Diversity Initiatives in Higher Education: Intergroup Dialogue As Pedagogy Across the Curriculum

HigherHigher EducationEducation Higher Education

Diversity Initiatives in Higher Education: Intergroup Dialogue as Pedagogy across the Curriculum

By Christine Clark

Preface tion and participation that was unique to formally trained and otherwise experienced each Scholar’s class responsibilities and facilitators, students confront these ten- The Intergroup Dialogue as Pedagogy educational settings. The third semester sions in order to build meaningful and sus- Across the Curriculum (INTERACT) Pilot (Spring 2004) the Scholars implemented tained bridges across groups through en- Project was a two-year (2002-2004) explor- their hybrid portfolios—“walking the talk” gagement in intergroup dialogue. atory grant funded by the Ford Foundation. of intergroup dialogue as pedagogy across More specifically, intergroup dialogue A school/college/university partnership ini- the curriculum—and assessed the impact is a collaboratively structured form of group tiative, the project, was structured as a of this instructional strategy on their stu- conversation characterized by participants’ facilitated learning opportunity primarily dents’ learning engagement and outcomes. willingness to “listen for understanding.” It for the University of Maryland, Prince In sum, the project explored, exam- is different from discussion, where partici- George’s Community College, and Prince ined, and investigated the connections be- pants generally engage in serial mono- George’s County Public Schools faculty to tween increases in student motivation, in- loguing—each offering their perspective on a examine the efficacy of adapting intergroup terest in learning, and academic achieve- given topic, as well as from debate, where dialogue-based pedagogy to classroom ment, and the use of non-traditional educa- participants typically learn to “listen to gain teaching across disciplines/subject areas, tional processes, especially student-cen- advantage”—each seeking to trump the per- academic levels, and educational contexts. tered dialogic pedagogy. spectives offered by others on a given topic. Toward that end, ten pilot project par- OHRP established the Words of En- ticipants, representing a broad range of Introduction gagement Intergroup Dialogue Program in interpersonal, academic, and professional response to University of Maryland stu- diversity, were identified through a com- The idea for the INTERACT pilot dent focus group research results indicat- petitive selection process. These partici- project emerged, quite organically, from ing that students across race were dissat- pants, named INTEACT Scholars, formed the cross-pollination of two major initia- isfied with: (1) the campus-wide diversity the project’s Scholars Cohort. This Cohort tives of the Office of Human Relations Pro- initiative; and (2) the university’s diver- met twenty-four times, grouped into three grams (OHRP), the equity compliance and sity course requirement—both of which distinct semester initiatives, over the life multicultural education arm of the Office of were seen by students as failing to engen- of the project. the President at the University of Mary- der much sought-after multicultural in- The first semester (Spring 2003) fo- land, College Park. These initiatives are teraction competence and relationship cused Scholars on developing an under- OHRP’s Words of Engagement Intergroup building. standing of intergroup dialogue theories Dialogue Program—the core component of Since its inception in the Spring of and practice models. The second semester its Student Intercultural Learning Center 2000, over 1200 undergraduate students (Fall 2003) Scholars were facilitated (SILC)—and OHRP’s Multicultural Cur- have participated in the Words of Engage- through the development of a teaching and riculum Change Program—a major offer- ment Intergroup Dialogue Program (for learning portfolio, an intergroup dialogue ing of its Diversity Training and Consulta- which they began being able to earn aca- facilitation and participation portfolio, and tion Services (DTCS). demic credit in the Fall of 2001). Over 100 the integration of these two portfolios into The Words of Engagement Intergroup graduate students, non-exempt and exempt a hybrid portfolio that teased out the inter- Dialogue Program typically brings together staff members, and faculty have been sections of content-based teaching and various bi-communal groups of primarily trained as program facilitators, and over learning and intergroup dialogue facilita- undergraduate students where there is a 100 dialogues on over 50 different topics history of tension or conflict between the have been offered through the program. groups related to their respective com- Through all of the program’s assessment Christine Clark is executive director munity’s social identities (e.g., women and and evaluation endeavors, student gradu- of the Office of Human Relations Programs men, Black American and White Ameri- ates routinely report that their intergroup at the University of Maryland, can, Muslim and Jewish, etc.). Guided by dialogue experience was the single most College Park, Maryland.

