[Assessing Student Learning ] dialogue may occur between women and men, people of color and white Evaluating Intergroup Dialogue: people, or people of different religions. The IGD practice we researched Engaging Diversity for Personal and Social follows the theoretical model shown Responsibility in figure 1 (Nagda 2006). The three broad goals of intergroup dialogue,  Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda, associate professor of at the University of Washington; represented as outcomes, are: to develop Patricia Gurin, professor emerita of and women’s studies at the ; Nicholas Sorensen, doctoral candidate in social psychology at the University of Michigan; and intergroup understanding by helping Ximena Zúñiga, associate professor of (social justice education) at the University of students explore their own and others’ Massachusetts-Amherst social identities and statuses, and the role of social structures in relation- In 2003, supporters of the University Colleges and universities must create ships of privilege and inequality; to of Michigan’s defense of its affirmative academic initiatives that engage students foster positive intergroup relationships action policies filed seventy-four amici intellectually and foster an understanding by developing students’ empathy and curiae in the U.S. Supreme Court con- of group-based inequalities and other motivation to bridge differences of identi- tending that diversity in educational set- dynamics that affect intergroup relation- ties and statuses; and to foster intergroup tings is crucial to student learning. These ships. Educators must provide guided collaboration for personal and social amicus briefs emphasized that interac- interaction among students of different responsibility toward greater social justice. tions with diverse peer groups encourage backgrounds to ensure that students IGD learning pedagogy involves students to learn from each other, to engage constructively to understand their three important features: understand perspectives that reflect similar and different experiences, and 1. Active and engaged learning: different experiences and various social develop individual and collective efficacy IGD course curricula include readings backgrounds, and to gain the cultural to influence the world around them. (historical, sociological, scientific, and competence critical to effective local and Intergroup dialogue (IGD) programs narrative), didactic and experiential global leadership. In support of similar are one way to engage students in activities, writing assignments, and goals, the Association of American meaningful and substantive interaction questions to stimulate reflection, critical Colleges and Universities has called for across difference. Given the increasing analysis, and dialogue. Writing assign- “a kind of learning students need to meet number of such programs nationwide, ments provide space for reflection and emerging challenges in the workplace, in they represent an opportunity to assess help students integrate their learning a diverse democracy, and in an intercon- the value of a diversity education effort from the dialogue sessions, readings, and nected world” (AAC&U 2002). AAC&U across institutions. We recently conducted experiences inside and outside of class. initiatives like Core Commitments have a nine-university collaborative study 2. Structured interaction: Through supported universities’ efforts to help to evaluate the effects of gender and credit-bearing courses, IGD brings students develop a sense of personal race/ethnicity intergroup dialogues.1 together equal numbers of students from and social responsibility that involves at least two identity groups for sustained taking seriously the perspectives of IGD Practice and Theory engagement. IGD classes usually meet others, grounding action in ethical Intergroup dialogue initiatives bring for two to three hours per week over a considerations, and contributing to the together students from two different period of ten to fourteen weeks. Students larger society—all outcomes associated social identity groups in a sustained and learn interdependently as they practice with diversity work in higher education. facilitated learning environment. As listening, asking questions, exploring con- But what kind of education actu- an educational method, IGD engages tentious issues, and making connections ally leverages diversity to foster these students to explore issues of diversity and with others. With the help of facilitators, outcomes? Evidence presented to the inequality and their personal and social students develop guidelines for respectful Supreme Court in 2003 and research responsibility for building a more just dialogic engagement, including working conducted since has made clear that if society (Zúñiga at al. 2007). Dialogue is a with disagreements and conflicts. diversity is to have educational benefits, collaborative communication process that 3. Facilitated learning environments: colleges and universities need to make engages students in self–other exchanges A team of two cofacilitators, one from full use of it as an institutional resource that illuminate intellectual and experien- each identity group, works together (Chang et al. 2003; Gurin et al. 2002). tial similarities and differences. Intergroup to guide intergroup dialogue. Before

