Docstoc

An Integrated Approach to Diversity Education Intergroup

Document Sample
An Integrated Approach to Diversity Education Intergroup Powered By Docstoc
					An Integrated Approach
to Diversity Education:
Intergroup Dialogues
and CommonGround
Kelly E. Maxwell, Ph.D. Co-Director
Roger Fisher, Co-Associate Director
The Program on Intergroup Relations
www.igr.umich.edu
National imperative on integrative
learning
“[I]ntegrative learning is a shorthand term for teaching a set of
capacities—capacities we might also call the arts of connection,
reflective judgment, and considered action—that enable graduates to
put their knowledge to effective use. Thus defined, integrative learning
may certainly include the various forms of interdisciplinary learning.
But it should also lead students to connect and integrate the different
parts of their overall education, to connect learning with the world
beyond the academy, and, above all, to translate their education to
new contexts, new problems, new responsibilities.”
“Collectively, the practices that foster integrative and culminating
learning can help ensure that students will learn to take context and
complexity into account when they apply their analytical skills to
challenging problems.”
Carol Geary Schneider, ISSUES IN INTEGRATIVE STUDIES, No. 21, pp. 1-
8 (2003).
The Program on Intergroup
Relations’ statement on integrative
learning
More than multi disciplinary study or interdisciplinary study alone, IGR
promotes integrative learning that is both interdisciplinary and life-
wide learning in practice. Social Justice Education and Intergroup
Relations are interdisciplinary fields of study requiring cognitive
integration of concepts from several disciplines in an applied sense to
complex social conditions. For example, students engaging in an
examination of poverty may simultaneously apply concepts from
economics, sociology, political science, public policy, social work and
others during their work together.
IGR…an integrative joint-program
In IGR, our goal is the integrative learning of our students in and out of
the classroom that promotes their reflective judgment and their
reflective practice. Our intentional structure as a joint program in the
College of Literature, Science & the Arts (LS&A) and the Division of
Student Affairs (DSA) lends itself to the drawing together of the
interdisciplinarity of a liberal arts curriculum and the life-wide learning
of student development theory and student self authorship.

Our courses and programs are designed to challenge students at every
level to deepen their interdisciplinary knowledge and retrieve the
knowledge they have gained during their lived experience (tacit
knowledge). The desired outcome is students becoming actively
engaged citizens with the ability to integrate their critical thinking,
social critique and self awareness for participation in a diverse
democracy and global economy.
IGR’s MISSION: To Pursue Social
Justice through Education
• As a joint venture of LSA and the Division of Student Affairs, IGR
  serves this mission by:
        --offering academic courses
        --facilitating co-curricular activities
        --conducting research
        --offering consultation and training, and
        --developing a Global Living-Learning Program
• Through these activities, IGR provides opportunities for students,
  faculty, and staff to learn, cognitively and experientially, about issues
  of intergroup relations,
        --explicitly focusing on the relationships between social
        conflict and social justice.
The Program on Intergroup
Relations
Theories of conflict and cognitive dissonance
  o Conflict between social groups is predictable, should
    not be repressed but should be expressed
    constructively.

  o Internal conflict when one’s values, beliefs and
    assumptions are challenged with new information.
The Program on Intergroup
Relations
Contact theory
  o Intergroup Contact Increases Understanding

  o Important contact conditions
     • Equal Status
     • Sustained Personal Contact
     • Supported by Authorities
The Program on Intergroup
Relations
Theories of “modern/aversive/symbolic” –isms
  o Paradox between attitudes and behaviors.

  o Conflict between conscious egalitarian values and
    less-conscious aversions
The Program on Intergroup
Relations
Student Development Theory
  o Understanding the cognitive and emotional growth
    pathways to young adult development

  o Allowing students to participate as partners in learning
Cognitive and Affective Design
      • Low risk to high risk
      • Personal to institutional
      • Abstract to concrete
      • Knowledge/awareness to application
Tabletop

• Discussion &
• Worksheet
VIDEO
• Intergroup Dialogue Video
• Face-to-face meetings between members of two (or
 more) social groups that have a history of conflict or
 potential conflict.