SPRING 2005 51 Higher Education important, meaningful, and useful educa- ton, School Improvement Resources Spe- non-credit dialogues a semester for ap- tional experience they have ever had. cialist, Longfield Elementary School. proximately twenty students, to offering Through the Multicultural Curriculum Student Scholars included: Mr. fifteen for-credit dialogues a semester for Change Program, interested instructional Daniello Balón, Fourth Year Graduate Stu- more than two hundred by the Spring of faculty and graduate teaching assistants dent Counseling Personnel Services, Uni- 2003, questions about dialogue structure work one-on-one, in pairs, or as small group versity of Maryland; Mr. Amer Ramamni, as well as facilitator preparation became with OHRP staff in integrating multicul- Second Year Undergraduate Student, Math- more and more central. These questions tural educational approaches into their ematics, Prince George’s Community Col- had particular salience because OHRP full- courses. These approaches include improv- lege; and Ms. Dinora Hernández, Third Year time staff and graduate assistants were ing relationships with students, and be- (Junior) Student, Pre-Medicine, Eleanor now facilitating less than one-quarter of tween and among students, to enhance class- Roosevelt High School. the program’s dialogues, having trained a room climate, broadening their course con- The Project Ethnographer was Dr. John cadre of approximately twenty exempt staff tent to include relevant non-Western Euro- Finch, Visiting Instructor, Anthropology, members and graduate students from pean contributions to it, altering course peda- University of Maryland. across campus to facilitate the balance of gogical methods to reduce reliance on lecture these dialogues. to communicate content, and varying meth- Semester One INTERACT During roughly the same time period ods of assessment in order to more compre- (Spring 2000 to Spring 2003), OHRP be- hensively evaluate student learning and Scholars Cohort Seminar came increasingly involved in the Univer- teaching effectiveness, as well as the role in Spring 2003 sity of Michigan coordinated Multiversity instructional design materials play in both. project. This project, in which OHRP’s Words During this first semester, the com- Since its inception in the Fall of 1998, of Engagement Intergroup Dialogue Pro- plete INTERACT Scholars Cohort met the Multicultural Curriculum Change Pro- gram is now a fully participating partner, eight times at the Eleanor Roosevelt High gram has: (1) worked with over 300 faculty seeks to, among a host of other things, School. Co-facilitated by OHRP’s Dr. Chris- and graduate teaching assistants to develop a clear and comprehensive frame- tine Clark and Ms. Sivagami Subbaraman, “multiculturalize” their courses; (2) pro- work for how intergroup dialogues should the Cohort read the book, Deliberative De- vided $100,000 in discipline-specific multi- be structured to maximize learning out- mocracy in School, College, Community, and cultural instructional improvement grant comes. Specifically, it seeks to establish Workplace, edited by David Schoem and opportunities to 20 faculty members; and best practice models with respect to the Sylvia Hurtado, as a part of their conversa- (3) developed several diversity-focused number and demographic balance of par- tions on theories of intergroup dialogue. teaching enhancement initiatives for the ticipants, and the content, organization, They were also engaged in the practice entire campus community in collaboration and duration of the dialogues themselves. of intergroup dialogue through participa- with the university’s Curriculum Transfor- Noticeably absent from the Multiversity tion in: (1) OHRP’s Words of Engagement mation Project (housed in the Department project is specific attention to the role that Intergroup Dialogue Program twenty-hour of Women’s Studies) and its Center for facilitator preparation plays in maximiz- facilitator training; (2) an actual six week, Teaching Excellence (located in the Divi- ing participant learning outcomes. fifteen hour1 Words of Engagement inter- sion of Undergraduate Studies). The convergence of the growth and de- group dialogue (as participants, not facili- Over time, the Words of Engagement velopment of OHRP’s Words of Engagement tators); (3) a series of interactive dialogue Intergroup Dialogue Program facilitator Intergroup Dialogue Program, OHRP’s in- practicum workshops; and (4) dinner dia- training and Multicultural Curriculum volvement in the Multiversity project, and logues with nationally recognized inter- Change Program efforts to alter pedagogi- the INTERACT project’s Faculty and Stu- group dialogue experts. These experts in- cal methods began to dovetail, prompting dent Scholars participation in, and reac- cluded: Mr. John Landesman from the inquiry as to the applicability of intergroup tions to, both the Words of Engagement In- Montgomery County Public Schools in Mont- dialogue facilitation pedagogy as a non- tergroup Dialogue Program facilitator train- gomery County, Maryland; Dr. Ximena didactic pedagogical option in the academic ing as well as the intergroup dialogues them- Zúñiga, from the University of Massachu- classroom context. It was this line of in- selves led the project co-facilitators to iden- setts, Amherst; and, Dr. Biren “Ratnesh” quiry that led to the development of the tify the dearth of attention being given to Nagda, from the University of Washington, INTERACT pilot project. intergroup dialogue facilitator education in Seattle. the intergroup dialogue research bases. The INTERACT Scholars Cohort As the project co-facilitators became Spring 2003 Impact acutely aware of the huge variance in how Faculty Scholars in the program in- intergroup dialogue programs across the The INTERACT project had two very cluded: Dr. Lory “Tomni” Dance, Associate country select and qualify their facilita- powerful, and largely related, impacts its Professor, Sociology, University of Mary- tors, they recognized just how important first semester. These impacts emerged as land; Dr. Marvin Scott, Instructor, Kinesi- the data were that they were collecting in a result of the confluence of two other major ology, University of Maryland; Ms. Meredith this regard through the INTERACT project. initiatives of OHRP. Massey, Assistant Professor, English as a Even at just this halfway point in the In the Spring of 2000, OHRP initiated Second Language, Prince George’s Commu- project, this data completely changed UM’s Words of Engagement Intergroup Dia- nity College; Ms. Leslie Redwine, Associ- OHRP’s Words of Engagement Intergroup logue Program as described earlier. At the ate Professor, Mathematics, Prince Dialogue Program facilitator development time of its inception, OHRP full-time ex- George’s Community College; Ms. Linda efforts. Through OHRP’s involvement in empt staff and graduate assistants facili- Squier, Teacher, Latin, Eleanor Roosevelt the Multiversity project it also encouraged tated all of the program’s dialogue offer- High School;and Mr. Anthony Whitting- more intentional consideration of the role ings. As the program grew from offering five

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 52 Higher Education that facilitator skill—both independent of, the University of Maryland campus. IN- (2) The facilitator training component and in direct relationship to, dialogue struc- TERACT Scholars and Words of Engage- of the Words of Engagement Intergroup Dia- ture—plays in maximizing participant ment Intergroup Dialogue Program facili- logue Program, revised based on data col- learning outcomes in that project. And, it tators were invited to attend, as were any lected from the Spring 2003 INTERACT also changed the way the INTERACT interested academic administrators, fac- project Cohort Seminar, was vetted as ful- project co-facilitators facilitated the sub- ulty, staff, and students from the Univer- filling the “major project” requirement of sequent Cohort Seminar sessions. These sity of Maryland, Prince George’s Commu- the University of Maryland’s Center for changes will be discussed in greater detail nity College, and the Prince George’s County Teaching Excellence’s University Teaching later in connection to the project’s findings. Public Schools. and Learning Program (UTLP) and related A broad cross-section of the invitees, requirements of the Council of Graduate Semester Two INTERACT primarily from the University of Maryland, Schools’ and Association of American Col- attended, including a large number of senior leges and Universities’ (AAC&U) Prepar- Scholars Cohort Seminar academic administrators from the Univer- ing Future Faculty (PFF) program. Fall 2003 sity of Maryland’s Office of the Senior Vice (3) Graduate courses linked to the President for Academic Affairs and Provost. UTLP and PFF program designed to better During this second semester, the com- The Retreat included an overview of the prepare graduate teaching assistants for plete INTERACT Scholars Cohort met nine INTERACT project’s and the Words of En- teaching in the academy in Human Devel- times, again at the Eleanor Roosevelt High gagement Intergroup Dialogue Program’s opment, Counseling and Personnel Ser- School. Co-facilitated by OHRP’s Dr. Chris- purposes and objectives, a review of assess- vices, Education Policy and Leadership, tine Clark and Ms. Sivagami Subbaraman, ment and evaluation data compiled on both Sociology, American Studies, English, The- and guest facilitator Dr. James Greenberg, up until that time, a simulated facilitated ater, Family Studies, Kinesiology, Electri- the Founding Director of UM’s Center for intergroup dialogue experience, and an open cal Engineering, and Journalism (repre- Teaching Excellence and Director of K-12 question/answer, comment, discussion, and senting five colleges—Education, Arts and Projects for the Maryland Institute for feedback session. Humanities, Health and Human Perfor- Minority Achievement and Urban Educa- Dr. Biren “Ratnesh” Nagda, a leading mance, Engineering, and Public Policy), tion (MIMAUE), housed in UM’s College of expert on the assessment and evaluation of invited the INTERACT project co-facilita- Education, the Cohort read the books The dialogue initiatives from the University of tors to their courses toward four highly Teaching Portfolio: A Practical Guide to Washington, Seattle, was a featured reciprocal ends: Improved Performance and Promotion/Ten- speaker at the Retreat. Dr. Nagda assisted ure Decisions by Peter Seldin, and Improv- (a) To talk about the project and the OHRP staff in placing its INTERACT ing a College/University Teaching Evalua- Words of Engagement Intergroup Dia- project and Words of Engagement Inter- tion System: A Comprehensive Developmen- logue Program facilitator training— group Dialogue Program data into a na- tal Curriculum for Faculty and Administra- especially the vetting of this training tional context, comparing its results with tors by Brenda Manning and Laurie Richlin. as a major project in the UTLP and the results of other dialogic endeavors The Scholars’ focus this semester was PFF program—in an effort to encour- across the country. on integrating classroom teaching and dia- age graduate students to participate The Retreat “bought” the INTERACT logue facilitation pedagogies, with particu- in the training in order to become Words project and the Words of Engagement Inter- lar attention being paid to where these of Engagement Intergroup Dialogue group Dialogue Program a lot of respect, pedagogies converged and diverged, as well Program facilitators. visibility, and support across the Univer- as how pressures to cover versus uncover sity of Maryland campus with all of its (b) This, in essence, developed these content came to bear both positively and constituent groups. As a result, interest in graduate courses as feeders for the negatively on the integration process. Build- participating in both initiatives in a vari- Words of Engagement Intergroup Dia- ing on the teaching portfolio movement in ety of ways surged, as indicated by the logue Program facilitator training, thus teacher/faculty preparation and continu- following three develoments: creating a pipeline of graduate student ing education, the Scholars first developed (1) The University of Maryland’s Col- intergroup dialogue facilitators who classroom teaching portfolios, then dia- lege of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ doubled as a cadre of graduate teach- logue facilitation portfolios, and finally Cooperative Extension Home and Garden ing assistants. hybrid teaching/facilitation portfolios. The Information Center requested a mini IN- Cohort also continued their post-Seminar TERACT project workshop experience for (c) In this latter capacity, this cadre dinner dialogues this semester with their their Master Gardeners Program faculty. created a secondary pipeline of un- guest facilitator. These faculty conduct a range of botany dergraduate student intergroup dia- courses for the general public at sites all logue participants by making partici- Fall 2003 Impact over the state of Maryland. Concerns re- pation in a dialogue either a required garding the lack of “accessibility” of their or extra credit component of the under- In the Fall of 2003, INTERACT project curricula to their student populations graduate courses they were teaching. co-facilitators, in cooperation with OHRP prompted the request. An INTERACT staff responsible for the Words of Engage- (d) The cadre also engaged the INTER- project co-facilitator partnered with the ment Intergroup Dialogue Program and the ACT project co-facilitators in the de- new Director of the University of Maryland’s Multicultural Curriculum Change Program, velopment of mini INTERACT project Center for Teaching Excellence and Profes- organized a day long “Retreat” to discuss tutorials through which the critical sor of Cellular Biology and Molecular Ge- the progress of the INTERACT project and mass of undergraduate courses across netics, Dr. Spencer Benson, to facilitate the Words of Engagement Intergroup Dia- the curriculum that they were teaching this experience for a group of forty faculty. logue Program. The Retreat was held on the could engage dialogue-based pedagogy.