4 VOL. 12, NO. 1 n ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES CIVIC LEARNING FOR SHARED FUTURES

Figure 1: Theoretical framework of Intergroup Dialogue Practice and Research Students in the dialogues, control groups, and comparison groups completed a PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERGROUP COMMUNICATION survey at the term’s start, a survey at the PROCESSES DIALOGUE PROCESSES end of the term, and a one-year longi- (WITHIN OUTCOMES PEDAGOGY (WITHIN IGD) INDIVIDUALS) tudinal follow-up survey. The surveys were supplemented using qualitative Active Learning from Intergroup methods (videotaping, content analysis of Learning Others Cognitive Understanding students’ final papers, and interviews). Engaging Self Processes Structured Intergroup Critical Re ection Interaction Aective Relationships Result Highlights Facilitative Building Processes Intergroup Alliances/ Analyses of pre- and postsurvey data Guidance Common Ground Collaboration (table 1) indicate that intergroup dialogue produces consistent positive effects across all three categories of outcomes: facilitating an IGD, faculty, professional The research design addressed issues Intergroup Understanding: staff, and graduate or undergraduate of selectivity, causality, and dialogue Awareness of inequality and its relation- students undergo intensive knowledge topic through the following features: ship to institutional and structural and skills development. They learn how to Random Assignment: At partici- factors (economically disadvantaged create an inclusive and involved learning pating institutions, interested students schools, discrimination, low availability environment, use structured activities applied online to enroll in intergroup of adequately paying jobs, unequal access to promote reflection and integration of dialogue courses. Institutional teams to education) are important measures academic content, and model dialogic matched applicants by race and gender of intergroup understanding. Students communication and collaboration. and randomly assigned students to in both the race/ethnicity and gender dialogue groups (experimental groups) dialogues showed greater increases in Research Questions and Design or to groups whose members did not awareness and understanding of both In the multiuniversity research project, participate in any intergroup dialogues racial and gender inequalities and their we wanted not only to understand what (control groups). This design allowed structural causes than did students in outcomes result from intergroup dia- us to control for student self-selectivity the control groups or the social science logue, but also explain how intergroup and attribute observed learning out- classes. Race/ethnicity dialogues also dialogue affects student learning, which comes to intergroup dialogue practices. significantly affected students’ under- we refer to as processes. We focused on Participating researchers conducted standing of income inequality, although two sets of processes: the psychological a total of twenty-six race/ethnicity gender dialogues did not have the same processes that occur within individuals dialogues with twenty-six control result. Another measure of intergroup (Dovidio et al. 2004), and the com- groups, and twenty-six gender dialogues understanding that showed a positive munication processes that occur among with twenty-six control groups. impact was identity engagement: a individuals (Nagda 2006). We theorized Comparison Groups: In addition to student’s ability to think and learn about that these processes mediate the impact the control groups, the study included his or her group identity and its relation- of intergroup dialogue pedagogy on comparison groups consisting of social ship to perspectives that the student and outcomes, as shown in figure 1. science classes on race/ethnicity and other group members tend to hold. Among other questions, we asked: gender that used a lecture-discussion Intergroup Relationships: Dialogue What are the primary effects of inter- format. These comparison groups increased students’ positive intergroup group dialogue on the three major allowed us to test whether observed relationships. In contrast to students in categories of outcomes? Do both race/ effects could be attributed to the dialogue both the control and comparison groups, ethnicity and gender dialogues show method rather than simply to content dialogue participants showed significantly these effects? Do the effects of intergroup learning about race/ethnicity and gender. greater motivation to bridge differences dialogue exceed those of content learning Participating researchers conducted and greater increases in empathy. These about race/ethnicity and gender—i.e., are fourteen race/ethnicity and fourteen effects were consistent across both intergroup dialogue groups more effective gender social science comparisons. gender and race/ethnicity dialogues. than courses on race/ethnicity and gender Assessment Methods: The project Intergroup Collaboration and that do not use the dialogue method? consisted of a mixed-methods study. Engagement: Assessments of how