• The groups are broadly defined by race, ethnicity,
 gender, sexual orientation, ability, religion, socio-
 economic class and other social group identities.
Intergroup Dialogue is…

• A STRUCTURED (but flexible) process

• SUSTAINED over an extended period of time

• FACILITATED by persons extensively and specifically trained in Intergroup
  Dialogue methodology

  • At Michigan, we believe that facilitation is best provided by
     undergraduate peers.
In Dialogue, Participants Explore…

 o Commonalities and differences within and between groups

 o Differences in privilege and discrimination between groups

 o Intergroup conflicts, and positive uses of conflict

 o Possibilities for alliances and coalitions between groups, and
   other strategies for social justice
 MAJOR RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• DOES INTERGROUP DIALOGUE
  • INCREASE INTERGROUP UNDERSTANDING, INTERGROUP
    RELATIONSHIPS, AND COMMITMENT TO INTERGROUP
    COLLABORATION?

• HOW DOES INTERGROUP DIALOGUE PRODUCE EFFECTS?
WHAT THE STUDY DID

• RANDOM ASSIGNMENT TO DIALOGUES OR CONTROL GROUPS

• USING QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS
  • SURVEYS
  • INTERVIEWS
  • VIDEO TAPING
  • CONTENT ANALYZING FINAL PAPERS

• ASSESSING STUDENTS
  • BEGINNING OF TERM, END OF TERM, A YEAR LATER
 PARTICIPANTS IN TOTAL STUDY AND
 INTENSIVE DIALOGUE SUB-STUDY
                     52 Dialogue Experiments (26 race, 26 gender)
           Dialogue Intensive Study (10 race, 10 gender dialogues)


Dialogue                 Dialogue Intensive
(n=726)                    Study (n=247)




                                              Within Students of Color:
Control
                                              38%   African American
(n=721)                                       36%   Asian/Asian American
                                              21%   Latino/a
                                              5%    Other
OVERALL EFFECTS IN THREE
SETS OF OUTCOMES
                          Significant Effects of Dialogue

• On 26 of 27 measures across intergroup understanding, intergroup
  relationships, and intergroup action

• In both race and gender dialogues on 24 of 27 measures – on 3 significant
  effects only in race dialogues

• For all 4 groups of students on 26 of 27 measures

• Still evident a year later on 24 of 27 measures – smaller but still reliable.
COLLABORATIVE ACTION




                       PRE to POST Effect of Dialogue
                       Time X Condition Interaction
                       F(1,1349) = 50.92, p < .001, η2 = .036

                       PRE to 1-YR LATER Effect of Dialogue
                       Time X Condition Interaction
                       F(1,1157) = 7.70, p = .006, η2 = .007



   IGD    Months
WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THESE
EFFECTS? LEARNING
STUDENTS IN DIALOGUE INCREASE MORE THAN CONTROL GROUPS IN:
 • ACTIVE THINKING
 • ENGAGED LEARNING
 • CONSIDERATION OF MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES
 • POSITIVE EMOTIONS IN INTERGROUP SETTINGS
 • POSITIVE INTERGROUP INTERACTIONS
 • IDENTITY ENGAGEMENT

AND ALL OF THESE ARE FOSTERED BY COMMUNICATION PROCESSES…..

AND THEN HELP ACCOUNT FOR IMPACT OF DIALOGUE ON THREE SETS OF
 OUTCOMES
WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THESE
EFFECTS?
COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
 Engaging Self (α=.83)                         Critical Reflection (α=.78)
 “Being able to disagree.”                     “Examining the sources of my biases and assumptions.”
 “Sharing my views and experiences.”           “Making Mistakes and reconsidering my opinions.”
 “Asking questions that I felt I wasn’t able   “Thinking about issues that I may not have before.”
     to ask before.”
 “Speaking openly without feeling judged.”


Learning from others (α=.86)                   Alliance Building (α=.91)
“Hearing different points of view.”            “Listening to other students’ commitment to work
“Learning from each other.”                    against injustices.”
“Hearing other students’ personal stories”     “Talking about ways to take action on social issues.”
                                               “Feeling a sense of hope about being able to challenge
                                               injustices.”
                                               “Working through disagreements and conflicts.”
RELEVANCE FOR ALL OF US
CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF….

  • STUDENTS GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER PERSONALLY & NON-
    SUPERFICIALLY ACROSS BACKGROUNDS & CULTURES

  • HELPING THEM UNDERSTAND INDIVIDUATION IS NOT ALL THERE IS –
    THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF CULTURE, GROUPS, INEQUALITIES IN SOCIAL
    AND ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE

  • CONNECTING SUBSTANTIVE & DISCIPLINARY KNOWLEDGE TO THESE
    INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCIES
Tabletop

• Discussion &
• Worksheet
VIDEO
• CommonGround Video
 Response to student need for increased access to social justice
  education

 Necessity to be congruent with departmental philosophy of
  education:
       Peer-facilitation
       Student-centered leadership
       Mindfulness of power imbalances
       Utilization of theory
       Contributions to research
   Cultivate knowledge, insight, and awareness around social issues
    and intergroup relations

   Provide an opportunity for students to talk about issues of identity,
    social issues, conflict and communication and to encourage further
    exploration

   Recognize similarities and differences that exist both within groups
    and across identities

   Foster reflection and discussion about individuals’ own identities
    and their intersectionality

   Instill a capacity to continue involvements in social justice and/or
    social change after graduation
CommonGround Workshops

 U-M student organizations, faculty, offices and programs request and
  engage in workshops

 1.5 - 3 hour time frame

 Topics include: identity, privilege, oppression, civic engagement, etc.

 Why Are All the ______ Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?; The
  Media: Seeing is Believing; Understanding the Campus Climate; Why
  Don’t You Understand Me?!
Structure of CommonGround

• Workshop Facilitators

• Student Leaders

• Participants

• Requestors
Utilization of Self-Authorship &
Intercultural Maturity Model
Intercultural Maturity Model -
Patricia King & Marcia Baxter Magolda (2005)
• Development of intercultural maturity as desired college outcome
• 3 dimensions of framework:
   • Intrapersonal
   • Interpersonal
   • Cognitive
• Theory to Practice

Self-Authorship Model
Robert Keagan (1994)
• Students who interpret and learn from experiences on their own engage in
  a mode of meaning making, called “self-authorship”
Logic Model for Student Development
                                                                                                                      CommonGround Workshop Program Logic Model
                                  Input                        Activities                        Outputs                         Outcomes                          Impact

                          Students are recruited     Students in the program            Cognitive
                          into leadership            work collaboratively with          Increased leadership and
                          positions, which           one another and staff to           organization skills
  Student Leadership




                          include:                   organize and implement:                                            Students develop as                 A more inclusive
                           Graduate Intern               Workshops                  Intrapersonal                     more well-rounded,                   campus climate
                           Program                      Training                  Development of leadership        intelligent, and inclusive   
                              Coordinators                Recruitment                skills and style                  leaders.                            Increased comfort
                           Student                       Marketing                                                                                         with communicating
                              Coordinators                Community                    Interpersonal                                                        across identities.
                           Small Group                      events.                    Interaction with other
                              Facilitators                                              student leaders                                                     Advancement of co-
                                                                                                                                                             curricular pedagogy.
                                                       Workshops focus on               Cognitive
                                                       concepts of social justice       Understanding basic social      The workshops that U-M              Development of an
  Workshop Participants




                                                       such as:                         justice concepts.               students are exposed to              applicable workshop
                                                        Social identities                                              increase their                       program for peer
                                                        Power                        Intrapersonal                     understanding and                    institutions to model.
                                                        Privilege                    Increased self-awareness          experience of how their
                                                        Oppression                  and social identity              (and others) social                Establishment of a
                                                        Social Equality                                                identities impact their              program that models a
                                                        Group Dynamics                 Interpersonal                   everyday experiences.                student-centered
                                                        Communication                  Engagement across identity                                           mission.
                                                                                        differences
                                                                                                                                                            Commitment to
                                                                                        Cognitive                                                            collaboration with
                                                     Students are trained on            Increase in knowledge of                                             across other U-M
  Workshop Facilitators




                                                     facilitation skills and            facilitation concepts                                                offices, programs and
                          Graduate and               concepts of social justice                                         Students who are more
                                                                                                                                                             student organizations.
                          undergraduate              through:                         Intrapersonal                     capable of facilitating
                          students are recruited      Off-campus retreats           Development of facilitation      difficult concepts,
                                                                                                                                                    
                          to become workshop          Planning Meetings              skills and style                  activities, and
                          facilitators.               Reflections                                                      workshops.
                                                      Personal Support                 Interpersonal
                                                                                        Facilitating workshops with
                                                                                        diverse groups.
 Outcomes-Based Research
 Methods
  Student Voice
  Surveys
  Focus Groups
  1:1 Interviews
  Emails

 Qualitative and Quantitative
Evaluation and Assessment ~ The
Trajectory
• Pilot: Winter 2007 – August 2007
   • Participant Evaluation
   • Validation of CommonGround

• Year One: Fall 2007 – Summer 2008
   • Reevaluated Participant Evaluation
   • Workshop Facilitator Reflections
   • Preliminary use of theory in research and assessment

• Year Two: Fall 2008 – Summer 2009
   • Incorporated Intercultural Maturity, Self-Authorship as guiding forces for research
     interpretation. Did very limited quantitative research on facilitator impact.
   • Began the process of developing Learning Outcomes and Research Structure
   • Developed Logic Model for CommonGround