SPRING 2005 53 Higher Education Semester Three INTERACT forts—its Faculty Research Forum and of the campus’ annual faculty professional Faculty Support Award—are developed and development day held on January 18, 2005. Scholars Cohort Seminar implemented on campus. The agenda for this workshop mirrored Spring 2004 The Faculty Research Forum, attended that of the University of Maryland’s 2004 annually by three hundred undergraduate Faculty Research Forum (just described), During this semester, the INTERACT students, graduate students, and faculty with three exceptions. First, following the Scholars Cohort, minus the Student Schol- across campus, highlights the scholarly INTERACT project overview and preced- ars,2 met seven times at the Office of Hu- work of up to three faculty members in ing the dialogue simulation, attendees col- man Relations Programs (OHRP) on the relationship to a timely multicultural lectively engaged in the Anti-Defamation UM campus. Co-facilitated by OHRP’s Dr. theme. The Faculty Support Award offers League’s Horatio Algers Activity, an activity Christine Clark and Ms. Sivagami one to three faculty members a one-semes- which is designed to stratify participants Subbaraman, and returning guest facilita- ter, one-course “buy-out” so that they may on the basis of class and race differences tor Dr. James Greenberg, the Faculty Schol- pursue a discipline-specific diversity-re- deriving from structural inequalities in ars implemented the plans of action for lated teaching, research, or service project. education, as opposed to those typically integrating intergroup dialogue as peda- As a result of the previous semester’s ascribed to “hard work.” Second, the simu- gogy across the curriculum that they devel- assessment and evaluation Retreat (dis- lated intergroup dialogue experience was oped through their hybrid teaching/facili- cussed previously), the Faculty Relations facilitated by the INTERACT project Fac- tation portfolios the previous semester. Committee decided to feature the INTER- ulty Scholars (from all three institutional During this implementation phase, the ACT project through both the Faculty Re- contexts) and focused on the participants Cohort Seminar meetings continued, as did search Forum and the Faculty Support experiences of the Horatio Algers Activity. the post-meeting dinner dialogues with the Award. Toward these ends, the Spring Third, the panel discussion and question guest facilitator. The focus of the Cohort 2004 Faculty Research Forum theme was and answer session featured both of the gatherings this semester was on the explo- “Teaching to Transform: Intergroup Dia- Prince George’s Community College INTER- ration of the successes and challenges each logue as a Cutting-Edge Teaching Strat- ACT project Faculty Scholars (in lieu of the Faculty Scholar was having with their class- egy in All Disciplines.” The agenda for the University of Maryland Scholar and the room pilot, problem-solving their barriers to Forum included: (1) an overview of the guest facilitator). implementation, and assessing and evalu- INTERACT project presented by the At Eleanor Roosevelt High School and ating the overall efficacy of these efforts. The project co-facilitators; (2) a simulated in- Longfield Elementary School, INTERACT’s co-facilitators also held individualized tergroup dialogue experience in which Fo- impact has manifest in plans for the devel- Faculty Scholar support sessions to aug- rum attendees were divided into groups of opment of co-curricular intergroup dialogue ment what was offered in the Cohort Semi- ten and facilitated by trained Words of programs in both schools, by strategically nar in this regard. These support sessions Engagement Intergroup Dialogue Program employing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) were also conducted electronically for the facilitators in mini-dialogues about their standards related to critical thinking, and one Faculty Scholar who was doing her best and worst teaching/learning experi- Character Education guidelines pertain- implementation in a course that she was ences; and (3) a panel discussion and ques- ing to ethical development. Both schools’ teaching at Lund University in Sweden as tion and answer session with a UM IN- programs, piloted through this INTERACT a part of a Fulbright scholarship. TERACT project Faculty Scholar and its project, are on hold while NCLB- and Char- Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 guest facilita- acter Education-related funding sources Spring 2004 Impact tor. Advertising for the Forum targeted are explored. It is hoped that with even a graduate students in teaching assistant- small amount of monies from these two In the Spring of 2004, the INTERACT ships and faculty responsible for teaching sources, small financial incentives could be project’s impact came to bear on all of the the array of courses that prepare graduate offered to faculty who express interest in institutional partners the Faculty Scholars’ students for teaching in the academy (pre- becoming trained program facilitators. represented: the University of Maryland, viously identified and discussed). While such funding might appear superflu- Prince George’s Community College, and Likewise, the Faculty Support Award ous to the larger goal of program establish- the Prince George’s County Public Schools— call for proposals added a preference for ment, it is important to note that federal, specifically, Eleanor Roosevelt High School projects that focused, in some way, on stu- state, and local standards exert an extreme and Longfield Elementary School. dent-centered, especially intergroup dia- degree of control over public school teach- At the University of Maryland, this logue-focused, pedagogies. Quite coinciden- ers’ “academic freedom.” As a result, the impact emerged in relationship to three tally, the faculty member selected for the Eleanor Roosevelt High School and Longfield interconnected components of OHRP’s um- 2004-2005 Award was the other Univer- Elementary School Faculty Scholars came brella Teach to Transform: Faculty Research sity of Maryland INTERACT project Fac- up with the idea of using this control to their and Development Initiative—it’s Faculty ulty Scholar. For this Award, she developed advantage. If these standards stress the Relations Committee, Faculty Research Fo- a very innovative research-based, graduate need for critical thinking and character de- rum, and Faculty Support Award. student-centered teaching project that will velopment in their curricular mandates, but, Established in 1995, currently co- be implemented on campus in the Spring at the same time, make integrating these chaired by three senior faculty in Family 2005 semester. two elements into the curriculum in mean- Studies, Kinesiology, and Journalism, and At Prince George’s Community Col- ingful ways difficult, then why not develop co-coordinated by two OHRP staff, with lege, INTERACT’s impact culminated in a co-curricular initiatives that focus exclu- twenty tenure-track and tenured faculty plan for a faculty workshop on using dia- sively on teaching critical thought and ethics member participants, the Faculty Rela- logic approaches to teach an array of course and use the standards to seek additional tions Committee is the vehicle through content. This workshop was a pivotal part funding for them? which two of OHRP’s faculty-directed ef-

