanence; (d) intentionality; and (e) political consciousness. The following segment describes each element and shares instructional strategies for faculty consideration in higher education.

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

269

Non-duality.  Non-duality may alleviate the tension between reason and emotion. Engaging in non-dualistic thinking calls attention to the gray areas of life by moving away from an “all-or-nothing” perspective toward the idea of a “both-and” understanding about the world (Ben-Shahar, 2009). Kaufman (2017) describes non-dualistic thinking as a way to confront binary and narrow ideologies and epistemologies to disrupt privilege and authoritarianism. He writes, “approaching social justice work in a typical dualistic framework is a recipe for the type of privileged paternalism that posits us as the saviors and them as the ones in need of saving” (Kaufman, 2017, p. 8). With this perspective, adult learners hold conflicts together without the need to over-identify with one value system over the other. Sustaining a paradox allows two polar opposites to serve as mutually supportive concepts in the adult mind and integrates all the human senses (e.g., mind, body, and inner-self). Non-dualistic exercises promote a multidimensional worldview ­ given the consideration and integration of different forms of knowledge. For example, faculty in higher education may consider dismantling existing hierarchal power structures such as the “all knowing” illusion of faculty by modeling vulnerability or self-disclosure within traditional faculty–student relationships (hooks, 1994). Faculty and students are both teachers and learners; together they make for an open and trusting learning community to further multifaceted understandings about the world and how it works. Likewise, group dialogue and/or debates in the classroom may provide adult learners with opposing viewpoints they initially had not considered (Barbezat & Bush, 2014). Group interactions may prompt adults with more enlightened perspectives for deeper meaning-making opportunities. Similarly, ­service-learning activities may prove beneficial to adult learners as it introduces diversity in relation to course content. The exposure to new encounters may prompt adults to question and reflect on their existing epistemic paradigms and habits of thinking (Palmer, Zajonc, & Scribner, 2010). When adult learners establish a more open and flexible perspective, independent of dualistic terms, it may increase the potential for greater meaning-making abilities. Interdependence.  Interdependence may ease the conflict of individual versus community. Kaufman (2017) states, “the experiential wisdom of interdependence that is gained through contemplation with the analytical understanding of oppression …[allows] us to engage in informed and mutually sustaining social action” (p. 10). The ability to acknowledge the interdependent nature of humanity allows for the opportunity to develop deeper feelings of compassion for the other. Compassion may then influence a general desire to understand human beings and their unique perspectives about the world by realizing a more informed social citizenry. It is in relationship that adult learners have the ability to grow and develop as whole persons, given both

270  M. KRIKORIAN

facets of human identity formation, individual and communal (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). When the preservation of human welfare remains a fundamental value, adult learners are more inclined to acknowledge the interdependent nature of humanity. This paves the way for holistic human development and transformative adult learning. For instance, action research engages and stimulates an interdependent nature of humanity. The action research method is designed as a cyclical process of action and reflection to facilitate learning in community with others (Holly, Arhar, & Kasten, 2009). The exercise of action- reflection deepens an understanding of real-life issues while practicing flexibility and creativity in its resolve (Palmer et al., 2010). This methodological approach develops the self in the context of the whole (see Table 14.1 in Appendix). Realizing the fluidity and interconnectedness of human life has the potential to disrupt individualistic tendencies and the potential for learners to develop feelings of social solidarity in pursuit of a society aligned with the true virtues of democracy. Impermanence.  Impermanence may reduce the tension between achievement and worthiness. Kaufman (2017) explains the practice of impermanence as the act of mental detachment from materialism by, “[coming] to understand and appreciate the transient nature of all things” (p. 11). In an ever-changing society, the notion of achievement and accomplishment is always shifting since no absolute concept of success exists. For this reason, concepts of knowledge based solely on practical application for public results also become transient in nature. This discredits the concept of truth as an end to itself (Legg & Hookway, 2019). In the absence of individual consciousness and ethics, there is likelihood of limitations to holistic human development and growth, where adult learners may confuse the notion of innate self-worth with human capital value to society. That said, an over-emphasis on practical knowledge may translate to a limited understanding of human life. On the contrary, impermanence encourages emotional sustenance to develop cognitive equanimity in the mind, and impermanence helps the learner to resist the urge to over-associate with achievement to avoid performance burn-out. As an illustration, faculty may consider prompting adult learners with questions that challenge an over-identification with achievement in higher education. It may be helpful for adult learners to journal about challenging or new encounters during the college experience (Barbezat & Bush, 2014). Many scholars in the field of psychology have suggested the use of a thought record activity (Greenberger & Padesky, 1995). This strategy originates from the field of cognitive behavior therapy and advocates for a problem-solving approach to combat distortions in adult learning. To begin, faculty may ask adults to present one immediate thought during challenging events or when learning something new (e.g., I am not smart enough). As a next step, allow

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

271

adult learners to further reflect on the feelings that emerge at this time (e.g., I feel less worthy when I compare myself to the performance of others). Then, shift the adult’s thinking by requesting that they collect evidence in support of the initial thought (e.g., I am not smart enough because I received a C on my paper). Next, engage adult learners in soliciting evidence against the initial thought (e.g., I am resilient, I am kind, I am diligent). To conclude, ask adult learners to reframe the initial thought for a more balanced perspective (e.g., I am worthy regardless of my accomplishments). The purpose of this activity is to develop a greater sense-of-self and inner resolve moving forward. Intentionality.  The practice of intentionality may reduce the strain between worth and achievement. Jacob (2003) states, “intentionality is the power of minds and mental states to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs” (para. 1). It is about holding a directed belief or desire about the world. However, Searle and Willis (1983) point out that the use of the term can be misrepresented given certain circumstances, “beliefs, fears, hopes, and desires are intentional; but there are forms of nervousness, elation, and undirected anxiety that are not intentional” (p. 1). Feelings like that of anxiety, loneliness, and depression are often experienced as undirected desires or beliefs that have no intention. Adult learners may redirect undesirable feelings driven by external motivation with commitments sourced from, and aligned with, ethics and morals. When adult learners uncover personal values, it can deepen their understanding of subjectivity and strengthen intentionality. For example, the facilitation of a personal values activity may engage adult learners in reflective practices to promote intentionality. Faculty in higher education may consider the use of the Personal Values Card Sort to guide adults in their exploration of personal ethics and desires about the world (Miller, C’de Baca, Matthews, & Wilbourne, 2011). The exercise requires adult learners to consider a number of given values. During the first stage of the process, adult learners are asked to organize the values into different categories aligned with the level of importance (e.g., important, not important, somewhat important). In the next phase, adult learners are required to limit their selection down to a particular number. This action continues until adult learners are left with their most prized values. The purpose of this activity is to clarify personal intent as a means to increase connection to course content. Adult learners may reduce the pressure to perform and achieve against external expectations when they operate from a place of personal commitments. Political Consciousness.  An emphasis on political consciousness may disrupt the conflict between reason and emotion. Brookfield (as cited by Kaufman, 2017) argues for the importance of, “understand[ing] how considerations of

272  M. KRIKORIAN

power undergird, frame, and distort educational processes and interactions” (p. 13). He advocates for the deconstruction of mainstream educational practices as a means to uncover assumptions imbedded within existing historical, political, cultural, and social realities. In Western rationality, political trends directly influence knowledge theories, therefore impacting teaching and learning methods in higher education culture. As such, the nature of knowledge cannot exist as an apolitical construct. It is important that faculty encourage critical examination of existing epistemic traditions and expose adult learners to new ideological, epistemological, and pedagogical assumptions representative of different schools of thought. In higher education culture, alternative and new paradigms may broaden life interpretations for more profound and transformative meaning-making. Addressing existing assumptions that frame paradigms may provide adult learners with one way to communicate about and contextualize an over-emphasis on Western traditions. For instance, faculty may consider ­ offering a philosophy of education course to address different schools of philosophical thought. In addition, faculty may also think about assigning a personal philosophy of education paper and subjectivity statement as a course assignment. Both methods may aid adult learners in articulating their philosophical position as it relates to their field of study. A deep understanding of the philosophical roots of Western rationality may situate personal educational experiences allow students to uncover the hidden influences that contribute to subjectivity and meaning-making. With new paradigmatic insights, adult learners are presented with the opportunity to develop new ideologies that may lead to shifts in thinking, breaking traditionally unexamined patterns and habits of expectation informed by Western tradition. Particularly, critical contemplative pedagogy may help faculty design models emphasizing holism, diversity, and the lived experiences of adult learners via the recognition and integration of the innate human condition. With changes in pedagogy, content selection, and methods, adult learners may begin to see things through a more transformative lens, which allows them to contextualize traditional customs, patterns, and habits of expectation in Western culture. In its design, critical contemplative pedagogy is intended to compliment academic course content and not to replace it. The aim of critical contemplative pedagogy is to support the development of the whole person through transformative approaches to teaching and learning in higher education culture. This approach is exploratory in nature; its instructional techniques aim to move past the mastery of content toward moral engagement for a social justice agenda (Palmer, 2017). Although Kaufman (2017) provides descriptive evidence in support of critical contemplative pedagogy, further inquiry is warranted to extend conversation in the field of adult education as it relates to the context of higher education culture. An additional goal of critical contemplative pedagogy is the pursuit of a socially just adult education in service to a democratic society. It is when adult learners describe a life of purpose, uncovering what is personally meaningful, that they begin to navigate growth aspects of holistic human development and

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

273

transformative adult learning. From interdependence, impermanence, intentionality, and political consciousness, the value of critical contemplative pedagogy presents transformative ways of thinking and being in the world. This approach encourages adult learners to interact with the world from a place of innate self-worth, social solidarity, and integrative meaning-making (Brown, 2010; Palmer et al., 2010). Critical contemplative pedagogy offers teaching and learning methods to better serve adult learners in the real world as it aides in the practice of entertaining two opposing entities together in truth without over-identifying with one or the other to avoid learning distortions.

Conclusion The debate over what knowledge is of most value to society continues to be explored in the politics of higher education without resolution. These debates influence and have the power to transform higher education paradigms (Noddings, 2012, Pinar, 2012). The intent of this chapter is not to provide an extensive paradigmatic analysis, nor is it to solve the debate over what knowledge is of most value to Western society (Pinar, 2012), but to call out the over-emphasis placed on Western values and their influence on traditional epistemic paradigms. There is great need to deconstruct the philosophical foundational fabrics of mainstream higher education culture to demystify the over-emphasis placed on Western values in IHEs (Palmer, 1983, 2017). A strong understanding about the philosophy of education may contribute to an increase in ideological critique about the politics and values of higher education in Western culture (Palmer et al., 2010). In the spirit of promoting transformative adult education, a moral renewal is needed in Western higher education culture. As of late, adult learners are expressing increasing rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness during the higher education experience, calling to mind the need for transformative practices such as critical contemplative pedagogy. The intersection of critical and contemplative pedagogies may further conversations in the field to support emotional freedom, social solidarity, and meaning-making. A more integrative higher education experience may better support holistic human development and transformative adult learning. This will impact the degree to which adult learners will be able to transfer knowledge and skills for the betterment of the self, community, and democratic society as a whole.

Appendix Syllabi Exemplar Action Research This course has been taught in a hybrid model by Maryann Krikorian, a clinical assistant professor in the Loyola Marymount University School of Education Department of Teaching and Learning (Table 14.1).

274  M. KRIKORIAN Table 14.1  Syllabi Exemplar Date

Format

Course themes, discussions, and assignments

Module 1

Face-to-face

Module 2

Face-to-face

Module 3

Face-to-face

Module 4

Online

Module 5

Face-to-face

Introduction to Course • Course organizations – Personal introductions – Course expectations – Assignments and grading • Group discussion about meaning-making – What is it? – How do we know it? • Group discussion about impermanence – What is the relationship between impermanence and meaning-making? – How does it impact concepts of reality and knowledge? • Lecture about worldviews and research paradigms – Identify the role it plays in ontological, epistemological, and methodological questions Understanding Who we Are and How we Relate to the World • Introduction to common philosophical worldviews in education • Reasons for the importance of personal values in research paradigms • Facilitate The Personal Values Card Sort Activity • Discuss the potential relationship between existing philosophical worldviews and the outcomes of the exercise • Use the top values to help guide students thinking about potential research topics and areas of focus • Discuss how subjectivity and political consciousness relate to personal value-systems and worldviews –A  ssign a Subjectivity paper to clarify personal value systems as it relates to research paradigms, philosophies specific to discipline, and overall intentionality in the field of study What Is Action Research? • Discuss the cyclical process of inquiry-reflection-action • Introduce the use of a professional journal to document reflection on the interdependent nature of reality as it relates to the research project • Develop research questions from research interests in class Ethical Considerations and Human Subjects Protection • Watch Video: Human Subjects Research Training: Protecting Human Subjects • Conduct University approved human subjects protection training • Submit human subjects protection training certificate of completion Review of the Literature • Introduce elements of a Conceptual Framework – Linking theories back to research paradigms, subjectivity, political consciousness, and overall intentionality • Introduce elements of a Literature Review • Review of Library Resources and Database Investigation • Assign a Review of the Literature paper (continued)

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

275

Table 14.1  (continued) Date

Format

Course themes, discussions, and assignments

Module 6

Face-to-face

Module 7

Online Face-to-face

Methods of Data Collection • Discuss qualitative data collection methods and protocol • Discuss quantitative data collection methods and protocol •R  eflect on selected methods in alignment with research paradigm, subjectivity, and overall intentionality Individual Research Meetings with Professor Data Analysis and Findings • Discuss the essence of nonduality – How does this inform coding of data? – How does it help to construct themes of data? –R  eflect on how nonduality allows for greater meaning-making abilities in the context of research analysis Trustworthiness • Discuss techniques of trustworthiness •L  ink the act of trustworthiness with the nature of interdependence (e.g., member checks, peer expert panel) • Assign methodology paper Data Collection for Projects Data Collection for Projects Trustworthiness: Group Peer Review on Preliminary Findings •G  roup activity in classroom where students assess and analyze preliminary findings for one another •L  ink to nonduality as it relates to group discussions given the diverse interpretations of data Writing Day for Projects Writing Day for Projects Action Research Presentations Action Research Presentations • Final Action Research Projects Due • Research Journal Due

Module 8

Face-to-face Module 9

Module 10 Online Module 11 Online Module 12 Face-to-face

Module 13 Module 14 Module 15 Module 16

Online Online Face-to-face Face-to-face

References Barbezat, D., & Bush, M. (2014). Contemplative practices in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Belenky, M. F., & Stanton, A. V. (2000). Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation (pp. 71–102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ben-Shahar, B. (2009). The Pursuit of perfection: How to stop chasing perfection and start living a richer, happier life. New York City, NY: McGraw Hill. Brooks, D. (2019). The second mountain: The quest for a moral life. New York, NY: Random House. Brown, B. (2010). The gifts of imperfection. Center City, MN: Hazelden. Brown, B. (2018). Braving the wilderness. New York, NY: Penguin Random House. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

276  M. KRIKORIAN Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darder, A. (2012). Neoliberalism in the academic borderlands: An on-going struggle for equality and human rights. Educational Studies, 48(5), 412–426. Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P., & Torres, R. D. (2009). The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Flaherty, C. (2018). Mental health crisis for grad students. Retrieved from https:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/06/new-study-says-graduatestudents-mental-health-crisis. Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury (Original work published 1970). Giroux, H. (2012). Education and the crisis of public values: Challenging the assault on teachers, students, and public education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Goldstein, E. (2018). The academy is largely itself responsible for its own peril: Jill Lepore on writing the story of America, the rise and fall of the fact, and how women’s intellectual authority is undermined. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/ The-Academy-Is-Largely/245080. Greenberger, D., & Padesky, C. A. (1995). Mind over mood: A cognitive therapy treatment manual for clients. New York, NY: Guilford. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105– 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holly, M. L., Arhar, J. M., & Kasten, W. C. (2009). Action research for teachers (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Beacon/Pearson. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Jacob, P. (2003). Intentionality. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ intentionality/. James, W. (2017). What pragmatism means. Volendam, The Netherlands: LM Publishers. Kaufman, P. (2017). Critical contemplative pedagogy. Radical Pedagogy, 14(1), 1–20. Legg, C., & Hookway, C. (2019). Pragmatism. In J. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/spr2019/entries/pragmatism. Macedo, D., Dendrinos, B., & Gounari, P. (2015). Hegemony of English. New York, NY: Routledge (Original work published 2003). McLaren, P. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (5th ed.). New York: Longman. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J., & Associates. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as Transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

14  ADULT LEARNING AND CRITICAL CONTEMPLATIVE PEDAGOGY … 

277

Miller, W. M., C’de Baca, J., Matthews, D. B., & Wilbourne, P. L. (2011). Personal Values Card Sort. Retrieved from https://www.guilford.com/add/miller2/values. pdf?t (accessed 11 June 2018). Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462. New, J. (2015). Fragile mental health. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/05/incoming-students-emotionalhealth-all-time-low-survey-says. Noddings, N. (2012). Philosophy of education (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview. Palmer, P. (1983). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Palmer, P. J. (2004). The hidden wholeness: The journey toward an undivided life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, P. J. (2017). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, P. J., Zajonc, A., & Scribner, M. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Purpel, D. E. (1989). The moral and spiritual crisis of education: A curriculum for justice and compassion in education. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey. Purpel, D. E. (1999). Moral outrage in education. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Reis, R. (2019). Supporting students facing mental health challenges. ­Tomorrows-Professor eNewlsetter. Retrieved from https://tomprof.stanford.edu/posting/1686. Rivard, R. (2014). Gauging graduates’ well-being. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/06/gallup-surveys-graduatesgauge-whether-and-why-college-good-well-being. Rossi, A., & Braun, J. (Producer), & Rossi, A. (Director). (2014). CNN Films: Ivory Tower [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Paramount. Schmalz, J. (2017). Facing Anxiety: Students share how they cope and how campuses can help. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Facing-Anxiety/241968. Searle, J. R., & Willis, S. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: University Press. Soni, V. (2019). Op-Ed: There’s a loneliness crisis on U.S. college campuses. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oesoni-campus-student-loneliness-20190714-story.html. Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). The development of cognitive, learning, and language skills. Educational Psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Tolle, E. (2004). The power of now: A guide to spiritual enlightenment. Novato, CA: New World Library. Zajonc, A. (2010). Contemplative pedagogy in higher education: Toward a more reflective academy. Retrieved from http://www.arthurzajonc.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/06/ContemplativePedagogyinHigherEducationTowardaMore ReflectiveAcademy.pdf. Zajonc, A. (2013). Contemplative pedagogy: A quiet revolution in higher education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2013(134), 83–94. https://doi. org/10.1002/tl.20057.

