The Challenge:
A key challenge to all instructors is when a classroom discussion seems to “go off the rails” and devolves into a heated debate in which students (and sometimes the faculty) are locked in ideological or moral corners on a particular issue.
Oftentimes, there is an origin to these debates that stems from the academic content, but the conversation evolves rapidly, fueled by strong moral convictions.
There is not something “wrong” with students who engage in this style of engagement. Rather, for many who came from the American K-12 system, it can be seen as a product of their education which for many years has been framed by the Social and Emotional Learning Framework. In an effort to approach learning holistically, students have been encouraged and supported in bringing their whole selves (emotions, psychology, identities, values) to the classroom, and increasingly, to approach learning through the lenses of social justice, equity, and diverse perspectives. We should not be surprised when this happens in higher education.
However, there is a profound difference between awareness and skills. Many students may not have the skills needed to effectively engage with each other when they disagree on these important topics. While they may feel strength in their convictions, each must learn effective ways to convey their perspectives, and most importantly, listen to others that they may disagree with, with respect, and curiosity.
Still, it remains a challenge for many college faculty and instructors who do not have personal exposure to the SEL model, and instead, may have been socialized in academic environments that promoted other attributes, values, or ways of engaging with material.
Herein lies a challenge. Faculty and students often come to class with wildly divergent expectations about the role of the other, and of what “proper” academic culture looks like in the classroom.
A student’s expectation of the role of their instructor may be that the instructor is skilled in moderating dialogues in class at the intersection of the material and social justice. Students may expect that the instructor is a defender of (insert student belief here) because that is what they have been socialized to expect. The student may view the practice of making “the personal the political” or at least, “the personal the intellectual” as normal and expected. Now, multiply that by 10, or 20, or 300.
The instructor, however, may come to class with an expectation that they will be able to cover all the material they listed in the syllabus for that day (and there is a lot to cover). The instructor may see their role as the expert on that subject and that the student is there to learn. The instructor may not see their role in nearly the same way as the student, yet there they are, in the same class, about to embark on 15-weeks of dialogue together.
What we must consider is not whose expectations of each other or of the academy are correct, but rather, how to level-set expectations from the outset, and at each opportunity, have an intentional conversation to co-create expectations for each group, together.
An approach to level-setting expectations in class: Foundations of Academic Dialogue
The video presentation below is relevant for any instructor (faculty, postdoc, grad student) to utilize in their approach to teaching. The PowerPoint guidance that follows the video is free to download, and contains text (in blue) that instructors can copy and paste, and tailor to their own voice to help them establish a foundation for effective academic dialogue, and then most importantly, manage conversations in the moment.
We are currently researching the efficacy of this guidance and the experiences of both instructors and students in participating classrooms. To learn more about joining this research and sharing your perspectives, click here.
If you have any questions about implementation or for a tailored consultation for you and your classes, please contact Quade French, Ph.D. (qfrench (at) usc.edu).