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 54 Higher Education Findings erected, and contemporarily maintained, sociopolitical ideology (and social justice institutional barriers constructed around model) of intergroup dialogue quite short. A number of important findings emerged beliefs about human superiority and infe- This is because, as the Cohort Seminar co- from the INTERACT pilot project. These riority. facilitators discovered, the very same ideol- findings will be delineated in two sections. While it is true that this exact form of ogy can be (and eventually was) utilized to The first section will describe, in narrative resistance did play a part in the conflicts draw out the voices of participants whose fashion, the findings of the project co-facili- that emerged in relationship to the perspectives challenge it and, in so doing, to tators that derive from the previous discus- sociopolitical orientation to intergroup dia- draw them, and all of the other participants, sion of the project’s impact in the Spring logue-based teaching with the Scholars, it into deeper and more meaningful dialogic 2003, Fall 2003, and Spring 2004 semes- was not the only form of resistance, nor, in communication such that the ideology itself ters. The second section will describe the the end, even an important component of becomes less and less visible—transforming findings of the project Cohort as a whole that the resistance. from a marginalized territory whose borders derive from the triangulation of all of the What emerged as the unifying theme in require defending, into more of a tapestrial project assessment and evaluation efforts all forms of the resistance was a sense that the context in which complex collaborative un- (not delineated in this article). In this second way in which sociopolitics were being used to derstandings are woven. section, a finding will be summarized and mediate learning about intergroup dialogue In a subsequent session of the Cohort then followed by representative supportive as pedagogy across the curriculum was exclu- Seminar, the individual versus group expe- comments excerpted from the Faculty Schol- sionary. How ironic that an ideology devel- rience impasse re-emerged. When it did, ars’ final portfolios. The significant findings oped to engender greater inclusion was being the white co-facilitator asked the white in both sections are italicized. invoked in a manner perceived by all of the male Scholar what it was about the group Scholars, at one point or another, to do just experience that was difficult “to see.” After Findings of the Project the opposite. much reflection, what emerged from him Co-Facilitators In examining this dynamic, it became was a realization that it was not that the clear that the sociopolitical ideology (as well group experience was so hard to see, but, as its pedagogical counterpart—a “social rather, painful to accept. In so many words, Findings Based justice” model of facilitation) was silencing he expressed sadness that negative experi- on Spring 2003 Impact participants whose perspectives it challenged; ences based on group identity would so Picking up on the previous discussion and then that same ideology was being used powerfully define an individual’s identity on the Spring 2003 impact of the INTER- to justify their silencing. such that the group identity would take ACT project, the two major finding areas For example, in one meeting of the precedence in how that individual walked that emerge are those generally relating to Cohort Seminar, several Scholars told sto- in the world. dialogue structure and facilitator prepara- ries about their experiences of discrimina- While this revelation was extremely pow- tion, and, more specifically, those pertain- tion as People of Color to illustrate how erful, more powerful still was how the Cohort ing to the implications of dialogue struc- they walked in the world as both individu- Seminar dynamics of conflict and resistance ture and facilitator training for maximiz- als and as members of racial minority began to change as the sociopolitically lo- ing participant learning outcomes. groups. Another Scholar accepted their sto- cated intergroup dialogue-based pedagogy All of the findings in both areas derive ries as having meaning for them as indi- was used to include. Group cohesion increased, from the experience the INTERACT project viduals, but expressed a failure to see their conflict became more thoughtful and, there- co-facilitators had in facilitating the Cohort relevance in describing a group experience. fore, productive, and resistance evolved into Seminar during the Spring 2003 semester. In response to this Scholar’s “failure to creative and, thus, constructive tension—in That experience was a most salient learning see,” questions about the role of his white essence, the resulting conflict and tension now experience because of the conflicts that emerged racial identity were raised by the co-facilita- manifest dialectically to facilitate the within the Cohort Seminar in relationship to tors. Specifically, it was posited that he Cohort’s learning. the sociopolitical point of entry the co-facili- could not understand the shared racial expe- With respect to dialogue structure and tators took in engaging the Scholars in ex- rience of People of Color, because such expe- facilitator preparation as a whole, the ploring the theory and practice of intergroup riences among Whites go unacknowledged experience of co-facilitating the Spring dialogue. Because this point of entry was as a function of the transparency of white 2003 Cohort Seminar clearly suggested also employed by the facilitators of the Words privilege; that is, one only notices what meets that the Words of Engagement Intergroup of Engagement Intergroup Dialogue Program with societally institutionalized friction, and Dialogue Program facilitator training com- facilitator training and dialogues, in which whiteness rarely, if ever, does. ponent needed to be refined. Consequently, the Scholars also participated this semes- This line of questioning led this Scholar that training immediately began giving ter, these conflicts were intensified several to shut down and withdraw from the dia- copious attention to developing facilitator times over (in each Cohort Seminar session, logue. When this happened, it was not iden- commitment to, and skill for, using a so- at both days of the facilitator training, and tified as a bad thing. On the contrary, be- cial justice model of intergroup dialogue to during each intergroup dialogue meeting). cause his fairly “typical” white male world- meaningfully include the voices of all par- It would be relatively easy to simply view dominated discourse outside the dia- ticipants in it. reduce these conflicts to resistance, on the logue context, it was said to be okay to limit, As a further result of the experience of co- part of the more ideologically conservative even to suppress, this worldview inside this facilitating the Spring 2003 Cohort Semi- members of the Cohort, to facing the reali- context—sort of a dialogic form of affirma- nar, it became clear that after every semester ties of human privilege and oppression that tive action. of dialogic inquiry (in the Cohort Seminar as still operate in relationship to historically In retrospect, it is clear that this sort of well as in the Words of Engagement Inter- immature dialogic practice sold the group Dialogue Program dialogues them-