278  M. KRIKORIAN

Recommended Reading Barbezat, D., & Bush, M. (2014). Contemplative practices in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P., & Torres, R. D. (2009). The critical pedagogy reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105– 117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow and Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Noddings, N. (2012). Philosophy of education (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview. Palmer, P. J., Zajonc, A., & Scribner, M. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

CHAPTER 15

Establishing Equitable Graduate Mentoring in Higher Education Lindsey Almond, Eric Hall and Elizabeth Devore

Key Terms and Definitions Critical Consciousness: An educational pedagogy that intends to liberate systemic inequity maintained and perpetuated by the processes, practices, and outcomes of interdependent systems. Equity: The notion that personal circumstances or backgrounds are not obstacles in the pursuit of achievement or skill. Mentoring: The process of a more experienced individual helping to develop a less experienced individual. Socialization: Identifies the acts that take place as an individual becomes integrated into an organizational culture. Transformative Learning Theory: The process of generating change through viewing an individual holistically through their characteristics and experiences.

L. Almond (*) · E. Hall · E. Devore  Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Hall e-mail: [email protected] E. Devore e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_15

279

280  L. ALMOND ET AL.

Graduate-level higher education is increasingly salient for success in today’s society as career requirements continue to expect higher levels of education and training. Individuals of all backgrounds enter masters and doctoral programs that challenge them intellectually and psychologically with intentions of furthering their knowledge and skill mastery, career achievement or advancement, and discipline-specific socialization (Brill, Balcanoff, Land, Gogarty, & Turner, 2014; Wunsch, 1994b). Likewise, there have been major increases in the enrollment of underrepresented women and minoritized students in graduate programs (Okahana & Zhou, 2018). The increase in the number of diverse graduate students requires careful consideration of their goals, such as the utilization of education as a tool for social justice and representation in education (Kendricks, Nedunuri, & Arment, 2013). In efforts to assist graduate students in achieving these goals, knowledgeable and ­well-trained faculty mentors are needed. This chapter explores mentoring literature at the graduate level and establishes program recommendations employing social justice and equity lenses so that the process of mentoring becomes one of critical consciousness. We utilize transformative learning theory to help readers understand the underlying influences and aspects that encompass the structure of successful mentoring (Mezirow, 1997). Specifically, we focus on why mentoring should be valued, the facets of diversity that can impact mentoring, and the mentee and mentor perspective of mentoring. By exploring both the mentee and mentor perspectives, readers will gain a holistic perspective on the benefits of mentoring to assess how individual backgrounds and cultures influence mentoring. We then recommend a program model based on these aspects through the lens of transformative learning theory. The purpose of transformative learning theory is for individuals to critically assess assumptions that shape one’s experiences to become more open, inclusive, and reflective in their process of exploration and learning (Mezirow, 1997). Therefore, utilizing this core theory for the recommended program is intended to develop a mentoring dynamic focused on experiencing discovery, self-reflection, and critical discourse to create more equitable mentor–mentee relationships (Mezirow, 1997). Faculty mentors provide support, advice, and opportunities to help develop students into knowledgeable professionals and scholars and are a critical component of the graduate educational experience (Noy & Ray, 2012). More specifically, mentoring provides students with a guide throughout their graduate experience to help them gain research experience, professionalism, and networking opportunities (Golden, Bogan, Brown, Onwukwe, & Stewart, 2017; Kumar & Johnson, 2017; Noy & Ray, 2012). A strong mentoring program results in increased retention rates, higher levels of graduation, and post-graduation well-being (Brill et al., 2014; Golden et al., 2017). This attention to support, guidance, and retention is especially important for minoritized students (Kendricks et al., 2013; Li, Malin, & Hackman, 2018).

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

281

Mentors are similar to faculty advisors; however, within this chapter mentors are regarded as individuals who also form a personal relationship with their mentee and may not necessarily be their programmatic advisor. Outside of family and peer support, faculty mentors are one of the most important factors in a graduate student’s degree completion (Berg, 2016; Brill et al., 2014). Many mentoring relationships happen naturally with mentors and mentees pairing up due to mutual interests (Wunsch, 1994a). It is generally expected that mentors automatically know how to support the personal and academic growth of their mentees to achieve high success (Scott, 1992; Wunsch, 1994b); however, many mentors have no training on how to effectively mentor graduate students with attention given to minoritized students. We argue special attention should be given to minoritized students due to reported lack of support, limited or no sense of belonging, and lack of representation within higher education (Wunsch, 1994b). Noy and Ray (2012) also report minoritized students experience isolation, marginalization, and alienation within higher education. As retaining minority students should be an important concern of institutions, one way we suggest doing this is to provide an equitable and inclusive environment through transformative mentoring practices (LaVant, Anderson, & Tiggs, 1997). The mentoring program model presented in this chapter is designed with the intent of increasing retention and success for minoritized students to hopefully increase retention (Brill et al., 2014). It is time to develop an infrastructure that supports faculty in their mentoring endeavors and benefits the mentee, mentor, and department (Wunsch, 1994b). In order to design a program aimed at improving the environment in higher education for minoritized individuals and supporting faculty to do so, equitable and inclusive practices must be assessed.

Value of Equitable and Inclusive Mentoring Practices Within higher education, mentoring can largely influence the success of a graduate student. As experienced individuals who guide students seeking knowledge and expertise, mentors provide support and insight into personal, academic, and career development (Coles, 2011; Johnson, 2013; Montgomery, 2017; Phelps-Ward & DeAngelo, 2016). Mentoring has the capability to shape a student’s entire graduate experience, including various aspects of academic and personal development (Kumar, Johnson, & Hardemon, 2013). Successful mentoring can provide a personal and valuable relationship between a student and faculty member that fosters support, shared knowledge, and the ability to overcome challenges (Phelps-Ward & DeAngelo, 2016). These mentorships can also influence the student in their drive, motivation, satisfaction, and future ambitions (Coles, 2011; Kumar et al., 2013; O’Meara, Knudsen, & Jones, 2013). Mentoring is not only instrumental to graduate students, it is an intricate process composed of multiple components: reflection to assess mentee needs,

282  L. ALMOND ET AL.

establishment and maintenance to form mentoring expectations, and the reassessment of goals (Montgomery, 2017). Though this process of mentoring seems logical, not all mentorships provide the same positive opportunities for all students. In order to work to provide a process with positive opportunities that is equitable for all individuals, consideration should be given to each individual based on their characteristics and experiences. In doing this, a mentoring program would aim to encourage an equitable teaching and learning environment for all involved through mentor–mentee connection with opportunities to share, explore, and expand on experiences through care and collaboration (Southern, 2007). As college has historically been a path for individuals from higher and moderate economic status and resources (U.S. Bureau of Labor, 2016), minoritized students may be educationally underserved and, therefore, less socialized into academia resulting in a collegiate environment that was not developed nor currently supports a student’s connection to a sense of belonging to campus or institution (Phelps-Ward & DeAngelo, 2016), resulting in historical inequity in student retention, persistence, and graduation outcomes (Johnson, 2013; Kendricks et al., 2013; Rasheem, Alleman, Mushonga, Anderson, & Vakalahi, 2018; Wunsch, 1994b). For graduate students navigating this collegiate environment, inclusive mentoring practices with minoritized students demonstrate a commitment to institution-wide student retention and can help remove barriers to achieving academic success (Johnson, 2013). Therefore, in order to develop a mentoring program to meet individual needs and benefit all students and faculty involved, careful consideration must be given to diversity, inclusion, and the perspectives of all parties. Equitable Graduate Mentoring In higher education, departments determine whether faculty are capable of fostering student development through mentoring. Generally, it is the department’s perspective on mentoring that determines how students are underdeveloped within the program based and who is deemed capable of fostering their development (Wunsch, 1994b). Though there are many aspects of diversity within higher education, mentoring research generally focuses on race and gender; therefore, this chapter will also focus on these aspects for minoritized groups. While all students are regarded as requiring development, women and minoritized individuals are typically less supported in their developmental process than white men (Wunsch, 1994b). Strong mentoring programs attempt to help all individuals, but especially women and minoritized individuals, to accomplish their goals and prepare them as professionals (Johnson, 2013). Many departments and colleges are aware of the importance of mentoring programs for minoritized individuals yet have not created a mentoring strategy that considers the specific needs and desires of these students holistically.

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

283

If departments are cognizant of creating a supportive and inclusive environment for a diverse set of individuals, students feel more comfortable engaging with various faculty (LaVant et al., 1997). When mentoring strategies provide positive supports and environments, minoritized students are twice as likely to complete their program and have higher GPAs (Coles, 2011). Research has shown diverse mentoring across racial, ethnic, gender, or other backgrounds may be both challenging and rewarding as it allows for both the mentee and mentor to engage in mutual learning and understanding (Li et al., 2018). Black minority students report greater challenges in higher education such as tokenism, isolation, and biased perceptions about their abilities; consequently, faculty awareness of these experiences can aid in their support of each student’s academic and personal development and learning (Mondisa & McComb, 2018). Pertaining to the challenges faced by women, research typically shows that women report being less satisfied in their mentoring experiences than men (Barnes, Williams, & Stassen, 2012). Faculty interested in mentoring graduate students should be conscientious of how a student’s background, experiences, and identity can shape and influence their learning, academic, and mentoring experiences (Mondisa & McComb, 2018). This thoughtfulness will hopefully be fostered as cultural and diversity awareness increase. Though many faculties are open to minoritized students, some graduate students report a struggle to find a mentor with whom they feel comfortable as there is a general lack of diverse faculty members (Brill et al., 2014). Mentees have reported concerns that mentors will not provide a warm, nurturing environment for them until they prove they are worthy (Li et al., 2018). Mentors, however, fear raising topics related to culture and background, of which they are not familiar (Li et al., 2018). To overcome these challenges, mentors may need diversity training that can help them better understand how minoritized individuals may have differing values, opinions, and worldviews (Mondisa & McComb, 2018). Before a training can be discussed, an understanding of the perspectives of both mentees and mentors will aid in thoroughly developing a diversity training that supports an equitable mentoring program. Student Perspective Student and faculty perspectives about mentoring vary with students viewing mentoring in terms of mentors providing personal encouragement (Yob & Crawford, 2012). Mentoring programs provide benefits to students by cultivating a sense of control, competence, and effectiveness in their roles (Wunsch, 1994b). Literature on student’s perspectives, particularly women and Black students, on the trajectory of successful or unsuccessful mentorships provide insight on the mentee’s perspective of equitable and inclusive mentoring.

284  L. ALMOND ET AL.

Attributes of a successful mentorship. Equitable and inclusive mentorship for students begins with a thoughtful matching process (Berg, 2016). Notably, students who select their mentor have been shown to have better mentor–mentee relationships compared to those who were assigned a mentor (Barnes et al., 2012); this may be partially due to students seeking out individuals of similar personalities or shared interests (Scott, 1992). Men and white students routinely feel more included and resilient as a result of their access to same-gender, same-race mentors (Mondisa & McComb, 2018). There is conflicting research on a same-gender versus different-gender mentorship. Some research favors same-gender mentoring which can specifically help women by decreasing the possibility of sexual tension or harassment and increasing connection with a mentor (Rasheem et al., 2018; Scott, 1992). Regardless of mentor gender, women report desiring a mentor who values them, shows integrity, and has similar interests (Noy & Ray, 2012). As a result of these gender and racial differences, it may be especially important for minoritized students to have an active voice in the selection of their mentor. Beyond sharing similar interests, there are many characteristics of a mentor that students desire. For example, empirical research on effective mentorships suggests that supportive mentors demonstrate good communication; show compassion and empathy; offer encouragement; engage in collaboration; and exhibit an orientation to service (O’Meara et al., 2013; Yob & Crawford, 2012). By creating a supportive and caring environment, mentors can emphasize their responsivity and consistent efforts in the development of Black minority students and pave the way for a trusting relationship to be built (LaVant et al., 1997). Trust allows both the mentor and mentee to explore the possibilities of their mentorship without the fear of exploitation, leading to quality mentorships that foster learning, increases in work, a sense of empowerment, and the desire for further connection (Li et al., 2018; Southern, 2007; Yob & Crawford, 2012). In the development of these mentoring relationships, Black minority students respond positively toward trust and openness, allowing them to feel confident and empowered within academia (Chan, 2018; Rasheem et al., 2018). Students further posit that quality mentors should be accessible to their mentees through office hours, programming events, and a consistent channel of communication (Yob & Crawford, 2012). Having multiple modes for communication may increase the number of interactions between mentees and mentors. Fostering positive interactions and support between faculty and minoritized students is important to not only allow students to feel accepted but help them to build social capital and increase their resiliency (Mondisa & McComb, 2018). Increased acceptance, social capital, and resilience can aid in creating an equitable environment for all. Lastly, effective mentorships set expectations for the mentoring relationship that attribute the importance and benefits of the relationship for both

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

285

the mentee and mentor’s success. Student surveys on the effectiveness of faculty mentorship cite a strong correlation between academic success and the view of a positive learning environment from a mentorship (Kendricks et al., 2013). Through a composed process of mentoring, mentees can find mentoring success through goal determination, realistic expectations, gains in knowledge, and personal development (Wunsch, 1994a). For minoritized groups, such as women and Black students, this process of mentoring has been shown to have even more of a significant impact on academic and career development (Berg, 2016). Attributes of an unsuccessful mentorship. Occasionally, mentor relationships turn sour, resulting in unsuccessful mentorship for either one or both parties involved. As previously discussed, when the consideration of individual mentor selection is lost, mentees report unsuccessful mentorships approximately half of the time (Berg, 2016). Assigned mentorships lack the informal connection and structure that occurs through natural mentor selection (Phelps-Ward & DeAngelo, 2016; Scott, 1992). Also, the mentee’s control of their academic future may be lost in assigned mentoring models; this may be especially harmful for women and Black students who already have many barriers in the academic community (Golden et al., 2017; Rasheem et al., 2018). Although each mentorship is unique, students often report their mentoring experience to fall short of their ideals (Barnes et al., 2012). One component students report as often lacking is regularly scheduled meetings or communication; without discussion of progress and goals, students commonly feel unprepared and thus unsuccessful (Wunsch, 1994a). Other aspects contributing to unsuccessful mentorships include inadequate guidance in materials and information for degree completion and a lack of formal mentor guidance (Brill et al., 2014). Further, student perceptions of guidance can lead to unsuccessful mentoring. In particular, minoritized graduate students may perceive mentors as less invested in their work and less likely to be instrumental in their development as a scholar (Noy & Ray, 2012). Therefore, communication can be a determining factor in the success of a mentoring relationship; when mentor–mentee communication is poor, there is room for distrust and confusion to emerge (Yob & Crawford, 2012). Faculty Perspective Few studies focus on the faculty view of mentoring; however, what has been conducted suggests faculty view mentoring in terms of improving student work (Yob & Crawford, 2012). Faculty report finding reward in helping prepare students to become successful professionals within their field (Coles, 2011). They also recognize mentoring as a method to allow for student–faculty interaction, a way to increase retention, and a way to positively influence student’s academic achievement (Coles, 2011; Johnson, 2013).