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES n VOL. 12, NO. 1 5 dialogue fosters intergroup collaboration on derogatory comments made about lectually challenged and emotionally toward personal and social responsibility groups” and for participating in coalitions engaged. These facilitated relationships revealed consistent positive effects. to address discrimination and social influence students’ understanding of Dialogue participants, more than students issues. All these results were greater for their own and others’ experiences in in the control groups and comparison the students participating in the dialogues society and cultivate individual and col- classes, expressed increased motivation to than for those in comparison classes. lective agency to effect social change. be actively engaged in their post-college Yet if intergroup dialogue is an communities by “influencing social Final Thoughts effective learning practice, assessments policy,” “influencing the political structure Developing and acting on a sense of that confirm its worth and explain its through voting and educational cam- personal and social responsibility are mechanisms are also essential. Educators paigns,” and “working to correct social lifelong endeavors. Our work with and researchers must continue to provide and economic inequalities.” Dialogue intergroup dialogues, both through evidence of the value of educational also increased students’ confidence in practice and evidenced in our research, diversity as we strive to strengthen the taking action and their actual behaviors. confirms that higher education institu- role of higher education in building just After completing the dialogues, students tions can support students as they futures. This article has emphasized indicated greater personal responsibility develop these capacities. Through evidence relating to some selected for educating themselves about “biases sustained dialogue with diverse peers predicted outcomes of intergroup that affect their own thinking” and about that integrates content learning and dialogue. Further evidence related to “other groups.” They also showed greater experiential knowledge, intergroup the whole theoretical model will be responsibility for “challenging others dialogue encourages students to be intel- presented in forthcoming articles and a book expected in summer 2009. <

Table 1: Effects of intergroup dialogue across time References Association of American Colleges and EFFECT OF EFFECT OF DIALOGUE Universities. 2002. Greater expectations: A new OUTCOMES DIALOGUE VS. VS. SOCIAL SCIENCE vision for learning as a nation goes to college. CONTROL COMPARISON Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Chang, M. J., D. Witt, J. Jones, and K. Hakuta. Awareness and Structural 2003. Compelling interest: Examining the evidence Understanding of Gender *** *** on racial dynamics in colleges and universities. and Racial Inequality Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Dovidio, J. F., S. L. Gaertner, T. L. Stewart, V. M. Structural Understanding Esses, M. ten Vergert, and G. Hodson. 2004.

of Income Inequality * ns From intervention to outcome: Processes in the INTERGROUP reduction of bias. In W. G. Stephan & W. P. Vogt UNDERSTANDING Identity Engagement *** *** (Eds.), Education programs for improving inter- group relations: Theory, research and practice, 243-265. New York: Teachers College Press. Empathy *** *** Gurin, P., E. L. Dey, S. Hurtado, and G. Gurin. 2002. Diversity and higher education: Theory Motivation to Bridge and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Dierences *** *** Educational Review 72 (3): 330-366. INTERGROUP Nagda, B. A. 2006. Breaking barriers, crossing RELATIONSHIPS

boundaries, building bridges: Communication Anticipated Post-College processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of Involvement in Redressing *** *** Social Issues 62 (3): 553-576. Zúñiga, X. B. A. Nagda M. Chesler A.

Inequality , , , and Cytron-Walker. 2007. Intergroup dialogues in Con dence and Frequency higher education: Meaningful learning about social justice. ASHE Higher Education Report of Taking Action *** ***

INTERGROUP COLLABORATION Series 32 (4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

1: Participating institutions were: Arizona State This table shows change over time comparing intergroup dialogue participants to students in University, Occidental College, Syracuse University, the control group and the social science classes. These effects are consistent across race/ethnic- the University of California-San Diego, the University ity and gender dialogues with the exception of structural understanding of income inequality of Maryland-College Park, the University of (significant effects demonstrated for race/ethnicity but not gender dialogues). The level of Massachusetts-Amherst, the University of Michigan- Ann Arbor, the University of Texas-Austin, and the significant difference is indicated thus: *** p < .001, * p <.05, ns = non-significant effect. University of Washington-Seattle.

6 VOL. 12, NO. 1 n ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES