Presentation on theme: "An Integrated Approach to Diversity Education: Intergroup Dialogues and CommonGround Kelly E. Maxwell, Ph.D. Co-Director Roger Fisher, Co-Associate Director."— Presentation transcript:
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 capacitiescapacities we might also call the arts of connection, reflective judgment, and considered actionthat 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.
IGRs 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 ones 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
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 Dialogue (n=726) Control (n=721) 52 Dialogue Experiments (26 race, 26 gender) Dialogue Intensive Study (10 race, 10 gender dialogues) Within Students of Color: 38% African American 36% Asian/Asian American 21% Latino/a 5% Other Dialogue Intensive Study (n=247)
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.
INTERGROUP EMPATHY Months IGD PRE to POST Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1361) = 75.30, p <.001, η 2 =.052 PRE to 1-YR LATER Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1175) = 15.83, p <.001, η 2 =.013
STRUCTURAL UNDERSTANDING: GENDER INEQUALITY Months IGD 4 Items (α=.76) In the United States there is still great gender inequality. Discrimination in the workplace still limits the success of many women. It is harder for women candidates to raise campaign funds than it is for men candidates. PRE to POST Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1364) = 37.31, p <.001, η 2 =.027 PRE to 1-YR LATER Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1165) = 23.04, p <.001, η 2 =.019
STRUCTURAL UNDERSTANDING: RACIAL /ETHNIC INEQUALITY Months IGD 4 Items (α=.80) What one can achieve in life is still limited by ones race or ethnicity. Prejudice and discrimination in the educational system limit the success of people of color. Unfair hiring and promotion practices help keep many people of color form gaining positions of power. PRE to POST Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1363) = 32.77, p <.001, η 2 =.023 PRE to 1-YR LATER Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1164) = 13.89, p <.001, η 2 =.012
ANTICIPATED ACTION POST- COLLEGE Months IGD PRE to POST Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1359) = 27.34, p <.001, η 2 =.020 PRE to 1-YR LATER Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1164) = 10.67, p =.001, η 2 =.009
COLLABORATIVE ACTION Months IGD PRE to POST Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1349) = 50.92, p <.001, η 2 =.036 PRE to 1-YR LATER Effect of Dialogue Time X Condition Interaction F(1,1157) = 7.70, p =.006, η 2 =.007
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
Engaging Self (α=.83) Being able to disagree. Sharing my views and experiences. Asking questions that I felt I wasnt able to ask before. Speaking openly without feeling judged. Learning from others (α=.86) Hearing different points of view. Learning from each other. Hearing other students personal stories Critical Reflection (α=.78) Examining the sources of my biases and assumptions. Making Mistakes and reconsidering my opinions. Thinking about issues that I may not have before. Alliance Building (α=.91) Listening to other students commitment to work against injustices. 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. WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THESE EFFECTS? COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
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
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 Dont 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
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: Provide an opportunity for students to talk about issues of identity, social issues, conflict and communication and to encourage further exploration Facilitator: Ive never been more affirmed by a group of people in my entire life.
Goal: Recognize similarities and differences that exist both within groups and across identities Because of CommonGround, I have developed a strong, grounded understanding of my own social identities and how those identities affect the way I relate and communicate with others. – Student Leader
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: Ive 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 havent 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
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
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.