SPRING 2005 55 Higher Education selves), additional important new learning logue participation and/or learning intergroup dialogue as pedagogy across the would emerge that should be continuously experiences; and, curriculum. It was because of complex un- integrated into the training of facilitators. derstandings acquired through these de- (4) Possessing facilitation and teaching To assist OHRP with this on-going velopment and implementation processes experience, or, at a minimum, an appre- evolutionary integration process, Dr. Den- (delineated below) that all of those ad- ciation for both the similarities across nis Kivlighan, Chair of the Department of vances came to pass. and the differences between dialogue College Personnel Services and Professor In the Fall of 2003, the Cohort really facilitation and classroom teaching (this of Education, and Dr. Charles Sternheim, began grappling—at the theoretical level— finding will be discussed in greater de- Interim Associate Dean of the College of with how to mesh teaching and facilitation, tail in the next section of this article). Behavioral and Social Sciences and Profes- and, correspondingly, classroom learning and sor of Psychology, agreed to help with the With regard to facilitator qualifica- dialogue participation. An important part redevelopment and reimplementation of tion (or training), in addition to developing of this grappling endeavor included explora- the Words of Engagement Intergroup Dia- facilitators to have an affinity for a tion of the similarities among, and differ- logue Program facilitator training compo- sociopolitical point of entry into facilitat- ences between, teaching and facilitation. nent over a two year period of time to aid in ing and, further, the ability to employ that This exploration led to a recognition that the identification of best practices for fa- affinity to meaningfully include the voices with “traditional” or more didactic teaching, cilitator training so that OHRP could: (1) of all participants in a given dialogue, the questions emerge about student participa- institutionalize these practices into a more Words of Engagement Intergroup Dialogue tion. Simply put, the weakness of teaching comprehensive facilitator development ini- Program is now also interested in develop- when compared to facilitation is related to tiative; as well as (2) share these practices ing facilitators to: the virtual absence of attention given to “pro- with its Multiversity project partners. cess” in the classroom. How are students’ Likewise, with respect to the specifics (1) Understand (and effectively engender experiences integrated? How is a student’s of dialogue structure and facilitator prepa- in dialogue participants parallel under- autobiography engaged? How are student ration that speak directly to the maximiza- standing of) the differences between: a) voices heard? How is the reciprocity of tion of participant learning outcomes, the dialogue as listening for understanding, teaching and learning and in the relation- experience of co-facilitating the Spring 2003 discussion as serial monologuing, and ships between teachers and students ac- Cohort Seminar clearly suggested that the debate as listening to gain advantage; b) knowledged? Ironically, this finding selection and qualification of Words of En- the intent of a comment and the impact of emerged in relationship to an impasse in gagement Intergroup Dialogue Program a comment; and, c) explaining a perspec- the Cohort Seminar process itself. facilitators also needed to be refined. tive and owning or taking responsibility It was the original intent of the IN- With regard to facilitator selection, in for a perspective; TERACT project for the Student Scholars addition to facilitators having social iden- (2) Understand (and effectively engen- to participate in the Cohort Seminar during tities that are congruent with the dialogue der in dialogue participants parallel the Spring 2003 semester only. And al- they are facilitating and having substan- understanding of) what it means and though the cohort was open to their sus- tial content area knowledge about their looks like to: (a) “suspend judgment” in tained participation over the life of the own and the other social identities relevant an intergroup dialogue; (b) “hold” an project, all three Student Scholars ulti- to the dialogue they are facilitating, the important theme that emerges within an mately withdrew from participation at vari- Words of Engagement Intergroup Dialogue intergroup dialogue over an appropri- ous points late in the Fall 2003 semester. Program is now also interested in facilita- ate period of time; and (c) create an While all three of the Student Scholars tors having the following pre-requisite char- intergroup dialogue as “third space”—a were from racial minority groups, power acteristics: place where participants bring “first dynamics pertaining to their status and capacities as “students” had more salience (1) Being at a stage of personal identity space” or personal knowledge, ideas, and opinions and talk about them using with respect to their abilities to find and development in relationship to the social use their dialogic voices with “faculty” than identity salient to the dialogue they are “second space” or group knowledge, norms, and etiquette; and, those relating to race, ethnicity, first lan- facilitating that affords them the ability guage, and/or national origin. to skillfully challenge and affirm par- (3) Seek out opportunities to explore and Ironically, the student/faculty power ticipants who are members of both their practice intergroup dialogue facilitation dynamic was as challenging in the Cohort own and the other identity groups in with peers to sharpen, broaden, and oth- Seminar as it is in the PK-12 school, com- appropriate measure; erwise improve their intergroup dialogue munity college, and university classroom, (2) Being tuned into issues related to the facilitation repertoires. underscoring the main challenge of using dialogue they are facilitating that are intergroup dialogue as pedagogy across the highly charged “triggers” or “flashpoints” Findings Based curriculum—that associated with giving for them so they can effectively manage on Fall 2003 & Spring 2004 Impacts up the notion of teaching as mastery to their reactions to those issues in ways become a facilitator of learning. All of the advances described previ- that enhance the participants dialogic There was a real resistance on the ously as part of the Fall 2003 and Spring learning experience; part of the Faculty Scholars to the idea 2004 impacts of the INTERACT project that significant classroom time would be owe a debt to the extraordinarily hard work (3) Possessing an appreciation of stu- devoted to process, and, consequently, there the Scholars Cohort did in first developing dent development theories and how stu- was a palpable reluctance on the part of hybrid teaching/learning-dialogue/facilita- dents’ development in relationship to the Student Scholars to assert their per- tion portfolios and second in implementing those theories may manifest in their dia- spectives—their autobiographies, their ex-