286  L. ALMOND ET AL.

Consideration of successful and unsuccessful mentorships from the faculty viewpoint may aid in creating equitable mentoring programs for graduate students by compelling faculty to appreciate the challenges of minoritized students, providing enriching relationships that will impact diverse sets of students. Attributes of a successful mentorship. Faculty mentors feel successful mentorships are formed through shared respect and similar goals (Brill et al., 2014). For equitable, transformative mentorships, shared respect and goals will require mentors to understand mentees previous experiences and backgrounds. Successful mentors in themselves are driven, have vision, have energy, and feel a commitment to the mentee and the program (Brill et al., 2014). Mentors play several essential roles, such as being a reliable source of information, a departmental and occupational socializer, an advocate, and a role model (Barnes et al., 2012). Six significant relationship dimensions have been linked to student satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their mentoring relationship including intellectual-professional development, interest in students, professionalism, personality, advising style, and accessibility (Barnes et al., 2012); we also suggest the sense of inclusion provided by a mentor as an additional dimension. As previously mentioned, having a genuine interest in the mentee’s work and personal welfare plays a large role in the formulation of a successful mentor (Noy & Ray, 2012). Successful, equitable mentorships can be accomplished through two of the most important mentor responsibilities: communication and honest feedback (Brill et al., 2014). Being a mentor requires skills such as attentive listening, assertiveness, feedback methods, emotional competence, and positive reinforcement techniques (Wunsch, 1994a). Through exhibiting emotional competence, faculty mentors can have increased confidence in their mentee to work skillfully to accomplish common goals, while also increasing the level of mentee trust (O’Meara et al., 2013). As mentors become more confident in their mentee’s abilities, engaging in co-publishing activities with the mentee has shown to support opportunities for academic advancement and networking (Brill et al., 2014). Understanding mentees holistically based on their background and experiences may help to increase this confidence. The skills, traits, and time required of a mentor often demand additional effort; therefore, annual recognition of successful mentors can help make faculty feel appreciated for their time and commitment (Brill et al., 2014). However, the most significant reward is often observed in the process of mentoring by assisting graduate students as they grow, mature, and become professional scholars in the field (Brill et al., 2014). Attributes of an unsuccessful mentorship. One of the common misconceptions of mentoring that leads to unsuccessful mentorships is that

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

287

mentoring requires no preparation and is simply extra advising (Brown, Davis, & McClendon, 1999). This view of mentoring is a disservice to the mentors who could spend valuable time and resources gaining skills and attributes that would help them become more successful and inclusive mentors (Brown et al., 1999). Faculty often receive little to no training about the technical aspects of mentoring and are rarely trained to support student diversity or psychosocial development (O’Meara et al., 2013). Without suitable training and structure, mentors tend to fall back on the tasks and roles associated with mentoring rather than focusing on the learning of the individual student (Brill et al., 2014). Current literature reinforces the importance of graduate mentoring (Coles, 2011; Johnson, 2013; Kumar et al., 2013; Montgomery, 2017; Phelps-Ward & DeAngelo, 2016; O’Meara et al., 2013), especially within a mentoring program that is supportive of all graduate students (Johnson, 2013; LaVant et al., 1997; Li et al., 2018) but particularly women and Black students (Johnson, 2013; Wunsch, 1994b). Research suggests mentoring is most successful when both students and faculty feel they are benefiting from the mentorship (Scott, 1992; Yob & Crawford, 2012). Mentees want to feel a sense of control over their mentorship (Barnes et al., 2012; Scott, 1992), and mentors want to feel like they are positively influencing the development of their mentees (Yob & Crawford, 2012). Communication between mentors and mentees is an imperative aspect of a mentorship that allows both parties to understand expectations and form a relationship (Brill et al., 2014; Wunsch, 1994a; Yob & Crawford, 2012). Most importantly, research shows mentorships should be equitable to support students regardless of demographic or personal factors and characteristics and to allow them opportunities for success (Coles, 2011; Johnson, 2013; LaVant et al., 1997). Given these attributes of successful and unsuccessful mentorship for both faculty and students, specifically considering minoritized students at p ­ rimarily white public institutions, a mentoring program that is valuable for all parties is proposed. Specifically, we present a program that will aid in developing graduate students and faculty without adding unnecessary additional work for either party. This will be done through a multilevel mentoring program based on transformative learning theory that is equitable and inclusive for all individuals.

Transformative Learning Theory Jack Mezirow developed transformative learning theory within the field of adult education (2018). Early stages of transformative learning theory focused on learning within a critical lens where learners reflected on their assumptions and biases (Mezirow, 2018). These assumptions and biases are a learner’s point of reference that influence their thinking, beliefs, and actions. Through transformative learning theory, individuals reflect on and mold their

288  L. ALMOND ET AL.

thoughts, beliefs, and actions through a conscious lens and is the process of generating changes in learning through holistic examination of individual characteristics, beliefs, and experiences (e.g., values, feelings, background; Mezirow, 1997), leading to individual and societal growth. The goal of transformative learning theory is to engage in social change by eliminating oppressive practices, creating change among socioeconomic structures, and modifying traditional norms to allow for equitable communication and learning among all students (Mezirow, 2018). Mentoring within higher education is a unique form of learning that influences an individual’s personal and academic growth. Through this lens of transformative learning theory, we argue that in order for the mentor and mentee to build a comfortable and successful connection, barriers must be broken down to allow each person to be seen holistically as a product of their environments and experiences. By taking a deliberate approach to reshape assumptions and biases, research suggests the potential to positively influence the teaching and learning process within mentorships for minoritized students (Southern, 2007). Mentoring In an attempt to evolve the intentionality and inclusivity of mentoring, transformative learning theory can be turned into action and progress through four stages of learning: (1) expand on the existing viewpoint, (2) establish new viewpoints, (3) transform viewpoints, and (4) transform habits and assumptions through critical reflection of biases (Mezirow, 1997). By utilizing this transformative perspective of learning, mentors and mentees can be better prepared to connect with each other as holistic beings, made up of an intricate network of experiences. Specifically, these stages of learning can be used to promote respect and communication in mentorship by encouraging conversations in an environment established through mutual learning and discovery rather than judgment and bias. Through the lens of transformative learning, a mentorship can bridge the distance between a student and teacher, developing a safe space for vulnerability and granting them the authority to influence each other’s lives (Southern, 2007). Notably, mentors need to be vulnerable to freely share the challenges they have encountered and what they have learned about themselves through their own journey of teaching and learning to develop a relationship of truthfulness and trust with a mentee (Southern, 2007). Such mentorship will help to meet some of the aforementioned need for trust beneficial to women and Black minority students. Based on transformative learning, both the mentor and mentee should grant authority based on respect they hold for each other to create a space where they can belong and participate together since this requires the self-confidence and awareness to welcome the knowledge and expertise that each will bring to the mentorship

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

289

(Southern, 2007). Transformative learning is an appropriate approach that aligns with mentoring minoritized students (i.e., women and Black minorities) within a social justice and equitable view of mentorships. Mentoring requires two people to recognize and connect with each other, acknowledging each other holistically as a product of their experiences and environments. This close relationship can help reshape assumptions and biases that may influence teaching and learning within the mentoring relationship (Southern, 2007). Altering negative assumptions and biases can reconstruct mentoring programs for Black minorities, women, and other underrepresented groups. Mezirow’s work stems from Kuhn’s paradigm, Freire’s conscientization, and Haberma’s domains of learning, which are all centered around inclusivity and changing a traditional or potentially oppressive way of thinking (Kitchenham, 2008). The mentoring program recommended in the next section was developed through the lens of transformative learning theory and structured as multiple phases intended to promote successful mentorships for minority graduate students. The recommended program provides details of best practices based on literature and offers suggestions from the authors for practitioners to implement.

Mentoring Program Structure Throughout the research, there is an importance placed on multilevel mentoring, especially for minoritized students. Within this structure, multilevel mentoring is defined as a program made up of peer involvement, faculty trainings, mentor selection, and regular evaluations developed to meet the needs of minority individuals through the lens of transformative learning theory. In developing such a mentoring program, literature highlights that women and Black minority individuals desire a transformative mentoring experience that allows them to more easily develop and adjust to not only the academic environment, but also beyond higher education as well (Taylor, 2017). Transformative mentoring experiences involve an aspect of openness, trust, and understanding between mentors and mentees as they are willing to overcome and discuss differences in order to form a vulnerable and accepting mentorship (Southern, 2007). The proposed program strives to create inclusive and equitable mentorships based on learning for all individuals regardless of position or background, to bring a holistic context to each individual (Southern, 2007). Within the structure of the mentoring program, the authors recommend peer mentoring for incoming students, faculty training, a process for mentor selection, and a process for mentor evaluation and recognition. This structure can be divided based on the student perspective (see Fig. 15.1 in Appendix) and the faculty perspective (see Fig. 15.2 in Appendix) though this multilevel mentoring program runs only if both parties work toward a successful mentorship. Full details of each phase of the proposed multilevel mentoring program are addressed.

290  L. ALMOND ET AL.

Phases of Multilevel Mentoring Peer-to-peer mentoring. The proposed program structure includes peer mentoring to help reduce academic anxiety, produced in part by individualistic cultural expectations. Grounded in transformative learning theory, this suggested structure enables other graduate students to aid in transforming their peer’s mind-sets, perspectives, and preconceived notions about the academic community and how it interacts with minoritized students (Mezirow, 2018). Peer-to-peer mentoring can play a fundamental role in introducing a new student into higher education by sharing campus and departmental norms (Barnes et al., 2012; Van Maanen, 1976). Peer mentors can be a critical support to help acclimate minoritized groups of students within academia (Good, Halpin, & Halpin, 2000). This personalization provides support to an equitable start in new graduate student’s academic experience as it assists in leveling the starting point for all students and removing barriers that may contribute to failure. Through this lens, peer mentors are able to connect incoming students to various college networks such as professors, other students, academic supports, and professional organizations. In this proposed model of peer mentoring, the mentor is a graduate student who has already been in the program for at least a year and has adjusted to the collegiate climate. The goal for peer mentoring is for mentors to instill confidence and support in their mentees by creating an inclusive learning environment. Within this form of mentoring, peer mentors are able to help their mentees better understand the objectives and expectations of the program, as well as the faculty and mentoring strategies that will lead to an effective mentorship (Wunsch, 1994a). By allowing students a safe environment to express desires, concerns, and misunderstandings, students who are not privy to typical academic privilege will be better set up for success. The overarching target for peer mentoring is to create a transformative learning environment involving socialization, interpersonal gains, inclusion, and increases in retention. The authors suggest providing new graduate students with a peer mentoring matching system that allows the program or department to gain a sense of who the new graduate student is and what their preferences are in a peer mentor. Within this matching system, new students indicate their name, gender, country of origin, state or province of origin, city of origin, previous education, research interests, and languages in which they proficiently speak and understand. The student would then indicate their preferences in these same categories that they have for their peer mentor in the order of importance to them. The graduate program would then evaluate this form to pair new and veteran graduate students within the program based on the preferences provided by the new graduate student, thus giving the new graduate student control within the academic environment to increase their sense of comfort. As graduate students of color are more likely than White graduate students to have their academic career devalued and derailed by marginalization, isolation, and negative perceptions, it is imperative these students especially feel in control of their academic future (Berg, 2016; Noy & Ray, 2012).

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

291

Faculty training. Before discussing faculty–student mentoring, an imperative component within the mentoring program structure is faculty training. As mentioned, faculty typically receive little to no training on proper mentoring techniques and are not likely to obtain training regarding emotional support or cultural and diversity awareness (O’Meara et al., 2013). We argue that in order to create an environment conducive to equitable mentoring practices, faculty mentors should be trained on both successful mentoring components and diversity. A specific and structured training program for faculty mentors based on transformative learning will enhance the positive effects of successful mentoring (e.g., increased retention, higher GPAs, post-graduation success; Brill et al., 2014). Though both trainings are structured as o ­ ne-time occurrences within this suggested program, graduate program directors should review the department and individual mentoring climate to evaluate if a mentor needs a refresher course. Successful mentoring.  As faculty spend much of their time working on ­tenure-track promotions, little time and effort is left for understanding how to successfully mentor (Li et al., 2018). This said, a manual of mentoring training should be supplied to faculty mentors following a one-time formal training session to allow for a reference of instruction. Focusing on mentoring as a holistic process, through the perspective of transformative learning, will aid faculty mentors in connecting all the pieces of successful mentoring to revolutionize their current practices (Hooks, 1994). To transform their mentoring expectations, reflection upon their perspective will allow mentors the ability to think critically about their biases, expectations, and experiences. As noted by empirical literature, mentors and mentees have differing views on the purpose of mentoring which may influence their expectations of the mentorship (Yob & Crawford, 2012). Expectations of the mentor that are typically universal are role model, socializer, supporter, and counselor (Noy & Ray, 2012). As a mentor holding multiple roles, it is imperative mentor training address the departmental rules and considerations regarding mentoring, as well as program requirements. How students understand departmental norms is indicative of the goals that will be set, the level of departmental and networking socialization that occurs, and the ultimate success or failure of the student (Barnes et al., 2012). Mentors often view themselves as academic guides and supporters; however, faculty mentors are generally unprepared to support students within their socioemotional development (O’Meara et al., 2013). Training on verbal and nonverbal communication techniques can aid mentors as they attempt to guide their mentees through the program and acclimate them into the professional field. The skills involved in providing constructive criticism and positive feedback are imperative to a mentor (Brill et al., 2014). Mentors may need to be reflective during the process of enhancing their communication skills as some phrasing or tone may be interpreted by minoritized students differently than white men students who have had previous experience within the typical academic verbiage.

292  L. ALMOND ET AL.

Though each mentor may choose to provide feedback differently (e.g., in-text changes versus overall comments or verbal versus written), the ability to do so proficiently and in a way that propels student thought and development comes through recognizing positive and negative communication. This supportive and thoughtfully provided feedback will aid in retaining students, especially those who are minoritized (LaVant et al., 1997). Successful mentors will be trained in speaking their truth, respectfully disagreeing, and allowing uncomfortable conversations to occur without negatively reacting (Yob & Crawford, 2012). Though this may be difficult, it will open the door for mentors and mentees to address differences and will better allow the mentor to understand the specific needs of the mentee. This is specifically seen within the concerns that minoritized students hold pertaining to stereotypes and mentor sensitivity (Li et al., 2018). Faculty should receive a more in-depth training on how to positively transform their preconceived notions as discussed within the next aspect of our proposed mentoring structure. Diversity.  Diversity and inclusion are powerful elements for helping all students feel accepted and understood within the academic environment. As mentors attempt to respect and address cultural diversity within academia, they are confronted with restrictions due to a lack of training, knowledge, and understanding (Hooks, 1994). Empirical literature on mentoring supports the need for mentor training regarding how to provide an inclusive environment, women, and Black minority preferences, empathy, tolerance, openness, and viewing mentoring through strengths-based approaches. Within a grounding of transformative learning, diversity training will allow faculty to explore their beliefs about minoritized students and hopefully alter any negative notions to better form successful mentorships with all students. Promoting an inclusive mentoring environment encompasses all subsequent diversity training. If mentors are to adequately help develop their graduate mentees, an important aspect is recognizing that there will be both rewards and challenges while trying to overcome assumptions and biases (Hooks, 1994; Mezirow, 1997). In order to best nurture student development, mentors should be aware that women are more likely to seek out mentorships that will not only advance their academic and career goals, but also support them emotionally as well (Li et al., 2018). Cognizant of showing empathy, tolerance, and openness toward students as holistic beings who are built on their background and experiences will allow mentees to feel more welcomed (Chan, 2018; LaVant et al., 1997; Li et al., 2018; Rasheem et al., 2018). As previously mentioned, faculty may hold biases that influence how they relate toward their mentees. However, once faculty mentors access and transform their perceptions they will be more capable of exhibiting these qualities, likely making the task of navigating cultural or demographic differences easier (Li et al., 2018). It is essential faculty mentors be provided

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

293

diversity training that encompasses these aspects to prepare them as they begin forming successful mentorships (Phelps-Ward & DeAngelo, 2016). Orientation.  Before even considering mentorships, new graduate students are often faced with many novel experiences upon their entrance into the academic community. Beginning of the school year, departmental orientations are usually intended to help students become acclimated to the school, department, peers, and faculty; the authors propose this also as a venue to begin the faculty-­ student mentoring process. It is important to view mentoring as a process in this regard, because it is more than merely an academic relationship between two individuals, it is an intricate experience shared by two unique people that will hopefully be mutually beneficial in many ways (Wunsch, 1994a). Orientation day should be a required, but informal, opportunity for students to learn about the program. To help students and faculty form personal relationships, it is important they have an opportunity to engage with each other outside of the classroom (Phelps-Ward & DeAngelo, 2016). By allowing faculty to interact throughout orientation day, students and faculty will be provided an opportunity to interact and view each other as holistic individuals rather than purely academic beings, ultimately launching mutual openness and acceptance (Hooks, 1994). With respect to faculty member’s time, each faculty member should be required to sign up for a slot to present information pertaining to their research interests, personal background, and any additional information they find relevant. This structured introduction to the mentoring process allows students and faculty to become better familiarized with each other so that students can start the process of choosing a mentor over the course of their first semester. Choosing a mentor.  Based on literature, we recommend graduate students be given the freedom of choice in selecting their mentors based on personal preferences, professional career goals, and research interests. As previously mentioned, within this context, a mentor is a faculty member with whom a graduate student forms a personal relationship with; though this can be the student’s advisor, it may not be. Advisors should be a department supplied resource to all students to provide departmental and collegiate requirement information; mentors should be a student-sought support who can provide academic, personal, and socioemotional development opportunities that enrich the student’s graduate experience. Students should be encouraged to schedule one-on-one meetings with faculty whom they felt an academic or personal connection with at the orientation. Within one-on-one meetings, mentors should discuss their teaching philosophy, communication style, and general expectations for the possible mentorship; mentors may also express how their experiences have led them to this form of mentorship or academic interest. Likewise, mentees should

294  L. ALMOND ET AL.

be prepared to ask the faculty member questions regarding aspects such as research opportunities and expectations, hands-on versus hands-off mentoring approaches, and how their interests fit within the scope of the faculty member’s interests. The department can prepare a document regarding such topics to help their graduate students in considering important questions they may want to ask or discuss with a potential mentor, such as what method of communication is typically used by a mentor or what personal and professional goals the mentor would likely work with them to set. This meeting should initiate a conversation regarding student or faculty concerns as literature has shown minoritized students worry about negative stereotypes influencing their interpersonal academic relationships (Li et al., 2018; Noy & Ray, 2012). Documentation regarding these topics may help graduate students to feel empowered to take control of their mentor selection and provide them a place to start if this experience is new to them. If faculty feel a potential fit with the graduate student, they can recommend the student talk to their current and/or previous mentees to get a firsthand take on the mentoring experience. Once students feel comfortable with their decision, a conversation should be had between the potential mentor–mentee pair to discuss their fit; if there is not a fit, the student’s advisor should help socialize the student with other faculty members within the department. Based on information gathered from interactions with potential mentors, a ranking system may be employed so that students can select their top mentor selections. This type of selection process will help to avoid any issues associated with isolation, marginalization, direct rejection, and aid program coordinators in reassigning students to mentors if necessary (Scott, 1992). The mentorship.  Relationships between mentors and mentees will look different for each pair; pairs should be guided by transformative learning with clear expectations that are developed early in the mentorship and assessed regularly. Through the lens of transformative learning theory, and based on the literature of successful mentoring, communication is key (O’Meara et al., 2013; Yob & Crawford, 2012). In order to know, accept, and build upon individual backgrounds, mentees and mentors need to be able to openly and respectfully communicate with each other (Hooks, 1994; Mezirow, 2018; Taylor, 2017). Once mentors and mentees begin their mentoring relationship, a tone for communication should be established and carried throughout the duration of the mentorship. Mentoring relationships should begin with setting clear expectations, which includes determining frequency and modes of communication, goals, and workload. After selections are made, as the mentee–mentor relationship develops, and throughout the mentoring relationship, both the mentee and the mentor should conduct regular ­self-reflection and maintenance (Montgomery, 2017). Expectations for mentees and mentors should be readdressed through individual and mentor–mentee paired reflections in order to reassess and address any necessary changes needed to assure success for both individuals. This review process is also an opportunity for recognition of the important role faculty serve as mentors.

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

295

Review plan.  In order to reflect, assess, and address the needs and expectations within each mentee–mentor pair, a review plan is a necessary piece of any mentoring program. We recommend a review system that encourages selfreflection for each individual within the mentorship. The purpose of a mentor review form is to assess the overall mentorship climate and mentee’s achievement, while the purpose of a mentee review form is to assess the current skills, knowledge, and comfort of the student according to their holistic goals. The mentor review of a mentee should include elements of s­elf-reflection of their role in the relationship as well as feedback for the student, which should include offering words of encouragement and areas for improvement. This type of review would allow mentors to assess their mentee’s abilities and knowledge on a scale of accomplishment while also providing faculty mentors the opportunity to provide open-ended feedback using a strengths-based approach. The mentee’s review of their mentor should include similar elements as the mentor form, including opportunities for self-reflection, assessment of aspects of their mentoring that works well, and any necessary alterations. The review should cover a comprehensive overview of the student’s involvement in research, development through the program, feelings of inclusivity, service to the department and field, self-evaluation, and a mentor evaluation. In an attempt to support students in their mentoring endeavors without fear of retaliation, we suggest students send their form to the department head or graduate program officer that oversees graduate studies. This will be beneficial in circumstances where intervention or reassignment of mentees is necessary for student success; similarly, if issues of mistreatment or marginalization have occurred, the presiding program head should address the matter directly. This review process is intended to help foster a mode of accountability for both parties, as well as determine if other measures of intervention are necessary for unsuccessful mentorships or further development of the mentee. Reward and recognition.  Recognizing that faculty have busy schedules between their roles as teachers, researchers, and mentors, on top of their personal lives, developing a reward system that recognizes mentors for their work can serve as an incentive to aid in effective and inclusive mentoring. To avoid creating more work for other departmental units, awards for outstanding mentorship can be included in award ceremonies, end-of-year, or ­end-of-semester events that are already developed at the program, department, college, or university level. Further, nominations for outstanding mentor awards may be assessed based on mentee reviews of mentors. To incite reflection in mentees, review forms should set students up to offer feedback about their mentors that will offer information to be used in award assessment criteria, which is then reviewed by a nominations committee and assessed based on a common rubric. An example of a rubric developed based on the student review form, with criteria including advocating for students, encouraging students personally and professionally, and committing to equitable practices, teaching, research, and/or leadership is provided (see Table 15.1 in Appendix).

296  L. ALMOND ET AL.

Conclusion and Discussion The intent of this chapter was to discuss the current literature on ­graduatelevel mentoring to form a suggested program of mentoring that encompasses aspects of social justice and equity in order to benefit a wide range of mentors and mentees. We present transformative learning theory as key to the development of a mentoring process designed to generate positive change and development and help shed light on assumptions and biases individuals may hold that influence the mentorship. Through this perspective, a s­ tructure of mentoring was formed that recognizes, expands upon, and transforms assumptions, biases, and current levels of awareness through training, interactions, and communication. Mentoring plays an important role in a graduate student’s academic, professional, and social development; this program is designed to support faculty mentors in their ability to help graduate students succeed regardless of background as well as recognize the significance of mentor efforts (Kumar et al., 2013). The multilevel model of mentoring allows new graduate students to become acclimated to the norms and expectations of the graduate program, while also helping to alleviate some of the pressures of individualistic academic achievement. The orientation day is set up in a similar way that attempts to ease students into the academic environment in an informal way that supports student–faculty engagement. These beginning levels of mentoring are intended to provide each student the opportunity to connect with peers and faculty inside and outside of the academic setting to set the student up for success in their search and experience with student–faculty mentoring. Mentees and mentors are encouraged to get to know each other and view one another holistically so that there is more cohesion within the mentorship. The review and reward plans are forms of accountability and recognition. When mentorships succeed throughout this process, they can supply a critical bond between a student and faculty member, promoting support, shared knowledge, and the ability to overcome preconceived notions (Phelps-Ward & DeAngelo, 2016). This newfound mentoring structure benefits all parties involved by providing a coherent and universal understanding of mentoring that can be utilized to eliminate practices within mentoring that alienate marginalized groups and instead assist in adapting norms in higher education to promote positive and equitable mentoring for all students.

Appendix Mentoring Structure for Students See Fig. 15.1.

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

297

Fig. 15.1  Mentoring structure for student

Mentoring Structure for Faculty See Fig. 15.2.

Fig. 15.2  Mentoring structure for faculty

Outstanding Graduate Mentor Award Rubric The Outstanding Graduate Mentor Award recognizes graduate faculty members who go above and beyond their duty as teachers, advisers, and mentors (Table 15.1).

Mentor’s commitment to teaching, research, and/or leadership

Mentor’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, and/or equity

Mentor’s professional and personal support of mentee(s)

Mentor’s methods of advocacy/support for graduate mentee(s)

One clear example of mentor’s advocacy/support for mentee(s) in the departmental, college, and/or institutional level One clear example of support for mentee(s) professional and personal wellbeing

Good, exceeds criteria Example(s) of mentor’s advocacy/support for mentee(s) in the departmental, college, and/or institutional level

Acceptable, meets minimum criteria No evidence of mentor’s advocacy/support for mentee(s) in the departmental, college, and/or institutional level No evidence of support for mentee(s) professional and personal wellbeing with limited information provided No evidence of commitment to diversity, inclusion, and equity through scholarship, teaching, service, and/or strategic programming

Unacceptable, does not meet criteria

Example(s) of support for mentee(s) professional and personal wellbeing with limited information provided Multiple clear examples of One clear example of Example(s) of commitment commitment to diversity, commitment to diversity, to diversity, inclusion, and inclusion, and equity through inclusion, and equity through equity through scholarship, scholarship, teaching, scholarship, teaching, teaching, service, and/or service, and/or strategic service, and/or strategic strategic programming with programming programming limited information provided Multiple clear, detailed exam- One clear, detailed example Example(s) of leadership, No evidence of leadership, ples of innovative leadership, of innovative leadership, research initiatives, and/or research initiatives, and/or research initiatives, and/or research initiatives, and/or effective teaching with limeffective teaching effective teaching style effective teaching style ited information provided

Multiple clear examples of mentor’s advocacy/support for mentee(s) in the departmental, college, and/ or institutional level Multiple clear examples of support for mentee(s) professional and personal wellbeing

Exceptional, greatly exceeds criteria

Table 15.1  Outstanding Graduate Mentor Award rubric

298  L. ALMOND ET AL.

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

299

References Barnes, B. J., Williams, E. A., & Stassen, M. L. A. (2012). Dissecting doctoral advising: A comparison of students’ experiences across disciplines. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 36(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098 77X.2011.614933. Berg, G. A. (2016). The dissertation process and mentor relationships for African American and Latina/o students in an online program. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(4), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016. 1227191. Brill, J. L., Balcanoff, K. K., Land, D., Gogarty, M., & Turner, F. (2014). Best practices in doctoral retention: Mentoring. Higher Learning Research Communications, 4(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i2.186. Brown, M. C., Davis, G. L., & McClendon, S. A. (1999). Mentoring graduate students of color: Myths, models, and modes. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7402_9. Chan, A. (2018). Trust-building in the mentoring of students of color. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(1), 4–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611 267.2017.1416265. Coles, A. (2011). The role of mentoring in college access and success: Research to practice brief. Institute for Higher Education Policy, pp. 1–10. Golden, A. A., Bogan, Y., Brown, L., Onwukwe, O., & Stewart, S. (2017). Faculty mentoring: Applying ecological theory to practice at historically black colleges or universities. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 27(5), 487– 489. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2017.1279097. Good, J. M., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (2000). A promising prospect for minority retention: Students becoming peer mentors. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696252. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Johnson, L. (2013). The benefits of a comprehensive retention program for African American students at a predominantly white university. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 38–54. Kendricks, K., Nedunuri, K., & Arment, A. (2013). Minority student perceptions of the impact of mentoring to enhance academic performance in STEM disciplines. Journal of STEM Education, 14(2), 38–46. Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104–123. https://doi. org/10.1177/1541344608322678. Kumar, S., & Johnson, M. (2017). Mentoring doctoral students online: Mentor strategies and challenges. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 25(2), 202– 222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2017.1326693. Kumar, S., Johnson, M., & Hardemon, T. (2013). Dissertations at a distance: Students’ perceptions of online mentoring in a doctoral program. Journal of Distance Education (Online), 27(1), 1. LaVant, B., Anderson, A., & Tiggs, J. (1997). Retaining African American men through mentoring initiatives. New Directions for Student Services, 1997(80), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.8004.

300  L. ALMOND ET AL. Li, S., Malin, J. R., & Hackman, D. G. (2018). Mentoring supports and mentoring across difference: Insights from mentees. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(5), 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2018.1561020. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ace.7401. Mezirow, J. (2018). Transformative learning theory. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge. Mondisa, J., & McComb, S. A. (2018). The role of social community and individual differences in minority mentoring programs. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(1), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2018.1445432. Montgomery, B. L. (2017). Mapping a mentoring roadmap and developing a supportive network for strategic career advancement. Sage Open. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244017710288. Noy, S., & Ray, R. (2012). Graduate students’ perceptions of their advisors: Is there systematic disadvantage in mentorship? The Journal of Higher Education, 83(6), 876–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2012.11777273. Okahana, H., & Zhou, E. (2018). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2007 to 2017. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. O’Meara, K., Knudsen, K., & Jones, J. (2013). The role of emotional competencies in faculty-doctoral student relationships. The Review of Higher Education, 36(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2013.0021. Phelps-Ward, R., & D’Angelo, L. (2016). Feeding the pipeline toward the doctorate: Examining the formal mentoring experiences of black undergraduate students. Western Journal of Black Studies, 40(2), 111–125. Rasheem, S., Alleman, A., Mushonga, D., Anderson, D., & Vakalahi, H. (2018). Mentor-shape: Exploring the mentoring relationships of black women in doctoral programs. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(1), 50–69. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2018.1445443. Scott, M. (1992). Designing effective mentoring programs: Historical perspectives and current issues. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 30(4), 167– 177. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4683.1992.tb00053.x. Southern, N. L. (2007). Mentoring for transformative learning: The importance of relationship in creating learning communities of care. Journal of Transformative Education, 5(4), 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344607310576. Taylor, E. W. (2017). Transformative learning theory. In A. Laros, T. Fuhr, & E. W. Taylor (Eds.), Transformative learning meets bildung (pp. 17–29). Rotterdam: Brill Sense. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). The economics daily [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/69-point-7-percent-of-2016-highschool-graduates-enrolled-in-college-in-october-2016.htm. Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In Handbook of work, organization, and society (pp. 67–130). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Wunsch, M. (1994a). Developing mentoring programs: Major themes and issues. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(57), 27–44.  https://doi. org/10.1002/tl.37219945705.

15  ESTABLISHING EQUITABLE GRADUATE MENTORING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 

301

Wunsch, M. (1994b). New directions for mentoring: An organizational development perspective. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1994(57), 9–13. https:// doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219945703. Yob, I., & Crawford, L. (2012). Conceptual framework for mentoring doctoral students. Higher Learning Research Communications, 2(2), 34–47. https://doi. org/10.18870/hlrc.v2i2.66

Recommended Readings Coles, A. (2011). The role of mentoring in college access and success: Research to practice brief. Institute for Higher Education Policy, pp. 1–10. Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. Li, S., Malin, J. R., & Hackman, D. G. (2018). Mentoring supports and mentoring across difference: Insights from mentees. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 26(5), 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2018.1561020. Mezirow, J. (2018). Transformative learning theory. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 114–128). New York: Routledge. Scott, M. (1992). Designing effective mentoring programs: Historical perspectives and current issues. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 30(4), 167– 177. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4683.1992.tb00053.x.