• Year Three: Fall 2009 – Present
   • Structured and Formalized Research Project
   • Solidified Learning Goals and research Questions
   • Obtained IRB
   • Conducted Workshop facilitator focus group and analysis of transcripts.
   Goal: Cultivate knowledge, insight, and awareness around social
    issues and intergroup relations
   Facilitator: “I think my experience here also let me know about
    America in terms of ….social identity, so I can share with other
    international students to let them know more about these issues in
    the United States”
   Goal: Foster reflection and discussion about individuals’ own
    identities and their intersectionality
   “…CommonGround has helped me to
    conceptualize a lot of my thoughts on
    social identity into more concrete terms.
    It has also helped me make sense of a
    lot of my realities and in doing so, has
    also helped me to externalize the issues
    I need to externalize. I have for too
    long thought that I was to blame for
    the things that have happened in my
    life, but am now able to see the role
    that my social identities play in my
    everyday realities.” – Facilitator

   Some of what I discovered about myself
    was a surprise, and very helpful for how
    I see myself - Participant
   Goal: Instill a capacity to continue involvements in social justice
    and/or social change after graduation

   “I am currently in the Political Science stream, but because of this
    experience, I am considering pursuing a career that will allow to not only
    continue using my facilitation skills, but also one that will ultimately involves
    me pursuing a social justice issue.” --Facilitator
CommonGround Facilitator
Evaluation Research Questions
• What effect does Common Ground have on learning about:
  • Social justice concepts
  • Facilitation

• What effect does CommonGround have on student learning
  about:
  • Values and social identity
  • Interpersonal relationships in different settings
  • Conflict across social identities

• How are facilitators integrating what they learn from
  CommonGround and applying it to their classes, personal lives
  and other activities?
 Focus Group Preliminary Results
 Themes
• Expansion of knowledge and depth on social justice issues
   • Facilitator #1: “This program has expanded my ideas and my passion for social
     justice.”*


• Greater awareness of own social identities
   • Facilitator #2: “I actually joined CommonGround because I feel like an agent (in)
     pretty much all (of) my identities. And one thing that was interesting for me was
     learning more about my target identity.”


• Supportive Environment and Family Atmosphere
   • Facilitator #3: “I’ve never been more affirmed by a group of people in my entire life.”




                  *Names of participants were changed to respect and
                                          protect their confidentiality.
Focus Group Preliminary Results
Themes
• Feeling of burden from all the social injustices
   • Facilitator #1: “A lot of things that were brought up while I facilitated
     around inequalities was more than just addressing (inappropriate)
     language, but more so… taking action systematically. I haven’t been
     able to find that.”

• Greater confidence understanding social identities in facilitation
   • Facilitator #2: “I think my experience here also let me know about
     America in terms of ….social identity, so I can share with other
     international students to let them know more about these issues in the
     United States”
Tabletop

• Discussion &
• Worksheet
Mportfolio.umich.edu
Mportfolio, an integrative learning tool, incorporates the following unique
components:
• Valuing Learning From All Aspects of Life
  Help students identify learning from all areas of their life, bridge their
  college experiences to other life experiences, and demonstrate how
  their underlying values and beliefs connect to their learning
• Documenting Learning Beyond Graduation
  Develop students' abilities to recognize "a-ha" moments in their lives
  and encourage them to document their knowledge, skills, and
  contributions beyond graduation
• Understanding What We Know, Value, and Believe
  Retrieving, reflecting, integrating, and documenting knowledge that has
  been gained through experience and connecting that knowledge to
  values, beliefs, and decision making
• Supporting Assessment and Accountability
  Students reflect on their learning, recognize how that learning relates to
  competencies, and demonstrate how those competencies inform their
  practice
Invitation to our National
Intergroup Dialogue Institute
The Program on Intergroup Relations hosts annual Intergroup Dialogue
National Institutes for faculty and staff who wish to learn our
philosophy and techniques for the purpose of creating dialogue
programs on their own campuses.
• The next National Institute will be held June 8-11, 2011 in Ann
  Arbor, Michigan.
• Join us in learning about intergroup dialogue and how you might use
  it at your institution!
   • Participate in engaging activities commonly used in intergroup
      dialogue settings
   • Explore the overall dialogue framework and The Michigan Model
   • Strategize the development and support of academic and co-
      curricular programs
• http://www.igr.umich.edu/about/institute

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:7
posted:7/12/2011
language:English
pages:42