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 56 Higher Education periences, their voices—in essence, to weigh sue advanced coursework was severely cur- place, the Cohort’s Kinesiologist made some in on this question in the Cohort Seminar tailed, if not completely dead-ended. extraordinary strides. In his example, we because of the Faculty Scholars’ resis- While the University Faculty Scholars see the most sustained commitment to the tance. felt the pressure to “get through the mate- shift from covering to uncovering content as Cultivating Faculty Scholar patience rial” the least of all the Faculty Scholars in he engaged this challenge from the for process then became a pivotal piece in the the Cohort, the emphasis on creating aca- semester’s outset to its conclusion. Com- development of the hybrid portfolios. While demically “rigorous” learning experiences pletely rethinking his approach to content not insurmountable with any of the Faculty for their students in the research institu- by employing a wholly constructivist point Scholars, it took longest for the Public School tion environment prohibited their exemp- of entry to his course, he built student Faculty Scholars to develop this patience, tion from feeling this pressure altogether. knowledge of kinesiology solely from the a moderate amount of time for the Commu- Thus, to varying degrees, all of the Faculty foundation their cultural autobiographies nity College Faculty Scholars to acquire it, Scholars connected their prowess for “cover- offered him. and, relatively little time for the University ing content” with their reputation as “good Beginning with their short answers on Faculty Scholars to embrace it. teachers.” a simple questionnaire about what they Clearly, this corresponds to the more Growing Faculty Scholar propensity to knew about the subject matter based on parental role that public school faculty typi- supplant the covering of content with the their life experiences, he skillfully facili- cally play in relationship to their students, uncovering of content, even to a very small tated them in the development of increas- the more remediative or, better, develop- extent, relied on cultivating their individual ingly complex understandings of this con- mental role that community college faculty willingness to sort of “let go of” content—to tent by continually relating it back to those take with their student population, and the suspend attention to it momentarily—with- experiences. A technique often referred to more professional mentorship role univer- out their really having a clear understanding in language learning as “scaffolding,” he sity faculty establish with their students of what could and would happen if they did. helped students to erect unique, culturally who, from the outset, are expected to be- In the public school arena, this hap- responsive kinesiology frameworks and then come their future colleagues. pened fleetingly when the Cohort’s Latin to build multicultural bridges between them Fast forward to the Spring 2004 Cohort teacher took one opportunity to engage gen- through collaborative dialogic exploration Seminar. As the Faculty Scholars began to der issues in her teaching the story of Odysseus of each one. engage the practice of dialogic teaching, their by establishing mini girl-boy intergroup dia- Because the interconnections between exploration of the similarities among, and logue clusters, and then directing each clus- teaching and facilitation, learning and par- differences between, learning and partici- ter to respond to a series of problem-posing ticipation, teaching and participation, and pation raised concerns about student acqui- questions devised to structure their explo- facilitation and learning that emerged from sition of content area knowledge. In short, ration of these issues in relationship to the the Faculty Scholars’ development of the the challenge of dialogic facilitation when story. Her students, while caught completely hybrid portfolios and subsequent implemen- assessed in relationship to classroom teach- off guard by this hugely uncharacteristic tation of their intergroup dialogue-based ing has to do with the quality and quantity of break from her teaching routine, expressed courses are as complex as they are impor- what exactly is being learned, especially if being quite intrigued by the dialogic learn- tant, the following visual depiction of this there is an implicit expectation that most, if ing encounter. interconnectivity was developed by the not all, learning must derive from student In the community college classroom, project co-facilitators as an explanatory aid: participation. This challenge unfolded as a the most salient uncovering of content ex- dynamic tension between “covering content” perience occurred when the Cohort’s Math- Hybrid Portfolio Development and “uncovering content.” ematician flat out abandoned her content and Dialogue-Based Faculty Scholars wrestled with pres- goals for several class periods in favor of Course Implementation sures to “get through the material.” These working through her students’ math anxi- Processes Flowchart pressures were most intense among the ety and indifference. To her surprise, the Public School Faculty Scholars whose daily content she thought she had sacrificed Classroom Dialogue Teaching/ lives are, increasingly, driven by the stan- teaching in favor of the process she had Facilitation/ Learning Participation dards movement—curricula standards in decided to facilitate, ended up being au- every subject area that dictate what con- tonomously picked up by her students out- Similarities among/ Similarities among/ tent must be, in fact, covered, and corre- side of class. Differences Differences between… sponding standardized tests to measure That is, the content she was unable to between… their competence in enabling students to “cover” in class because of time she instead Teaching and Learning and achieve content learning goals as deter- devoted to “uncovering” the content or “hid- Facilitation Participation mined, exclusively, by those tests’ scores. den curriculum” that was inhibiting her With Teaching, With Facilitation, Community College Faculty Scholars students’ ability to embrace the subject questions emerge questions emerge also felt the pressure to “get through the area, her students “covered” themselves as about Participation about Learning material,” but less because of standards homework without her even prompting and more because of the relative develop- them to do so. Her investment in the pro- PROCESS CONTENT mental disadvantages that the majority of cess bought student engagement in the Fall 2003 Cohort Spring 2004 their students experienced. If their stu- content, and that engagement was intrinsi- Seminar Faculty Scholars dents did not get certain basic understand- cally motivated, not externally coerced. Theory Practice ings in key subject areas (namely, math- At the university level, where favoring Development Implementation ematics, English as a second language, and the uncovering of content over the covering English composition), their ability to pur- of it, while not a rarity, is far from common-

SPRING 2005 57 Higher Education

Findings of the Project Cohort Leslie Redwine ent issues when preparing my classes, as a Whole “The most discernible difference I ob- and I am better able to handle interper- served and felt is intangible, but real. sonal issues. …In other words, the ben- Faculty Scholars reported tremendous The rapport between the students and efits, up to this point, while profound personal transformation as well as profes- me was so close and full of trust that we are largely intangible. How do you quan- sional growth in their role as educators. In often were able to stay after the formal tify personal growth? How do you mea- particular, they found that in employing an session and discuss topics unrelated sure that we are better people?” intergroup dialogic pedagogy, they listened to mathematics.” better and, therefore, created better classroom Related Comments climate and engaged students in a more sus- “I have been changed by my experience from Student Scholars tained fashion, including by facilitating their in the project and now have an under- and Student Focus Group Participants active learning in making links between course standing of the effectiveness of many of the processes I used in my classes. ...I content and their real world experiences. Dinora Hernández have become motivated to make my “Sometimes it takes me a while to get Lory “Tomni” Dance students’ experience in all my classes more meaningful and hope for greater my ideas together in my head before I “…to date, my approach to teaching student success in learning. …I am not can express them in class. Because lecture courses has been more like a overtly trying to force the process; rather dialogue stresses listening I feel safer classical music than a jazz perfor- it seems to emerge as part of me and my expressing myself, which for some rea- mance. In a typical classroom setting, approach to the learning experience.” son makes organizing my thoughts I lecture, require writing assignments, easier, and offering my views comes and give essay examinations. Over the “Since my exposure to, and understand- more naturally.” course of the [three] semesters, [I have] ing of, ID [intergroup dialogue], my moved away from this performance- philosophy of teaching has evolved from Amer Ramamni oriented style to a more improvised, that of the teacher as facilitator in the “I have a lot of responsibilities outside jazz-like pedagogical style.” learning process, to teaching as a much more complex process. I now consider of college, like working in my family’s “As soon as I noticed that my students my role as an educator to include, but business. College is helpful to me more in Sweden were not following my lead, not be limited to, that of a mentor, when I can see how to use it to help our I stopped ‘conducting’ the class and counselor, provocateur, role model, and business.” encouraged my students to influence a tutor.” my ‘melody’ and even design a ‘melody’ Student Focus Group Participant of their own. Of course, these melodies Linda Squier “My professor seems to spend more were not songs, but sustained moments time on helping us to explore each other’s of conversational camaraderie and “…this experience was one of the most rewarding experiences of my 30-year perspectives instead of just having us chemistry characterized by trust and express them. So I learn faster, and I empathy. As my students redesigned career in education. I hope that I am able to find a way to make ID [inter- learn more because I get to understand my ‘melody,’ I paid attention and through many eyes that are not mine.” learned to ‘hum’ and then ‘sing’ and group dialogue] an essential part of then ‘play’ along.” student life at [my] school. …I am a Faculty Scholars not only emphasized staunch proponent of Character Edu- personal growth and transformation as indi- “In fact, one of the by-products of the cation and believe in the need to inte- viduals and educators, but also reported sig- Pilot Project is social capital: I am now grate character education into the cur- nificant shifts in their pedagogical styles that well-acquainted with a network of edu- riculum. The four-core values we try to allowed for greater impact on student learn- cators who share my goals of enhancing foster are respect, responsibility, in- ing and academic achievement. Because the diversity and social justice in academic tegrity, and kindness. Surely these core Faculty Scholars work with a very diverse settings.” values are at the heart of Intergroup student demographic—especially in terms of In response to the impact that the Dialogue.” race, ethnicity, nationality, immigration sta- INTERACT project had on her reaction to tus, language skills, gender, ability, and age— being asked to serve on a panel at the Skane Meredith Massey perhaps their most important finding was Social Forum, at Lund University in Swe- “I believe that the INTERACT project that their use of intergroup dialogue led to den, with an ex-Nazi party member she was wildly successful, though not in the greater student engagement in the curricu- said: ways that I might have anticipated. I lum, and, resultantly, higher attendance can say that I, personally, have ben- rates, improved motivation to learn, and “I was confident that, in addition to my efited greatly from my participation. I better scholastic performance. previous experiences as a professor look at the world differently, I ask dif- who moderates discussions about race, ferent questions, I have a greater aware- Leslie Redwine my growing knowledge of intergroup ness of social dynamics, and I know “The results of my shift in philosophy dialogue techniques…boosted my con- more about skills of interpersonal in- have been of some greater student suc- fidence about being on a panel with a teraction that I did when the project cess, but perhaps as importantly, former Nazi party leader and in front began. Professionally, I think about my greater student satisfaction with their of a diverse audience that included students differently. I consider differ- educational experience. Additionally, current Nazi party leaders.”

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 58 Higher Education

the students have shown a deeper unable knowledge, insights, and experi- a major role in this class that shows derstanding of the applications of ences from their interactions in class. how the students understand a topic in mathematics outside the classroom. Students reported positive reactions this class.” This deeper understanding stems in within their personal reflections [in- “It allowed me to think about issues I part from the way in which the stu- cluding] that they were able to apply never thought of as very important. I dents learn the mathematics. A shift intergroup dialogue techniques they am now able to weigh my opinions on to discovery-based and project-based had learned in class to experiences issues.” learning has also proved to be both outside of class.” student-centered and more satisfac- “We were able to agree and disagree on “[In fact], students reported that [the] tory to the students. While these meth- issues without rejecting each other’s writing [of the personal] reflections ods for teaching and learning do not idea as irrelevant to the topic.” [themselves] helped prepare them for specifically call for a dialogic founda- the exams that were part of the course. tion, my experience has been that, This is clearly illustrated when one Anthony Whittington through discovery and dialogue, the compares the grades of students who “…the students will benefit from this students have a deeper understand- took the course the previous semester experience by increasing their comfort ing. Thus, requiring the students to with those who took the course when it level in dealing with diversity, reduc- participate in dialogue, directed and had an ID [intergroup dialogue] focus: ing stereotyping, increasing tolerance, maintained by the students and facili- and increasing motivation for bridging tated by me, is another effective learn- · Fall Semester 2003: N=32; differences. These are life skills that ing strategy used in my classroom.” Grades: A =9; B=13; C=8; D=0; F=2 will take each of the forty elementary · Spring Semester 2004: N=34; “The first result I observed was a level participants far in life.” Grades: A=15; B=13; C=4; D=1; F=1 of engagement that has not previously occurred in such a course. Except for The differences in grades illustrate Lory “Tomni” Dance three students who eventually with- that students who took the class when Dr. Dance’s course, “Migration 101: Ra- drew from the course, the majority of ID was a focus of the class earned cial and Ethnic Minorities in the US” was students in this class had perfect at- higher grades than students from the taught at Lund University, in Sweden in tendance. The students were more re- previous semester.” Spring, 2004. There were forty-four stu- sponsive to my prompts, had more con- dents from a range of different racial, eth- tact with one another outside of the “Students were also more accepting of information that was framed by theory nic, and nationality backgrounds in the classroom (in fact formed some study course. Approximately one-third were Swed- groups), kept in closer contact with me, or research when they were asked to engage in dialogic activities.” ish, the remaining two-thirds included stu- and stayed on task for group work in dents from Germany, Bulgaria, Bosnia, the classroom.” Meredith Massey China (Hong Kong), Japan, Chile, and the “The written work that my students United States. “Many of my students are in a system turned in was more insightful than She set up an electronic dialogue be- they don’t understand (the American similar assignments in other classes. tween students at Lund and at the Univer- system of higher education) and that My use of real data as a vehicle for sity of Maryland, College Park to encourage they are not equipped to succeed in, yet learning was new to them and they the exchange of ideas and concepts about they desperately want to be a part of overwhelmingly responded favorably. “race.” In Sweden, most students struggled this system, as they see it as the only This is an unusual response because with the concept of “race” as a social iden- way to achieve their goals. As with while this type of learning tool is more tity because they equated it solely with many American students, actual learn- interesting for the students, it is also “racism.” In learning to “listen” and to ing is often subordinate to just passing more demanding and requires much “hold” their discomfort with this concept, through the system….” more work on their part. My past expe- Dr. Dance learned: “…race is [not] just a rience is that students in this level of “Student evaluations and assess- social construct, but a construct that has mathematics are generally not enthu- ments, both quantitative and qualita- been applied to certain ethnic groups in the siastic about putting more time, tive, clearly attest to the shifts in their United States by law (at the local, state, thought, and work into mathematics. own ability to grasp the material; to congressional, and Supreme Court levels).” The success rate, measured as passing engage with unfamiliar concepts and Had she not been willing to “listen” more the course, was quite similar to the theories; to understand that education attentively to student concerns, and, in average success rate in this course is about “learning to learn” rather than turn, have them listen more attentively to during previous semesters. However, merely covering content; and, [to gain] her, this dramatic piece of learning would it is important to note that the stu- value added educational tools that not have come to pass. The fact that it did, dents appeared to have a stronger un- would allow them to better negotiate she wholly attributes to her INTERACT derstanding of the material and a far an increasingly diverse workforce.” project experience. more positive attitude towards math- In particular, students commented: ematics.” “I learned that participating is a way Marvin Scott of learning.” “Students in this class gained valu- “Participation of students has played

SPRING 2005 59 Higher Education

Related Comments Based on this experience, she learned viduals, homosexuality is not a choice, from Parent Focus Group Participants that in order for intergroup dialogue-based but their internal make up.” courses to work in many non-American con- Likewise, he describes how his IN- texts, it is crucial that facilitators of it Parent Focus Group Participant TERACT experience caused him to realize provide “informal opportunities” for stu- “My child has never had a teacher from that he had never invited a white person dents in intergroup dialogue-based courses our community, but the ones that she into his home. to meet and interact. It was only when her does the best with are the ones who students had interpersonal interface out- encourage her to be herself and be proud Leslie Redwine side the classroom that they felt increased of who she is all the time.” comfort in talking about sensitive issues “The preparation now includes a con- It is a certainty that Intergroup Dialogue inside the classroom. siderable amount of time researching can be implemented effectively across a variety beyond the mathematics and into cur- of academic disciplines and educational set- Parent Focus Group Participant rent and historical issues of race, cul- ture, privilege and power, as well as tings, although, clearly, there can be no single, “Every teacher is different, what they issues of ecology. Using data about “cookie-cutter” model that will work across teach is different, but what makes these issues serves as a vehicle to en- them all. Faculty Scholars that were initially them good teachers is always the same. gage the students in a broader, more skeptical about the viability of integrating It has something to do with how they meaningful experience of mathemat- dialogic pedagogy into disciplines like math- bring themselves into what they teach, ics as connected to their world, rather ematics, or elementary English grammar and their personality. This is what makes than a static set of rules that seem- writing, and the broad array of elementary my son want to bring himself to learn, ingly have no application to their lives.” school curriculum, ultimately found many ways share his personality in the class- to modify and adapt this method to well-suit room.” their purposes. Clearly this pedagogical ap- Marvin Scott proach is a powerful tool that can alter many Faculty Scholars reported enormous [My participation in the INTERACT of the ways in which all manners of teaching shifts in their: (1) value and belief systems; (2) project allowed me] “to explore my and learning take place. willingness to engage in critical thinking thinking on issues such as my personal about issues that were difficult for them; and teaching philosophy…student evalua- Leslie Redwine (3) ability to listen to, and connect with, tion, and curriculum alignment issues points of view very different from their own. “I came to the table with strong reser- and concerns. I was able to gain confi- Further, they reported that these shifts en- vations, yet left the table confident dence and experience in utilizing vari- abled them to recognize how privilege and that with some changes in my think- ous exercises that could be used in the oppression operate in the classroom to in- ing; in fact, ID [intergroup dialogue] as classes that I teach and these experi- hibit student engagement in learning. In rec- a more broadly defined and experiences will allow me to be a resource for ognizing the politics inherent in teaching and enced process can and should be used other educators at my institution who learning, Faculty Scholars found that they to facilitate and enhance learning in may be interested in implementing were motivated to use their dialogic prow- my field of mathematics.” intergroup dialogue into their class- ess—inside the classroom and beyond classroom practices.” room walls—to become agents of social change Meredith Massey within their school settings. Clearly, inter- Linda Squier “In some cases, it might be appropri- group dialogue is a most powerful tool for ate to use ID [intergroup dialogue] as achieving educational equity and justice. “Since I also firmly believe that the a discrete component of a particular best teachers teach not only in the class, but generally, ID as a prepack- Anthony Whittington classroom, but also outside of the class- aged unit would not fit neatly into most room, I sponsor and am involved in “Through my involvement with this classes. This does not have to be a many extracurricular activities. Be- pilot project, I can honestly say that I limitation, but rather a challenge. cause our school is so large, with such am a better man. The intergroup dia- Rather than locking the door to the a diverse population, there are over 80 logue process forced me to challenge dialogue model, classroom teachers can different clubs and organizations. my ideas, listening to other viewpoints utilize the basic principles of ID to Many of these clubs could be seen as while attempting to gain new insights.” bring democracy to the classroom and perfect components for an Intergroup increase student engagement.” He also discusses how his participa- Dialogue.” tion in the project influenced his views on During the INTERACT pilot, Linda Lory “Tomni” Dance sexual orientation, stating, brought together her school’s LeTsGaB (Les- As mentioned to previously, Dr. Dance “[my homophobia] stems from my up- bian, Transsexuals, Gays and Bisexuals) piloted her intergroup dialogue-based bringing in the Baptist Church where and Christian clubs for sustained inter- course in Sweden. While this was a radi- homosexuality is taught to be an group dialogue. cally new pedagogical method for her, her abomination. Through the [INTER- Lund University students experienced it as ACT] process, I managed to increase “very American.” Resultantly, many stu- my tolerance for homosexuality. …I dents dropped the course assuming she learned that, as much as you want, you would be unwilling to lecture. just cannot live a lie. For most indi-

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 60 Higher Education

Related Comments when I talk I feel involved in what is Through the continued development of from Student Scholars going on around me, like I am a part of the INTERACT project, it has an equally and Student Focus Group Participants ‘what’s happening,’ not just a wall- tremendous potential to impact classroom flower.” teaching and learning, intergroup dialogue Daniello Balón facilitation and participation, correspond- Conclusions ing student engagement in the curriculum, “Dialogic pedagogy is integrally con- and subsequent student academic success nected to social justice. I never really The tremendous importance of the In- across disciplines/subjects areas and edu- understood this as a student or an tergroup Dialogue as Pedagogy Across the cational levels/contexts on a grander scale. employee, but when I had my first Curriculum (INTERACT) pilot project can- It is toward this end that the pilot effort is educational leadership position and I not be overstated. It has had tremendous dedicated. had authority to wield, then I began to impact on all of the participants, in particu- understand how complex power is and lar, on the Faculty Scholars’ teaching, their Notes how hard it is to share it.” students’ learning and persistence in com- pleting their programs of study, and their 1 Now eight week, twenty hour. Student Focus Group Participant institution’s openness to the development 2 The absence of the Student Scholars during this semester will be discussed in “When I get to talk in class, I feel better and implementation of an array of both detail in the Findings section of this article. about talking outside of class. And, curricular and co-curricular intergroup dialogue-based initiatives.

C ADDO GAP PRESS: Progressive Education Publications WELCOMES YOU TO AERA 2005 Come see our selection of periodicals and [email protected]

books in multicultural education, teacher MAIL -

E MONTREAL education, and foundations of education.

CADDO GAP PRESS PUBLISHES: Multicultural Education Magazine 415/ 666-3012 Teacher Education Quarterly Journal of Curriculum Theorizing TELEPHONE Stop by our booth Educational Foundations and nine other educational periodicals for a FREE copy of the latest issue of AS WELL AS: Quality Learning Experiences for All Students by Tonya Huber MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION Transforming the Curriculum for Multicultural Understandings magazine and be sure by James B. Boyer & H. Prentice Baptiste to check out our other On the Wings of Metaphor by Stanley D. Ivie Caddo Gap Press Theodore Brameld’s Educational Reconstruction by Frank A. Stone periodicals and books. Judicious Discipline (6th edition) by Forrest Gathercoal plus 40 other educational books

Copies for review and sale at our AERA Conference booth. 3145 Geary Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94118

If you are planning to attend the American Educational Research Association meetings in Montreal, April 11-15, 2005, come visit our Caddo Gap Press booth in the AERA exhibits area that week. Bring this coupon with you for a 20% discount.

SPRING 2005 61