CHAPTER 16

Decolonizing Knowledge and Fostering Critical Allyship Elizabeth Laura Yomantas

Key Terms and Definitions iTaukei: native or indigenous Fijian. The term iTaukei began being used selectively to replace the word Fijian in 2010 (Eräsaari, 2015). The government mandated this change so that the term Fijian would include all people groups who live in Fiji. Talanoa: “talking about nothing in particular chat, or gossip and it is within the cultural milieu of talanoa that knowledge and emotions are shared… a holistic and embodied amalgamation of the emotions, knowledge, interests, and experiences. Values such as empathy, respect, love, and humility are essential to the vanua as indigenous worldview. Talanoa is an embodied expression of the vanua concept” (Farrelly & Nabobo-Baba, 2012, p. 1). Vanua: loosely defined as community that is physical in nature and is also abstract—“a theoretical whole that embraces all people and their relationships with others and with the land, spirits, resources, and environment; the social spaces between peoples; and the spaces where we designate in our minds for certain positions or roles in society” (Nabobo-Baba, 2006, p. 77).

E. L. Yomantas (*)  Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_16

303

304  E. L. YOMANTAS

Introduction In order to enact critical pedagogy, educators must provide critical spaces in higher education to decolonize knowledge (Berryman, SooHoo, & Nevin, 2013; Dei, 2011; Smith, 2012; Wilson, 2008). Educators must engage with indigenous epistemologies as an act of resistance against hegemonic ways of knowing. This chapter focuses on an undergraduate course taught in rural Fiji as an application of critical pedagogy coupled with an experiential education framework. This teacher preparation program course required students to travel to Fiji for four weeks during the summer to decolonize knowledge, theorize and pursue culturally responsive community engagement, and consider the roles and responsibilities of being an ally to indigenous peoples. This chapter explains the theoretical framework of the experience design, offers curricular connections to teacher education standards, describes decolonizing pedagogical strategies, offers recommendations for working with the university for course approval, shares reflections and recommendations, and includes sample lesson plans. The program took place in the context of a summer study abroad program. The university has sustained a partnership and relationship with a local organization in Fiji. Over the past 10 years, the university and the local organization in Fiji have created a partnership based on a shared faith, a desire to positively impact the community in culturally responsive c­ o-constructed ways that yield mutual benefits (Berryman et al., 2013), and on the basis of friendship (Grain et al., 2019). Twenty undergraduate students applied and were granted admission into a month-long program after a rigorous application process. The students’ ages ranged from 18 to 23 years old, and they were at various levels in their undergraduate studies. The students came from a wide variety of majors, with a larger number of pre-med and teacher education students. While in Fiji, the students were required to enroll in a four-unit course titled “Culturally Responsive Service Learning.” The course was housed in the teacher preparation program and was an elective course. There was only one section of the course offered. This course, which is rooted in rich field experiences in rural Fiji, asked students to consider new ways of thinking about “service with” rather than “service on” communities. This course questioned the impact colonization has had on developing nations and strove to decolonize the practices of service learning. As Biermann (2011) explained, “turning the tables on the supposed advantages of dominance means viewing colonialism itself though a deficit prism and bringing to light that whatever the short-term benefits supremacy bestows over others, oppression ultimately works to diminish and dehumanize everyone, including and especially the oppressed” (p. 393). Furthermore, this course challenged the ethics of the traditional western paradigm of service learning and helped students to develop a new lens to find and discover ways of serving that originate in self-knowledge, co-construction of new ideas through dialogue, and relationships with others.

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

305

In addition to traditional coursework, students were also required to participate in daily fieldwork. Fieldwork projects included volunteering in the local schools, assisting in the on-site medical clinic, completing construction projects in the local village, and working on a farm. These projects rotated based on the local partnerships’ wishes and preferences, weather limitations, and other various factors. All students, regardless of major, rotated through the different projects. Class was held two days a week in the afternoon for a three-hour block. The class time was used to engage with the text, critically reflect on the fieldwork, and explore insider/outsider positionality (Berryman et al., 2013; Nabobo-Baba, 2006) of the experience. Before departing for the trip, the students and instructor met four times in twohour blocks. The class sessions were designed to introduce students to Fijian history and current events and to introduce ideas of culturally responsive service learning. This month-long experience was built upon critical pedagogy and experiential education theory. The vanua research framework was also essential to the design of the experience. This chapter discusses the theoretical frames and connection to teacher education standards, describes curricular decisions and decolonizing pedagogical strategies for teaching the course, offers recommendations for working with the university for course approval, and provides a sample lesson plan. Country Context and Framing Questions Fiji is an archipelago comprised of more than 300 islands in the South Pacific with a population of approximately 900,000 people. Fiji is commonly known for its white sand beaches, beautiful surf, and pleasant weather and is an idyllic location for travel. However, beyond the natural beauty, Fiji is a place with a rich culture, vibrant traditions, and kind and hospitable people who exhibit generational strength as survivors of colonization. The story of Fiji’s history often starts with the arrival of westerners, but Fiji’s history predates colonization by thousands of years. Dated Lapita pottery suggests that Fiji has been occupied for approximately 3200 years; the earliest inhabitants were Austronesian-speaking explorers (Lotherington, 1998, p. 57). Fiji was mapped externally in 1643 by Abel Tasman, but the first European influence took place in 1835 when British Protestant missionaries came to Fiji via Polynesia (White, 2015). The missionaries brought formal education and a required curriculum in Bible literacy, basic numeracy, and hygiene lessons. In fact, missionary schooling became foundational for the development of rural villages under British colonialism. Schooling under colonization was designed with the purpose of reinforcing and spreading colonial structures and ideas (Nabobo-Baba, 2006). Samoan poet and writer Albert Wendt (1982) reflected on the values of colonization in education, explaining that:

306  E. L. YOMANTAS The formal education systems that were established by the colonizers in our islands all had one main feature in common: they were based on the ­arrogantly-mistaken assumption that the cultures of the colonizers were superior (and preferable) to ours. Education was therefore devoted to civilizing us, cutting us away from the roots of our cultures, from what colonizers viewed as darkness, superstition, barbarism, and savagery… Colonial education helped reduce many of us to a state of passivity, undermined our confidence and self-respect, and made many of us ashamed of our cultures. (p. 210)

When Fiji became an independent nation in 1970, it was not completely free from colonization as the ideas, practices, and structures were now deeply rooted in society and thinking. Colonization has left an educational legacy in Fiji; academic achievement based on national exam scores became of critical importance (White, 2013, p. 33). To date, schools place an emphasis on national standardized tests, national achievement scores, and competing with the western world. Additionally, another aspect of colonization that remains present in Fiji today is the presence of Indo-Fijians as a large group in Fiji. Indo-Fijians and Fijians do not live in unity; rather, Indo-Fijians are a deeply rooted segregation in Fiji, even in the present day (Coxon, 2006). Indo-Fijians in Fiji today, who make up about 45% of the population, are the descendants of the 60,000 indentured workers who came to Fiji between 1879 and 1916 to work on the sugarcane plantations (Coxon, 2006, p. 58). Indo-Fijians and indigenous Fijians are in constant tension in Fiji, particularly in regard to education. In rural areas, schools are quite segregated, although this phenomenon can also be attributed to geography. Because Fiji is an archipelago comprised of more than 300 islands, there is geographic separation that leads to division of individuals and communities. Like all nations, Fiji currently faces many challenges. While it is impossible to name all the issues the nation faces, a few prominent topics include navigating the complex terrain between traditionalism and modernity in a nation that is rapidly modernizing (Bullock, 2005; White, 2015), exploring Fijian identity and what it means to be a Fijian (Coxon, 2006; Vaka’uta, 2011), defining gender roles (Chattier, 2013; Harthorn, 2005; Lotherington, 1998; Varani-Norton, 2005; White, 2013), fighting climate change (Chand, 2017; Dey, Gosh, Valmonte-Santos, Rosegrant, & Chen, 2016; Robie & Chand, 2017), and ensuring a quality education for all children (Chattier, 2013; Gounder, Reddy, & Prasad, 2010). Although impossible to provide a comprehensive overview of this nation in a few short paragraphs, it is important to note that this is a snapshot of the context in which we, as outsiders, entered this country. The complex history of Fiji leads to a few guiding questions that we needed to consider before embarking on this experience: • What right do we have to go to Fiji? • Who benefits from our time in Fiji?

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

307

• Fiji has been invaded by westerners for nearly 200 years. How will we be respectful guests rather than entitled invaders? • What choices will we make to not add to the westernization of the nation? • What choices will we make to respect and support indigenous values, ways of knowing, and ways of being? • How will we know when to ask questions, when to listen, and when to refrain from asking questions? As the students and I asked these questions and engaged in dialogue about the roles, rights, and responsibilities of outsiders, we began to unpack our positionality and develop the posture that we would maintain throughout our time in Fiji. These questions set a tone for the experiential education (EE) program that allows the students and I to begin considering our work before we set foot on Fijian soil.

Framework for Experience Design This section describes the theoretical framework, the vanua research framework, and the teacher education standards that were used to design the experience. Theoretical Framework for Experience Design Before explaining the course design, learner objectives, and learning outcomes, I begin by describing the theoretical framework in which the course was developed. The development of this course was situated in both EE theory (Smith, Knapp, Seaman, & Pace, 2011) as well as critical pedagogy (Breunig, 2011; Freire, 1972, 1994, 1997). After a short description of both critical pedagogy and EE theory, I provide a justification for framing critical pedagogy with EE. Paulo Freire is known as one of the most important critical educators of the twentieth century who occupies a revered position among the founders of critical pedagogy (Giroux, 2017). Giroux (2010) defined critical pedagogy as an “educational movement guided by both passion and principle to help students develop a consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, empower the imagination, connect knowledge to truth and power, and learn to read both the word and the world as part of a broader struggle for agency, justice, and democracy” (p. 335). Since the publication of Freire’s seminal work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972), critical pedagogy has become a powerful educational movement studied and implemented in classrooms and communities around the world. One of the main purposes of critical pedagogy is to ensure that the future becomes a more socially just world that can hold both critique and possibility in connection to the values of reason, freedom, and equality to transform the world (Giroux, 2017, p. xiii). Critical pedagogy exists not only in theory, but also in concrete reality (Freire, 1972).

308  E. L. YOMANTAS

One of the foundations of critical pedagogy is the concept of critical consciousness. Shor (1993) described critical consciousness as having four key qualities: power awareness, critical literacy, ability to recognize and challenge myths, values, behaviors, and language learned in past culture, and self-organization. Educators can foster critical consciousness in their class­ rooms by creating learning spaces that are participatory, based on the lives of students, critical and self-reflective, democratic, dialogical, problem posing, multicultural, research-oriented, activist, and affective (Shor, 1993). Critical consciousness includes a critical reading of the world (Freire & Macedo, 2013) which involves an active reconsideration of ideas and facts that were presented as stagnant, unquestionable truth. Emergent critical consciousness problem poses (Freire, 1972) new questions and ideas. As critical consciousness develops, the landscape of what was once accepted as truth now critically seeks to examine structural inequalities and injustices in the world and problem pose solutions. Christens, Winn, and Duke (2016) stated that without the cognitive component of critical consciousness, actions toward social justice are unlikely to be successful. Critical consciousness must be coupled with necessary skills in order to bring about change. Classrooms are the ideal place for these two concepts; both theory and practical application can merge. In the context of this course design, critical pedagogy required a theoretical partner as a framework; for this specific course, I sought to determine how critical pedagogy could manifest in “concrete reality” (Freire, 1972). My goal was to bring the ideas of critical consciousness, critical literacy, and problem posing to life in rural Fiji alongside 20 undergraduate students from the United States. In order to bring critical pedagogy to life, a coupling with EE was necessary. According to the Association for Experiential Education (n.d.), EE is a philosophy that informs many different methodologies for educators purposefully engage with students in direct experiences and reflection. These experiences and reflection allow students to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify values, and develop the capacity to contribute to the community. The Association of Experiential Education (n.d.) asserted that EE can manifest across many different disciplines and can utilize a variety of EE methodologies. The educational philosophers who contribute to EE theory are vast and divergent and come from a wide array of epistemological vantage points (Smith et al., 2011). This course aimed to bring together the conceptual ideas of critical pedagogy and EE theory. Together, these two theories allow for the experience to dwell in both a theory and concrete reality. In fact, Freire stated that he preferred a “knowledge that is forged and produced in the tension of practice and theory” (Freire, 1996, p. 85). This learning experience sought to decolonize experiential education (Smith, 2012) through critical praxis, the experiential learning cycle, the problem-posing method of education, and conscientization (Breunig, 2011). Both EE and critical pedagogy were necessary for this course because they share a goal of bringing about a more socially just world through action and reflection (Breunig, 2005). This experience is also situated

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

309

in a postcolonial framework that recognizes the Western world’s history of conquest, domination, and colonization (Bhabha, 1984; Said, 1978; Spivak, 1988) and strives to deconstruct colonial power structures through enacting critical pedagogy. EE theory and critical pedagogy share an educational aim of transformation. Both EE theory and critical pedagogy assert that teaching and l­earning in schools are a vehicle for social transformation (Breunig, 2005). This happens through developing student critical thinking skills as they imagine a more socially just world. In this course, students were exposed to indigenous epistemologies in an effort to develop critical thinking skills, which can create agency to foster social change, and consequently create a more just society. In addition to critical pedagogy and EE, the vanua research framework was also used as a framework for the experience design. Vanua Research Framework for Experience Design The vanua research framework is an “indigenous theoretical approach embedded in indigenous Fijian world views, knowledge systems, lived experience, representations, cultures and values. It gives power and recognition to things Fijian, as research and knowledge accumulation in its broadest sense is deeply connected to power” (Nabobo-Baba, 2008, p. 143). While the experience did not require nor ask students to conduct any research while in Fiji, it was important to embody concepts from the vanua research framework as we worked alongside members of the community. Nabobo-Baba (2006) noted that the vanua, loosely defined as community, is physical in nature and is also abstract—“a theoretical whole that embraces all people and their relationships with others and with the land, spirits, resources, and environment; the social spaces between peoples; and the spaces where we designate in our minds for certain positions or roles in society” (p. 77). Vanua knowledge incorporates other indigenous knowledges including lotu (spirituality), i tovo v­aka-vanua (customs), and veiwekani (kinship). As outsiders, it is important to hold reverent respect for the concept of vanua. While we cannot and should not claim the knowledge as our own, the students and I may learn from the vanua research framework as the posture to hold while working alongside the community. Nabobo-Baba (2008) outlined guiding principles for researchers to follow when working in indigenous spaces. The principles she outlined have been adapted and reframed as questions for both the instructor and students, as outsiders, to consider when working in indigenous communities in Fiji. 1. What permissions have we been granted to engage in work in the community? Who grants permission? How do we ask for permission in culturally appropriate ways? 2. How does our work benefit the community? Who decides what “benefit” means and how it is carried out?

310  E. L. YOMANTAS

3. How does our work focus on indigenous peoples’ needs and “account indigenous cultural values, protocols, knowledge processes and philosophies, especially those related to knowledge access, legitimation, processes of ethics, indigenous Fijian sanctions and clan ‘limits or boundary,’ all of which influence knowledge and related issues” (p. 144)? 4. How are we attempting to learn the Fijian language? What efforts are we making to engage with the language? 5. How are the iTaukei at the center of the work? How are we standing back, standing last, and waiting to be invited? (Berryman et al., 2013). How is the work co-constructed? 6. How are we holding respect and reciprocity? 7. Who are we accountable to? These questions were at the heart of the experience. The ideas posed in the vanua research framework served as a springboard for the ways in which the students and I navigated the complex terrain as non-indigenous guests in indigenous spaces. Asking these questions and seeking answers was an introductory step toward decolonizing knowledge and power (Smith, 2012). Decolonization is a core component of Pacific research (Sanga & Reynolds, 2017), and therefore, decolonization should be a core component of any EE learning. Beyond the theoretical frames employed for the experience, the course also needed to connect to the teacher education standards in order to gain approval from the college academic council and connect to curriculum. Teacher Education Standards for Experience Design In the development of this course, it was important for the learning objectives to connect to teacher education standards, so this education course aligned with the California Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs). While not all students enrolled in EDUC 592 are pursuing a teaching credential, the fieldwork component of this course effortlessly connects to the TPEs. In aligning this course with the TPEs, all students benefit personally and professionally from experiencing these expectations that value communication, diversity, inclusion, and reflection. This course connects primarily to TPE #6: Developing as a Professional Educator, particularly TPE 6.2 which states that beginning teachers will be able to “recognize their own values and implicit and explicit biases, the ways in which these values and implicit and explicit biases may positively and negatively affect teaching and learning, and work to mitigate any negative impact on the teaching and learning of students. They exhibit positive dispositions of caring, support, acceptance, and fairness toward all students and families, as well as toward their colleagues” (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2016). This TPE may sound straightforward, but coming to recognize implicit and explicit biases required time, emergent critical consciousness, and reflexivity based on experiences. One student reflected on her experience in Fiji, and she stated:

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

311

I was kind of ashamed of this because I didn’t realize I had this implicit bias coming here, but I did not expect the students to be so smart. On the first day, we did the school tour and we walked into the science classroom. It was biology, all this stuff I learned in high school, too. I was like, ‘wait, these kids speak two languages and walk to and from school every day,’ and so I was just thinking about Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences. People have different intelligences, but I realized that I didn’t extend the same courtesy to Fijians. It was only in a western context in my mind, and so my worldview expanded in that sense because I realized that different intelligences can extend into all cultures. It just reminded me to open my heart and my mind. I see theories that I’ve learned about manifested here, and I feel in my brain there were different epistemologies, but they were all western. And I felt bad because I felt like I was being culturally deficient in my mind, but I wasn’t even realizing it. When I did realize it, it almost made me want to cry because I feel like I’m a very open-minded person. But then when I realized that I had been holding this bias, what do I do with that?

This student’s realization directly embodies TPE #6 that required praxis over the course of EE program. Teacher education is a complex system which is nonlinear, short-range, ever changing, and emergent (Cochran-Smith, Ell, Ludlow, Grudnoff, & Aitken, 2014). Because teaching is nonlinear, this EE course equips students to examine their own values and biases in connection with how they interact and think of others. Beyond connecting to teacher education standards, this EE program required careful consideration of curricular decisions and pedagogical strategies in order to foster critical allyship and decolonize knowledge.

Curricular Decisions and Pedagogical Strategies This section describes curricular decisions and pedagogical strategies that were made in order to concretize the theories that informed the course design. This section also discusses the instructor’s role in modeling allyship, the syllabus and course design, the course text, active learning strategies, and how talanoa was woven into the fabric of the experience. Modeling (Imperfect) Critical Allyship Under the vanua research framework, Nabobo-Baba (2008) urged that indigenous scholars must be the primary researcher on research projects, and the non-indigenous scholar should always hold the posture of learner throughout the research process. I am a non-indigenous teacher/researcher who is introducing non-indigenous students to a new place, new knowledge systems, and new ways of being. Because of this, I have an ethical responsibility to position myself as a critical ally to indigenous people and should model this throughout the learning experience for my students. The course must be framed in the lived, pursued critical allyship of the instructor.

312  E. L. YOMANTAS

Being a critical ally is different than an ally. The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of an ally is “one that is associated with another as a helper: a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity, or struggle.” A critical ally extends beyond offering help or support; a critical ally is relationally connected, an accomplice in the struggle for justice (Indigenous Action Media, 2014) and actively plays a role in the decolonizing of structures through leveraging their own positionality. Critical allies may play roles as brokers. Anthony-Stevens (2017) described brokering in alliance work as a negotiation of “how to consciously leverage available resources - Indigenous voices and whitestream institutional capital - in order to generate new resources” (p. 96). Critical allies go through an “Easter experience” (Freire, 1972) in which they die to their old selves and are reborn as progressives who are enlisted in the struggle for the reinvention of the world. They engage in cyclical praxis and focus their energies on a liberating generosity. They show love for people, are relational and connected, and are also visionary; critical allies accomplish things in concrete reality (Freire, 1972) but also reimagine and dream about tomorrow. They leverage their positionality to benefit others and put others’ needs before them. Critical allyship is not a research methodology, an instructional strategy, or a pedagogical tool—rather, it is a way of being in the world that requires continued pursuit. Critical allyship cannot be accomplished or completed; in our unfinishedness (Freire, 1972), it is a way of being that is continually pursued and requires humility (Anthony-Stevens, 2017; SooHoo, 2013). Critical allies play a role in reconciliation and healing from the destruction of colonization. As the course instructor and an unfinished (Freire, 1972) human being, I do not exhibit all of these traits, and I will not complete the work of being a critical ally in my lifetime. However, I invited students into my commitment to critical allyship work and regularly shared with them the talanoa of insider/outsider work and the pursuit of positioning myself as a critical ally. I did not only share the times I was successful in my continued pursuit of critical allyship, but I also reported the struggles, complexities, and failures I have made as a critical ally. In terms of this course, it was essential for students to be introduced to indigenous knowledges in order for them to begin constructing the ways they can become critical allies to both iTaukei people and individuals/groups in their local contexts back home. To both honor my decision to pursue critical allyship and follow the guidelines of the vanua research framework, I needed to bring indigenous voices to the center of the course. This influenced my decisions related to the syllabus, course text, and learner activities.

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

313

Syllabus The syllabus was designed with an Internet-based software design program called Piktochart.1 This allowed for the syllabus to be aesthetically pleasing and include colors, images, and prints connected to Fiji. The syllabus did not serve simply as a tool to review the rules, expectations, and guidelines of the course but rather was designed to serve as an invitation to the experience and a way to honor the people of Fiji from the onset of the course. The syllabus opened with a land acknowledgment that read: We acknowledge that we are on the ancestral historic land of the Chumash People. To acknowledge the traditional territory is to recognize its longer history, reaching beyond colonization and the establishment of European colonies. We also acknowledge the Nakorovou people, who were the original iTaukei as they are known as the earliest known inhabitants of Cakaudrove on Bau (Fiji). We acknowledge that we are traveling to land that is not our own. We commit to treating the land, and its inhabitants, with care and respect. We are grateful for the opportunity to visit the Cakaudrove.

Choosing to open with a land acknowledgment is important. The land acknowledgment opened important dialogue with the students about how we can be better allies to indigenous people not only in Fiji but also in our local community. Beyond designing the syllabus with intentionality, I chose to structure the course in ways that honored indigenous knowledge and ­de-centered westernization. Course Design The course design flowed through the four important knowledges as outlined by Nabobo-Baba (2006). All activities, assignments, and critical reflections were embedded into these epistemologies. Students were expected to learn about these four areas of indigenous knowledge while critically examining their own knowledge systems. This course reflected these four areas of knowledge as we served alongside the local community. The following four knowledge systems are represented below with short excerpts from the syllabus. Vanua (foundation of knowledge)

Learner Overview: Students will explore personal vanua (relationship with nature/environment land, spirituality, sense of belonging, and sacred knowledge that is meant to tugane tu e lomadra (to store inside your heart at all times).

1 Please

see http://www.piktochart.com.

314  E. L. YOMANTAS

Learner Activities: Vanua will be explored through two autoethnographic writing pieces and one culminating talanoa storytelling event in which talanoa is shared with the community. Lotu (spirituality/worship).

Learner Overview: Students will explore the concept of lotu which includes the Christian notion of God as well as indigenous ideas of spirituality. Students will examine the similarities and differences in these concepts of faith and consider their personal faith journey. Learner Activities: Lotu will be explored through participating in daily worship devotionals, attending church each week, and a weekly reflection on faith. I tovo vakavanua (customs).

Learner Overview: Students will explore appropriate customs and behaviors that are determined by a system of kinship relationships and life principles. Learner Activities: I tovo vakavanua will be explored through weekly written reflections on the following topics as evidenced in their fieldwork and conversations with community members. Prompts will be provided. Students will demonstrate vakarokoroko (respect), yalomalua (humility), veiqaravi (service), dauloloma (compassion), dauyalovinaka (having a good heart), dau talairawarawa (dutiful/obedient), daugalu tug a (always having a quiet disposition), vakaturaga (of chiefly demeanor), dauvakarorogo (good listener), duavata (unity), dau wasea na ka (sharing of resources) throughout our daily work. Veiwekani (kinship relationships)

Learner Overview: Students will care for the community through their daily fieldwork. Relationships are essential to Fijian culture. Learner Activities: Students will participate in fieldwork each day. The activities include but are not limited to: serving in the medical clinic, working in the schools, doing health projects in the village, cleaning at the mission, working in the kitchen, working on the farm, etc. While participating in fieldwork, students are expected to work alongside their classmates and local partners with the following values: duavata (oneness), cakacakavata (working together), lomavata (unity of will), yalovata (unity of spirit). In addition to connecting the learner activities with iTaukei values, I desired to position an indigenous voice at the center of the learning experience. So, I selected a text written by a Fijian author. After purchasing a used copy of Knowing and Learning: An Indigenous Fijian Approach on eBay, I searched online to see if the text could be purchased by the students so we could use

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

315

it as the course text. I learned the book was out of print, so I contacted the author, Dr. Nabobo-Baba. She put me in touch with her publisher at the University of the South Pacific who graciously ran a print of the books for us. This book became a treasured cornerstone of the EE program. Course Text As non-indigenous students and scholars will discover, Nabobo-Baba’s book, Knowing and Learning: An Indigenous Fijian Approach, is a gift to anyone who wishes to learn more about iTaukei knowledges. The text reviews the history of colonial schooling in Fiji and reports the negative impacts that deficit ideologies have on schools and culture that began with the British colonization of Fiji. The author then reports different aspects of Fijian knowledge, ways of knowing and doing, and guidelines and protocols for outsiders to follow. Nabobo-Baba discusses the vanua research framework and various Fijian epistemologies. The students and I marveled that Nabobo-Baba would give us, as outsiders, access to sacred and special knowledges. In establishing our role as guests before we traveled to Fiji, I introduced the book as knowledge that we are not automatically entitled to, but rather something that has been given as a gift. In our learning community, the text was treated with reverence and respect, and the students were asked to approach the book as though we were grateful for an insider view of indigenous knowledge. Students read the text with enthusiasm and excitement because it was not just another book for required reading; rather, this was a special book that allows outsiders to gain insider knowledge about Fiji. We discussed that we, as outsiders, are not entitled to have access to this rich information. Furthermore, this text supported the students in how they positioned themselves in their fieldwork, in making cross-cultural connections, and in knowing how to follow protocols and procedures in Fiji. There was high interest and high student engagement with the text as the information provided was pertinent for their daily work. Treating this book with reverence, respect, and authority helped to decolonize teacher education because it was an exercise in deciding whose voice counts and who holds the position of expert. In positioning ourselves as humble learners of this knowledge rather than entitled consumers, the students considered knowledge to be worthy of time, respect, and effort. Rather than selecting a western-authored text that centers the western world and the impacts we can have while abroad, it was an important decision to focus on Fijian knowledge constructs and culture as the center of the course. Furthermore, it served as an important model for the students in regard to curricular decision making in de-centering western knowledge and opening up new possibilities, ways of knowing and learning, and relating to one another. The use of the text was critical for receiving university approval and building the structure of the course. By reading Nabobo-Baba’s book, an indigenous voice is the center of the course. As a non-indigenous instructor,

316  E. L. YOMANTAS

I explained to the students the limitations of my own knowledge and ­modeled holding the posture of a learner as I work with iTaukei community partners. I do not aim to teach indigenous knowledges but rather to introduce the ideas shared by the author and then examine the ideas in comparison to western ways of knowing, doing, and experiencing. This contributes to decolonization because as a university professor, I often feel that I am expected to possess the most knowledge and disseminate that knowledge to the students. As Darder stated, a “colonizing pedagogy views the teacher as a neutral, objective, and benevolent agent of the state who is there to solely impart basic information for students to survive within capitalist America” (Darder, 2017, p. 117). I must actively choose to resist this. In braiding together EE theory, critical pedagogy, and decolonizing teaching practices, I reposition myself as co-learner rather than expert. While it may sound easy to do, embodying this as a daily pedagogical decision requires many micro-decisions made during each class session. In valuing the author’s voice and the lived experiences of the students, I am no longer at the center of the course. This decision to resist the banking model of education and create a problem-posing environment (Freire, 1972) where knowledge is co-produced contributes to the decolonization of the course. Together, the students and I examined our own knowledge systems and problem posed who created them, where they came from, and how we can make changes to the structures that exist in both our personal lives and society at large. Nabobo-Baba’s text is fertile ground for discussions that question knowledge, examine positionality, and reclaim and reimagine the future of humankind. Together, the students and I used the text as a springboard to engage in active learning. Decolonizing Pedagogies Through Active Learning In addition to decolonizing knowledge, I must also embed decolonizing pedagogies into the learning experience. Darder (2017) stated that educators can engage in decolonizing pedagogies by beginning with the idea that “all human beings participate actively in producing meaning and thus reinforce a dialectical and contextual view of knowledge” (p. 117). The learning environment should be used to provide spaces for students to become “literate about their cultural histories and lived experiences, in addition to their learning, engaging, and interrogating subject area content” (Darder, 2017, p. 117). These learning experiences manifest in context specific ways that cannot be duplicated or replicated from course to course or semester to semester. In this specific experience, decolonizing pedagogies included the inclusion of multiple perspectives, community engagement, critical reflection, and talanoa. In addition to using a text written by an indigenous author, ­community members were invited to be a part of the course. This included hosting iTaukei guest speakers and relying on local experts to share from their perspective. The students took a field trip to a nearby school where they were

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

317

presented a lecture from a history teacher with whom we had partnered. His presentation was on the United States’ involvement in the British colonization of Fiji from the Fijian perspective. The students sat in the desks of the Fijian students and learned in their learning space. Additionally, speakers were invited during class time to share stories of Fijian mysticism and explain how Christian iTaukei hold both the Christian stories of the Bible and the traditional cultural stories. The community also invited us to special learning events. Members of the community prepared a presentation on the coconut as the primary life source in Fiji, and they demonstrated all the ways the coconut is used on a daily basis in rural communities. The local village also invited us for a botanical and cultural tour of the community. The headman of the village secured an appointment with the head chief, and the students and I went together to the chief to present a sevu sevu. In this cultural ceremony, we presented the chief with a customary gift and explained our intentions for why we wished to enter the community. The chief granted us permission, so the students and I were able to learn from the headman about the village. This tour did not simply show us the village property, but the headman explained the purposes and functions of the plants and trees in the village, explained the clan structure and the clan boundaries, and offered insight into the struggles and hopes the villagers face as the nation navigates the choice between modernity and traditionalism. The students were often invited to participate in and contribute to activities in the village. The headman asked the students to prepare a presentation for the children, to spend time in the kindergarten classroom, to help with a construction project, and to spend time together socially. The ideas suggested by the headman then became the framework for the activities we did together in our fieldwork. As outsiders, we waited to hear from the community about their needs and wishes for collaboration, and then we adjusted our schedules accordingly. Additionally, we would wear culturally appropriate clothing to each event. All students would wear a sulu, which is a sarong-like skirt. Several of the students purchased custom sulu jambas, a formal Fijian outfit, from a local seamstress. We first asked permission to wear sulu jambas to resist cultural appropriation and ensure it was appropriate and welcome to wear these outfits as a symbol of connection and honor. The students and I would wear the sulu jambas to more formal events as well as a way of respecting the local culture. The students also had the opportunity to participate alongside community members in copra, which includes taking the meat out of the coconuts in preparation to sell it. The community collects coconuts over a period of a few weeks, before they gather for the copra event. Copra takes several hours and involves a multi-step process. Students were invited to participate in this event. One student reflected on the copra experience. Interestingly,

318  E. L. YOMANTAS

the student commented on both the communal activity of copra, and also questioned whether the group, as outsider learners, was actually any help. She stated: I remember getting there, and then seeing the large pile of coconuts. But for me, once we started I thought it was so much fun to just watch all the different people. Some people were scooping out the meat, and some were stitching them up. You have Rico and Ivana just chopping those coconuts which helped the pile grow smaller and smaller. It was amazing to see everyone working together. I remember at one point I just stood back and looked around, and I just smiled. I thought, “wow.” One lady was playing the music, and people were talking and laughing. I know this is something the Fijians could have done on their own, but they still invited us to help. It was all hands on deck, meaning that we are able to go and help them do it. Together, we were able to get it done faster. After, some of us were talking about it, and we wondered, did we actually help that process go faster or did we slow it down?

The student’s ability to reflect on the communal aspects and emotions of the event coupled with a critical open-ended question embodies learning objectives of the course—to wait to be invited, to critically consider the role of the outsider, and to consider the benefit to the community. We learned to process the experiences in a storytelling format called talanoa in order to embrace the cultural way of sharing knowledge. Talanoa Talanoa, a Fijian storytelling method, was an important concept for both the course and the experience at large. While this course and experience did not use talanoa as a data collection method, talanoa was employed as an instructional strategy and way of sharing new understandings gained while in the program. Students were given various prompts to respond to with a talanoa, a story, as a way of addressing the academic content and reflecting on their experiences in Fiji. Students were asked to hold the empathy, love, respect, and humility in the writing, reading, listening, and sharing of their talanoa assignments. Students held the posture of empathic apprenticeship (Farrelly & Nabobo-Baba, 2012) when invited to engage in talanoa with a community member; we often discussed that we are not entitled to talanoa and the sharing of ideas with indigenous partners without invitation and permission. Students were instructed to stand back, stand last, and wait (Berryman et al., 2013) for invitations to participate in talanoa. Additionally, to resist cultural appropriation and a mindset that concepts are ours to take, we asked local partners for permission to use the term talanoa and to practice framing our experiences through connected storytelling. The students embraced and gravitated toward this concept and used their time outside of class to gather for talanoa with one another and local iTaukei friends. The students were delighted when they were invited to engage in

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

319

talanoa with iTaukei community members. This powerful aspect of our experience connected and united the students and served as an important tool to build connections between students and the community. Through talanoa, students commented that they became better listeners, empathetic friends, and more connected to the group and the community as evidenced through their course assignments and reflections. Students were able to bridge gaps between cultures and also examine their own stories in connection to the stories of others. Class sessions were opened and closed with talanoa, and the final exam was a community talanoa event. Bryan (2012) noted that our stories are who we are, and our stories are always with us. Talanoa revealed itself as an important vehicle to explore personal histories, struggles, biases, and hope, and to offer new understandings. In reflecting on talanoa, one of the students commented on how the concept of talanoa has changed her. This student enjoyed the aspects of both being seen and seeing others. She stated, “I don’t want to just tell my stories. I will never forget when Lawrence, a Fijian boy, said, ‘tell us a story.’ I will never forget that because that is something I am going to do with other people. And I’m going to get people to tell me their stories. So that is definitely something that is going to change about me.” As a pre-service teacher, this student learned that value of connecting with others through the power of sharing stories.

University Partnership Interrogating the university’s partnership with the community was an important aspect to ensure that the university’s presence in Fiji did not reinforce colonial structures. Engaging in dialogue about the origins of the partnership, the intentions, the sustainability, and the benefits to the community can help strengthen and ensure a healthy partnership with mutual benefits. To get course approval, the course needed ties to the institutional mission and the program learning outcomes. For example, the Seaver College mission states: The Seaver curriculum and co-curriculum also reflect a modern, global world view much broader than that of the West and more complex and egalitarian than in former times. Nor does it isolate itself from the nature of life and the economic realities of our own age. Therefore, many subjects are studied that are not included in the traditional categories of the liberal arts. Nevertheless, the college is completely committed to the spirit and intent of the traditional baccalaureate: the sharpening of the mind, the ennobling of the heart, the broadening of the vision, and the cultivation of the arts of speaking and writing which result in civilized and fruitful discourse. It is likewise devoted to the relentless search for truth in an atmosphere of freedom of inquiry: to think, to question, to doubt, to believe, and to affirm. (Pepperdine University, 2019, Mission of Seaver College, para. 4)

320  E. L. YOMANTAS

In response to the mission, this course: connects to the Seaver College mission as the course reflects a broad and complex global worldview. Furthermore, the course seeks to sharpen the mind, ennoble the heart, and broaden the vision for international service and work in indigenous communities. This course is devoted to the relentless search for truth in an atmosphere of inquiry where students may critically think, question, doubt, believe, and affirm. In alignment with Pepperdine University’s mission of preparing students for lives of purpose, service, and leadership, this course prepares students for lives of service on behalf of marginalized groups.

The close connections to the institutional mission statement, including some of the same terms and phrases, contributed to the approval of this course. Additionally, aligning the program learning outcomes to the TPEs and the student learning outcomes suggested a comprehensive and connected course design. Furthermore, the syllabus included the foundational texts that served as the theoretical framework for the course and consequently led to the design of the experience. Reflections and Recommendations In this section, I weave together my reflections and recommendations because the reflections on the EE program birth the recommendations. It is my intent that my brutal honesty reflects my heart’s struggle, hope, and commitment toward doing this work in culturally responsive, decolonizing ways. If others choose to engage in EE, it is my hope that these recommendations aid in the development of new, culturally responsive programs. The next time I have an opportunity to teach this course, I will aim to embed these suggestions to strengthen the program. First, it is important to note that while this course strove to decolonize knowledge and pedagogy, there are still many aspects of the EE program that reflect colonial practices. I am a non-indigenous scholar teaching a course that involves indigenous knowledge. While I position myself as a co-learner and share that this experience is a framework for allyship, there is still a gap because I am not indigenous myself. This creates a continual conflicting internal dialogue as I constantly question my own right to instruct this course and engage in anti-colonial, liberatory work as a white American educator. How far can an ally go without reinforcing colonial practices? I know that the work of an ally is to step aside and allow indigenous scholars to engage in this work. I am constantly afraid to overstep boundaries or to act in ways that do not reflect my intentions. My university runs this program each and every year, and this was the first time that there was a focus on indigenous knowledge, allyship, and decolonizing practices. I believe this is a sign of progress, but this is not the final destination. Ideally, this course needs to be taught by an indigenous Fijian or co-taught between a Fijian scholar and a western teacher education scholar. The indigenous

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

321

instructor can support students in learning indigenous epistemologies, and the teacher educator can support the students in their positionality as outsiders and provide skills and strategies to transfer these ideas into their future classrooms. Furthermore, a co-teaching model would provide the students with an example of the pedagogies of co-teaching, which are increasingly popular in American schools in an effort to desegregate special education and general education students. Furthermore, I would fully support an indigenous scholar as the sole instructor for the course; I am ready to step aside whenever the time comes. However, I think different perspectives, backgrounds, knowledge, and harmonious interaction between the two instructors would greatly benefit students. If this is not possible, I believe I have a moral and ethical responsibility to share this information with my colleagues who will take students on EE programs such as this. If I cannot control who the university hires to teach the different courses, I can offer my expertise in outsider positionality that can be adapted and employed in other programs. If others wish to engage in EE, I recommend advocating for an indigenous instructor or co-instructor. If this is not possible, I encourage faculty to leverage their positionalities in higher education to advocate for these positions and to share this knowledge with colleagues. This course also reinforces colonial practices because the student earns a letter grade and credit units from this experience. It feels uncomfortable to grade students on this authentic work that involves their hands, head, and heart. How does one equate a beautiful, co-constructed talanoa to an “A” or a “B”? The letter grades felt foreign and disconnected from the work that we did in Fiji. As I strove to decolonize the EE program, it felt uncomfortable to attach a letter grade to the experience. For the next time I teach in the program, I will work with the university to see if a credit/no credit option is available instead of a letter grade. Although credit/no credit still contributes toward colonizing school practices, it is a step in the right direction toward disconnecting a letter grade from this rich, holistic experience. If others wish to create an EE program, I recommend a non-graded experience that questions concepts of grading, learning, and knowledge. This program is an elective course that is not required in the teacher preparation program. There are limitations to requiring this course as it requires fees, travel, and time off of work because the program takes place in the summer months. I would like to find a way for all teacher education students to have an EE opportunity to engage with non-western knowledge systems and ways of knowing and learning. Even if this EE program took place in a local community, I believe it would benefit all students to have an EE opportunity to aid in their identity development as a teacher. If others wish to provide their teacher candidates with a rich fieldwork experience to decolonize teaching and learning, I recommend finding either a local or global partnership to pursue this dream together. I encourage educators to consider a local EE program so that a higher percentage of teacher candidates can participate.

322  E. L. YOMANTAS

The EE program should not stay wherever it took place; rather, the EE program should be brought to the university. I was initially hesitant to do this, but I gained courage and encouragement from my colleagues. After the experience, several of the students and I presented a talanoa on how the experience informed our worldview. We also discussed which Fijian values we hope to bring to campus to honor our friends in Fiji and remain connected. We wore sulu jambas and presented a sevu sevu to the university president and explained how these practices and protocols worked in the Fijian context. In bringing the culture to the campus and sharing about the learning that took place, the community can grow to become a place that acknowledges and cares for Fiji, and consequently engages with indigenous peoples in relational, power-sharing, and collaborative ways in their local community. Following the EE opportunity, the program participants and faculty members should connect with the university after the trip to share about their experiences as a vehicle to grow and sustain the partnership. The EE community can host events on campus where students can share about what they learned; they can bring back gifts as a tool to teach others about the culture, and they can infuse the program into other spaces. For example, when the university puts out a call for presenters for various events, students and faculty can apply to present in different forums. Furthermore, the university can then begin a dialogue about how to be allies not only to the international community, but also to indigenous people in the local community. I recommend that EE instructors find ways to infuse the knowledge gained in the EE program to be integrated on the main campus.

Conclusion This EE program continues to shape my own role as an ally. I realized that while I am actively pursuing allyship to indigenous Fijians, I was not a very good ally to the tribe whose land my university is built upon. I was horrified by this realization and decided that I needed to change my actions. So, I reached out to the Chumash Education Director to co-construct a land acknowledgment that is now being used at my university. We shared the land acknowledgment with our local K-12 school partners and have asked them to consider using it as well. The Chumash Education Director and I are beginning to dream together about some projects for collaboration and engagement. I have brought this to the attention of the president of our university, and he is hoping to meet with the Chumash Education Director to begin reconnecting the tribe and the university. This is just the beginning; the possibilities are expansive and hopeful. The EE program has the power to not only transform the lives of the students, but its benefits can extend to the instructor and consequently to the community as well. The decolonization of the mind and heart and learning to become a critical ally require a lifetime of attention and a continual pursuit. This EE experience and course have the power and potential to introduce students to these

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

323

concepts. Decolonization is not a metaphor (Tuck & Yang, 2012), and the pursuit of tangible structural changes to colonization is the hopeful outcome of this experience. In a short month, the primary objective for the course was for students to begin thinking in anti-colonial, anti-racist ways, perhaps for the first time in their lives. The outcomes of this course are a “not yet” as it will take a lifetime to embody the ideas presented and learned in this EE program. The students demonstrated the importance of building relationships, asking questions of themselves, asking for permission, and holding the posture of a learner. The “not yet” unfinishedness (Freire, 1972) of both the instructor and the students illuminates a passion to continue the work of becoming decolonized allies.

Appendix: Lesson Plan Sample Learning Objective: Students will compare and contrast traditional research with vanua research and connect these concepts to traditional service learning versus vanua service learning. Furthermore, students will examine their own insider/outsider positionality and consider how this informs their fieldwork.

Materials • Playdough for sculpture making • Questions on notecards for sculpture making • Fijian vocabulary notecards

Opening Talanoa In the village, I saw ______ and it made me (feel) __________ because ______________. Students will write their mini-talanoa, share with a partner, share in a square, and then report to the class what stood out from the village visit in terms of topics, emotions, and connections to other aspects of culture we have been studying.

Review Vocabulary and Add New Words • Sevusevu (ceremony) • Bulubulu (apology gift) • Talanoa (storytelling)

324  E. L. YOMANTAS

Discussion: Insider/Outsider Whole class discussion of the homework assignment regarding insider/outsider positionality. Homework Question: After reading Chapter 2, consider the ways you are an insider and outsider in Fiji. In your composition notebook, create a list of ways that you are an insider and ways you are an outsider. Then, write a short reflection on how these positionalities will inform the work you do here. • How are you an insider? How are you an outsider? • Think about other places in your life—where else are you an insider and an outsider? (Provide example—insider/outsider at Pepperdine, in the community, etc.) • How is insider/outsider positionality a constant negotiation? How do you redefine boundaries and expectations? • What are our rights, roles, and expectations as outsiders here? What are our rights, roles, and expectations as insiders here?

Sculpture Making: Vanua Research Divide students into four groups. Each group will make a sculpture to respond to each of the following questions. Each sculpture should include a title and a description at least three “talking points” from the text. • Group 1: How does vanua research differ from traditional research? • Group 2: What are vanua research procedures? • Group 3: What is talanoa? What factors influence talanoa to be different from each other? • Group 4: What are talanoa protocols? After students create their sculptures and notecards, each group will present their vanua research sculpture to the class.

Dialogical Poetry: The Academy vs. The Vanua Instructions: Divide students into four groups. Each group will create a dialogical poem—a poem with multiple voices to discuss the following different values of the academy vs. the vanua. Students will present their poems to the class. Dialogical Poetry • Subjectivity vs. Objectivity • Time

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

325

• Authority vs. Consent • Categories of knowledge • Ownership Discussion Questions: • We enter under the umbrella of the “academy”—who is our allegiance to? • How do we straddle the two knowledge paradigms in our work? • How does this shape our understanding of knowledge?

Example Creative rendition of concepts from Berryman et al. (2013): The Traditional Researcher

The Culturally Responsive Researcher

I have come to take data on your deficits I want information that will get published My desire is to ask you questions and collect information I will come when it’s convenient for me I will research on you, my subjects I will keep my judgments to myself I want to tell my version of your story I will collect data in methodologies in which I was trained I will use my training to do this for my own success I own the research I have power I value research over relationship I will do this alone— to make my research more successful I will be visible and heard

I have come to give an open ear with heartfelt listen I want to know you deeply and wholly My desire is to co-construct, to create together I will come when I am invited and welcomed in by you I will research with you, beautiful people I will not judge as I listen I want to tell your story I will collect “data” in the ways that feel natural to you I will use my training to illuminate your story You/We own the research We share power I value relationship over research We will do this together— to make the world more beautiful You will be visible and heard

After providing time to write, students will read their poems to the class as they reflect on their insider/outsider positionality and the vanua research protocols. Closing Talanoa: Instructor explains researcher dilemma to students, which leads to a concluding whole class discussion about the rights and responsibilities of researchers.

326  E. L. YOMANTAS

Dilemma: I was invited visit a remote village this Saturday by the local headman. He invited to take me and my co-lead, Ann Cooper of the Fiji Kinde Project, up to see the sacred tribal rocks. They have invited us to collect recorded stories of the tribe and compose a short narrative of the tribal history. I am a part of the academy, and I do not have IRB approval to collect this data. But, I was invited by the vanua. What do I do? Who do I honor? Whose guidelines do I follow? What are my highest ethical obligations?

References Ally [Def. 2]. (n.d.). In Merriam webster Online, Retrieved from September 15, 2019 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ally. Anthony-Stevens, V. (2017). Cultivating alliances: Reflections on the role of non-indigenous collaborators in indigenous educational sovereignty. Journal of ­ American Indian Education, 56(1), 81–104.  Association for Experiential Education. (n.d.). What is EE. In Association for Experiential Education. www.aee.org/what-is-ee. Berryman, M., SooHoo, S., & Nevin, A. (2013). Culturally responsive methodologies from the margins. In M. Berryman, S. SooHoo, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Culturally responsive methodologies (pp. 1–31). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Bhabha, H. K. (1984). Of mimicry and man: The ambivalence of colonial discourse. Discipleship: A Special Issue on Psychoanalysis, 28(1), 125–133 https://doi. org/10.2307/778467. Biermann, S. (2011). Knowledge, power and decolonization: Implications for ­non-indigenous scholars, researchers and educators. Counterpoints, 379, 386–398. Breunig, M. (2005). Turning experiential education and critical pedagogy theory into praxis. The Journal of Experiential Education, 28(2), 106–122. https://doi. org/10.1177/105382590502800205. Breunig, M. (2011). Paulo Freire: Critical praxis and experiential education. In T. Smith & C. Knapp (Eds.), Sourcebook of experiential education: Key thinkers and their contributions (pp. 56–63). New York: Routledge. Bryan, P. (2012). Making space for our stories: Imagining a democratic classroom. In L. D. Monzo & A. Merz (Eds.), The hope for audacity: Public identity and equity action in education (pp. 161–192). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Bullock, J. (2005). Early care, education, and family life in rural Fiji: Experiences and reflections. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(1), 47–52. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10643-005-0019-1. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2016). California teaching performance expectations. Retrieved from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/ educator-prep/standards/adopted-tpes-2016.pdf. Chand, S. (2017). Newspaper coverage of climate change in Fiji: A content analysis. Pacific Journalism Review, 23(1), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.24135/pjr.v23i1.310. Chattier, P. (2013). Does schooling and work empower women in Fiji? Or have gender inequalities persisted and why? Global Change, Peace & Security, 25(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781158.2013.758097. Christens, B., Winn, L., & Duke, A. (2016). Empowerment and critical consciousness: A conceptual cross-fertilization. Adolescent Research Review, 1(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-015-0019-3.

16  DECOLONIZING KNOWLEDGE AND FOSTERING CRITICAL ALLYSHIP 

327

Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Ludlow, L., Grudnoff, L., & Aitken, G. (2014). The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–38. Coxon, E. (2006). Schooling, ethnicity and social inclusion in Fiji. World Studies in Education, 7(2), 55–73. Darder, A. (2017). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. New York: Routledge. Dei, G. J. S. (2011). Revisiting the question of “Indigenous”. In G. J. S. Dei (Ed.), Indigenous philosophies and critical education: A reader (pp. 21–33). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Dey, M., Gosh, K., Valmonte-Santos, R., Rosegrant, M., & Chen, O. (2016). Economic impact of climate change and climate change adaptation strategies for fisheries sector in Fiji. Marine Policy, 67, 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpol.2015.12.023. Eräsaari, M. (2015). The iTaukei chief: Value and alterity in Verata. Journal de La Société Des Océanistes, 141, 239–254. https://doi.org/10.4000/jso.7407. Farrelly, T., & Nabobo-Baba, U. (2012, December 3–5). Talanoa as empathic research. International Development Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1996). Letters to Christina: Reflections on my life and work. New York, NY: Routledge. Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the heart. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2013). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York: Routledge. Giroux, H. (2010). Paulo Freire and the crisis of the political. Power and Education, 2(3), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2010.2.3.335. Giroux, H. (2017). Foreword: Paulo Freire and the courage to be political. In A. Darder (Ed.), Reinventing Paulo Freire. New York: Routledge. Gounder, N., Reddy, M., & Chand Prasad, B. (2010). Support for democracy in the Fiji Islands: Does schooling matter? International Journal of Social Economics, 37(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291011007255. Grain, K., Katumba, T., Kirumira, D., Nakasiita, R., Nakayenga, S., Nankya, E., … Sssegawa, M. (2019). Co-constructing knowledge in Uganda: Host community conceptions of relationships in international service learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 42(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825918820677. Harthorn, B. H. (2005). Gender, health inequality, and hidden healers in rural Fiji. Fijian Studies: A Journal of Contemporary Fiji, 3(2), 337–356. Indigenous Action Media. (2014, May 2). Accomplices not allies. Retrieved from http:// www.indigenousaction.org/accomplices-not-allies-abolishing-the-ally-industrial-complex/. Lotherington, H. (1998). Language choices and social reality: Education in ­post-colonial Fiji. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 19(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07256868.1998.9963455. Nabobo-Baba, U. (2006). Knowing and learning: An indigenous Fijian approach. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific. Pepperdine University. (2019). The mission of Seaver college. Retrieved from https:// seaver.pepperdine.edu/about/our-story/seaver-mission/.

328  E. L. YOMANTAS Robie, D., & Chand, S. (2017). Bearing witness 2016: A Fiji climate change journalism case study. Pacific Journalism Review, 23(1), 186–205. https://doi. org/10.24135/pjr.v23i1.257. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. London, UK: Penguin Books. Sanga, K., & Reynolds, M. (2017). To know more of what is and what it is not: Pacific research on the move. Pacific Dynamics: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(1), 198–204. Shor, I. (1993). Education is politics: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren & P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A critical encounter (pp. 25–35). Smith, L. (2012a). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London, UK: Zed Books. Smith, T., Knapp, C., Seaman, J., & Pace, S. (2011). Experiential education and learning by experience. In T. Smith & C. Knapp (Eds.), Sourcebook of experiential education: Key thinkers and their contributions (pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge. SooHoo, S. (2013). Humility within culturally responsive methodologies. In M. Berryman, S. SooHoo, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Culturally responsive methodologies (pp. 199–220). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Tuck, E., & Yang, W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40. Vaka’uta, C. K. (2011). A reflection on “being” “Fijian” and “belonging” to Fiji: Conceptualizing a value-theory approach to citizenship education. Pacific-Asian Education Journal, 23(2), 77–88. Varani-Norton, E. (2005). The church versus women’s push for change: The case of Fiji. Fijian Studies: A Journal of Contemporary Fiji, 3(2), 223–247. Wendt, A. (1982). Towards a new Oceania. In G. Amirthanayagam (Ed.), Writers in east-west encounters (pp. 202–215). London, UK: Macmillan. White, C. M. (2013). Subjective difference: Institutional culture and the assessment of Fijian female academic achievement. Ethnography and Education, 8(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2013.766432. White, C. M. (2015). Rurality, urbanity, and indigeneity and schooling in Fiji. International Education, 44(2), 69–85. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Black Point, NS: Fernwood.

Recommended Reading Berryman, M., SooHoo, S., & Nevin, A. (2013b). Culturally responsive methodologies from the margins. In M. Berryman, S. SooHoo, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Culturally responsive methodologies (pp. 1–31). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Nabobo-Baba, U. (2008). Decolonising framings in pacific research: Indigenous Fijian vanua research framework as an organic response. AlterNative, 4(2), 141–154. Smith, L. (2012b). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London, UK: Zed Books. Smith, T., & Knapp, C. (2011). Sourcebook of experiential education: Key thinkers and their contributions. New York: Routledge.

CHAPTER 17

Conclusion Laura Parson and C. Casey Ozaki

Higher education reinforces societal inequity through teaching and learning practices that promote dominant ways of viewing and thinking about the world, practices that are formalized and reinforced in a neoliberal environment (Giroux, 2005, 2010; Hager, Peyrefitte, & Davis, 2018; Lynch, 2006). Similarly, the field of learning sciences (e.g., cognitive psychology, motivation research) has advanced significantly in the last decade, yet many teaching and learning practices are rooted in an outdated or incorrect understanding of how learning occurs (e.g., learning styles, andragogy vs pedagogy, personality tests). These outdated practices create a higher education environment that does not promote learning equitably and may be harmful for marginalized and underrepresented students (Howell & Tuitt, 2003). This volume, the first of three, is a response to calls for actionable approaches to teaching and learning in higher education that promote social justice (Hager et al., 2018; marblely et al., 2017). Our focus, throughout this series, is to combine the most updated knowledge about the science of learning and effective teaching and learning across higher education, including classroom spaces, but also to improve the practices of student affairs, advising, and career services professionals. In this volume, each chapter focused on a theory of teaching and learning and, through a critical lens and informed by other theories of higher education and adult learning, provided an application L. Parson (*)  North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA e-mail: [email protected] C. C. Ozaki  University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1_17

329

330  L. PARSON AND C. C. OZAKI

of how that theory can be reconceptualized and reconstructed to promote equity and diversity. Specifically, chapters in Volume I focused on the most recent research on the cognitive science behind teaching and learning, dispelled myths about teaching and learning (e.g., learning styles, laptop bans), and provided updates to the application of traditional learning theories within the modern, diverse university. Our goal, throughout Volume I, has been to provide examples of how to use and adapt traditional theories and to provide a foundation for reconceptualized theories of teaching and learning in higher education. The chapters throughout this volume advance research and thinking about college teaching and learning in order to emancipate higher education learners in a way that not only transforms the higher education institution but also transforms the world. Through this exploration of theory and practice to promote equity and diversity, several themes persist. First, our conceptualization of a social justice lens in teaching and learning in higher education has focused on the instructor and instructional processes. In doing so, we sought to move away from the deficiency lens that has often characterized learners as deficient through the lens of learning theory—that is, lacking the characteristics viewed as necessary for learning in a classroom organized through that learning theory or critical lens. Volume chapters, such as “Beyond Behaviorism,” “Learning theory through a Social Justice Lens,” and “Persistent Myths,” take on these historical theories that described teaching and learning theory from narrow, deficient perspectives and advocate for the advancement of critical perspectives and inclusive ways of knowing. We see the deficiency lens, especially as an approach to pedagogical decisions, as deeply problematic, not the least because it often replicates racialized and gendered ideals of what a student and learning should look like in higher education, but also because it fails to acknowledge and validate the nontraditional knowledges and experiences that students from non-white, non-Western communities and cultures bring to the classroom. Parson and Weise’s “Postcolonial” chapter, Loya’s chapter of epistemic credibility, and Schoper and Amelse’s chapter on emotions are samplings of the ways that volume authors are attempting to, at times, deviate from past theory, and, in other instances, attempt to take existing perspectives and expand their application in the neoliberal university context. Instead, the focus on this volume and, indeed, in Volumes II and III is the ways that instructors and practitioners can adapt their teaching and learning practices to be more inclusive, to empower and validate students, and, as a result, promote both learning and social justice. Second, throughout Volume I, we also sought to avoid the impulse to classify and organize students into general categories (with needs generalized by stereotypes). Instead, authors in this volume focused on how to individualize instruction while taking into account the historical context of the institution and setting where learning occurs and how certain practices, content, and procedures have been found to support marginalized learners. For example, the chapter by Buckley et al. describes a framework for social justice

17 CONCLUSION 

331

education that addresses the holistic development and cultural competence of college students in a way that sees to create more equitable social and campus environments. Similarly, Conyers et al. advocate for and demonstrate how association awareness and implicit bias are critical concepts for faculty development and faculty-led equity work. Altogether, it is important to acknowledge and understand how higher education has historically perpetuated the marginalization of different groups and how that marginalization has been different for certain groups (e.g., the model minority myth) while understanding that learners who identify in that group might not reflect or embody the advantages or disadvantages typically ascribed to members of that group. This complexity of marginalization membership across varied populations is tackled and responded to in Schoper and Amelse’s examination of learning and emotions through gendered interpretations or able-bodied perspectives, while Yomantas takes this critical examination to Fiji and an experiential education course designed to foster allyship. Relatedly, authors sought to problematize the inclusion of minoritized students in discussions about diversity and social justice (and diversity experiences; see Chapter 8) without tokenizing them or relying on them as key informers. To those ends, each chapter has provided theoretical frames and specific methods that consider how to tailor instruction and content in ways that consider learning differences and individualize instruction in ways that promote equitable access to content. Finally, Volume I authors moved beyond recommending specific teaching methods (although those were included as well), to thinking about how we can adapt and expand content and process in curriculum and course design. Specifically, authors explored how considering emotion and motivation can lead to a more equitable classroom design that promotes access to content for minoritized learners and creates a classroom environment that maximizes access for all students (see Chapters 10–12). One example of how to individualize instruction through a social justice lens is through the personalization of learning options. Choice in assignment and content can empower students as valid directors of their learning and, as a result, validate them and their voices by demonstrating their motivation to learn and how it connects to their lives and needs are valid needs for the learning process. Throughout Volume I, there is a clear call to align content, framework, environment, and teaching methods; addressing one without considering the others often results in a new method of colonization. Throughout Volume I, we sought to provide specific examples of how to create more equitable environments that went beyond teaching methods and considered setting, content, theoretical framework, and the cognitive science of learning. As such, this volume focused on updating the scholarship of teaching and learning in the context of the modern university. Volumes II and III will focus on field and context-specific applications of teaching and learning practices that promote social justice and equity. Specifically, Volume

332  L. PARSON AND C. C. OZAKI

II will focus on specific applications of SoTL to improve teaching and learning to promote equity in the classroom through specific disciplinary areas such as STEM, health professions education, and the humanities. Chapters in Volume II will focus on how SoTL can be applied within different content areas to improve student learning equitably. Each chapter will include specific, actionable pedagogical or curriculum recommendations and a suggested lesson plan. Volume III will focus on the application of SoTL in higher education outside of the classroom to co-curricular environments (e.g., advising, student involvement, admissions). Each chapter in Volume III will include a description of how higher education may traditionally marginalize students from underrepresented groups, outline a research-based plan to improve student experiences, and provide a program or activity plan to implement the recommendations from each chapter. Our hope, across the series, is to create a comprehensive volume that can help higher education practitioners to apply the critical science of teaching and learning in higher education to promote social justice through creating more equitable spaces and emancipating access to content, learning environments, and empowerment.

References Giroux, H. A. (2005). Against the new authoritarianism: Politics after Abu Ghraib. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring. Giroux, H. A. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010.8.6.715. Hager, T., Peyrefitte, M., & Davis, C. (2018). The politics of neoliberalism and social justice: Towards a pedagogy of critical locational encounter. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 13(3), 199–206. https://doi. org/10.1177/1746197918793069. Howell, A., & Tuitt, F. (2003). Race and higher education: Rethinking pedagogy in diverse college classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implications for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi. org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1.

Index

A andragogy, 7, 21–24, 26, 29 association, 29, 182, 202, 204–206, 239, 246–249, 251, 253 B behaviorism, 3, 7, 10–12, 39–46, 49, 50, 105 Bourdieu, P., 4, 220–224, 227, 228, 232, 234 C cognitivism, 7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 30 college student, 22, 62, 117, 203, 205–207, 210, 226, 266, 331 college student development, 2, 3, 15, 16, 40, 84, 89, 268 college student learning, 2–4, 15, 22, 40, 45, 84, 89, 131 colonialism, 94, 95, 98, 100, 106, 304 communities of practice (CoP), 29, 157, 158, 161, 162, 173 competency-based curriculum, 3, 93, 94, 101, 103–108, 110–112 constructivism, 7, 17–21, 24, 262–264 critical allyship, 3, 311, 312 critical consciousness, 4, 160, 165, 170, 267, 279, 280, 308, 310

critical contemplative pedagogy, 4, 261, 267, 268, 272, 273 critical culturally relevant education, 4, 200–203, 205, 208–211 critical multiculturalism, 74, 75, 81, 119, 208 critical pedagogy, 3, 24, 29, 267, 304, 305, 307–309, 316 critical responsibility, 4, 157, 158, 162, 169–171, 173–175 critical theory, 27–30, 74, 77, 85, 268 culturally responsive service learning, 304, 305 D decolonization, 93, 97–99, 101–103, 106, 111, 112, 304, 305, 308, 310–312, 315, 316, 320–323 E education tracking, 64, 66 empowering pedagogical praxis, 28, 99 engagement learning, 32, 49, 66, 120, 126, 130, 144, 146, 148–150, 202, 227 equity, 1, 2, 4, 9, 27, 29, 30, 39–41, 43, 46–49, 56, 57, 59, 63, 66, 120, 160, 161, 165, 166, 168–170, 172,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 L. Parson and C. C. Ozaki (eds.), Teaching and Learning for Social Justice and Equity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44939-1

333

334  Index 173, 187, 194, 253, 266, 279, 280, 296, 330–332 experiential education (EE), 3, 304, 305, 307–311, 316, 320–323, 331 F facilitating dialogue, 75, 79, 83, 86, 87, 240, 243–245 G graduate, 2, 4, 30, 94, 106, 110, 121, 163, 166, 171, 200, 280–283, 285–287, 289–296 H hegemony, 93, 97 higher education, 1–4, 8–16, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29–33, 40–47, 49, 50, 61, 67, 93, 94, 96–107, 109, 112, 117– 119, 138, 148, 149, 158, 159, 161, 162, 167–171, 173, 184–187, 191, 192, 199–204, 206–211, 219, 220, 222, 224, 225, 227, 233, 234, 240, 246, 260–273, 280–283, 288–290, 296, 304, 321, 329–332 holistic development, 74, 75, 80, 82–84, 88, 89, 331 I implicit association, 246 implicit bias, 60, 147, 240, 241, 246–253, 311, 331 indigenous knowledge, 97, 105, 107, 112, 309, 312, 313, 315, 316, 320 instructional strategies, 85, 268, 312, 318 intergroup dialogue (IGD), 3, 73–75, 77–79, 82, 83, 86–88, 243 L learning styles theory, 15, 53, 55, 57

M marginalized students, 55–57, 60, 64, 66, 93, 94, 106, 137, 140, 146– 149, 332 mentoring, 4, 279–296 microaggressions, 169, 174, 240, 249 N neoliberalism, 39, 40, 43–46, 50, 102, 103 neuroscience, 4, 60, 61, 201–203, 207 P pedagogy, 3, 21, 33, 40, 42, 46–50, 59, 67, 74, 82, 120, 126, 127, 161, 162, 171, 173, 188, 200, 207, 226–230, 232, 234, 245, 267, 272, 320 personality types, 53, 54, 57, 58 philosophy of education, 272, 273 postcolonialism, 93, 94, 97, 98, 111 S social capital, 220, 221, 224, 234, 235, 284 social emotional learning, 209 socialization, 61, 160, 247, 248, 261, 279, 280, 290, 291 social justice education (SJE), 3, 73–84, 87–89, 139, 141, 158, 161, 330 student success, 2, 50, 104, 219, 220, 295 T teaching and learning, 1–4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 25, 27–33, 39, 49, 50, 54, 55, 67, 80, 82, 94, 96, 112, 117–121, 123, 126–131, 158, 162, 191, 220, 225, 230, 231, 261, 266–268, 272, 273, 282, 288, 289, 309, 310, 321, 329–332 transformative learning theory, 7, 8, 24–28, 279, 280, 287–290, 294, 296