Defining Expectations for Inclusive Discussions
Fostering a culturally sensitive and effective discussion between students of varying backgrounds can be a difficult task, but the opportunities to do so within a class focused on evaluating cultural stereotypes are prolific. In many cases, our PCW class already engages in deep and meaningful conversations; the students intuitively (or perhaps from past experience) know how to engage in thinking and speaking that demonstrates their ability to take on others' perspectives.
These skills were particularly evident during a PCW class session that involved evaluating the validity of two arguments, both of which were framed in very different ways. The first argument was a popular YouTube video in which a UCLA student, Alexandria Wallace, ranted about her least favorite habits of Asian international students (you can access the video here). She acknowledges that she is not politically correct before going on to generalize and stereotype Asian students and make incorrect assumptions about sensitive issues, such as home languages and tsunami refugees. The students watched this video and then analyzed the tone, audience, message, rhetorical devices, and resulting effectiveness of the video. The PCW students then watched a response video in which an Asian man addressed the UCLA student through an ironic song that played on the stereotypes that the girl perpetuated in her video (available here). The same elements were analyzed in this video as in the first. While both videos discussed extremely sensitive topics, the students tried to take on other’s perspectives as they evaluated the messages and stereotypes within each video. While recognizing and noting their emotional responses (which ranged from enjoyment to anger), the PCW students were able to engage in a discussion that was both rational and thought provoking.
One student remarked:
“Although the video made me angry, I understand where the girl was coming from. I see how she could think that the things [Asian students] do are annoying. I hope I don’t do the things she said in the video.”
Another responded:
“The second video was just as bad as the first in some ways. He’s making fun of Americans—like the stereotype that American girls are obsessed with appearances."
Both of these students were able to critically evaluate both sources while taking on others cultural perspectives in a respectful way. The first student was able to consider how American values and behaviors may differ from Chinese values and behaviors, and to conclude that this could be the cause of cultural tension. The second student, a young Arabic man, was able to recognize how Americans may be offended by the Chinese response video. Overall, the students concluded that although their responses to the second video were more positive, both videos were problematic. The instructor pointed out that perhaps the reason the second video was received more favorably because of the way that the message was conveyed (and the tone/emotional state of the author) and suggested that this perhaps made the Asian man the more competent writer. This also opened up a discussion on cultural insiders and outsiders, and the affordances or limitations one experiences due to their location within or outside of a culture. In its entirety, the discussion integrated American, Arabic, and Chinese cultural perspectives in a way that was enlightening and provocative but not disrespectful of any one’s views.
Although this discussion accomplished many of the goals that we identified as the focus of our research project (bridging different cultural views to have respectful, progressive discussions about sensitive issues), we feel that more could’ve been done to push students’ thinking further and set up a model for future discussions (i.e. about the intersections between gender roles, sexual orientation, and power). Despite the frequency of different forms of student discussion within PCW, a model was never agreed upon or explicitly discussed during any of the PCW sessions. Although students usually were able to engage in large group conversation in a respectful manner, it was perhaps an oversight and a problematic assumption to expect all students to understand the function and methodology of discussion with a college class context. The instructor also had no way of predicting how students would respond to the video, and she did not even preface the lesson by saying that the day’s class content may be sensitive or potentially offensive to some students. Foregrounding the rules, expectations, and modes of discussion at the beginning of this lesson, if not at the beginning of the semester, would’ve been an excellent starting place for all PCW students that would place them on a level playing field when it comes to dialogic discussion.
Mary Adler and Eija Rougle assert that making expectations for dialogic discussion explicit is important because “listening well and adeptly building on others' comments are really advanced skills that take a long time to assimilate as a habit” (45). Assuming that students are experts at these skills is limiting to all members of the conversation, as students who haven’t been exposed to dialogic discussion may not know how to participate within one effectively. Moreover, setting up ground rules for discussion that outline expectations for respect, turn taking, listening, and cultural sensitivity will not only provide students with tools to engage in culturally diverse and inclusive discussions, but also help build classroom community; “involving students in generating rules is crucial, as it gives them a stake in sustaining conversations along agreed-upon lines” (Adler and Rougle 42). When students are involved in defining how discussion will work within their own classroom, they feel as if their voices are valued and they have some autonomy when it comes to their education. Posting these class generated rules can also serve as a guide and reference during discussion, and can be used to remind students of what they have agreed upon as a class.
If such a conversation had taken place at the beginning of the semester, we feel that that the comments about homosexuality and women's power which prompted this research could have been more easily addressed through the utilization of an agreed upon process for discussing sensitive topics.
For a detailed explanation of methods for setting up discussion rules, please see the Activities tab.
These skills were particularly evident during a PCW class session that involved evaluating the validity of two arguments, both of which were framed in very different ways. The first argument was a popular YouTube video in which a UCLA student, Alexandria Wallace, ranted about her least favorite habits of Asian international students (you can access the video here). She acknowledges that she is not politically correct before going on to generalize and stereotype Asian students and make incorrect assumptions about sensitive issues, such as home languages and tsunami refugees. The students watched this video and then analyzed the tone, audience, message, rhetorical devices, and resulting effectiveness of the video. The PCW students then watched a response video in which an Asian man addressed the UCLA student through an ironic song that played on the stereotypes that the girl perpetuated in her video (available here). The same elements were analyzed in this video as in the first. While both videos discussed extremely sensitive topics, the students tried to take on other’s perspectives as they evaluated the messages and stereotypes within each video. While recognizing and noting their emotional responses (which ranged from enjoyment to anger), the PCW students were able to engage in a discussion that was both rational and thought provoking.
One student remarked:
“Although the video made me angry, I understand where the girl was coming from. I see how she could think that the things [Asian students] do are annoying. I hope I don’t do the things she said in the video.”
Another responded:
“The second video was just as bad as the first in some ways. He’s making fun of Americans—like the stereotype that American girls are obsessed with appearances."
Both of these students were able to critically evaluate both sources while taking on others cultural perspectives in a respectful way. The first student was able to consider how American values and behaviors may differ from Chinese values and behaviors, and to conclude that this could be the cause of cultural tension. The second student, a young Arabic man, was able to recognize how Americans may be offended by the Chinese response video. Overall, the students concluded that although their responses to the second video were more positive, both videos were problematic. The instructor pointed out that perhaps the reason the second video was received more favorably because of the way that the message was conveyed (and the tone/emotional state of the author) and suggested that this perhaps made the Asian man the more competent writer. This also opened up a discussion on cultural insiders and outsiders, and the affordances or limitations one experiences due to their location within or outside of a culture. In its entirety, the discussion integrated American, Arabic, and Chinese cultural perspectives in a way that was enlightening and provocative but not disrespectful of any one’s views.
Although this discussion accomplished many of the goals that we identified as the focus of our research project (bridging different cultural views to have respectful, progressive discussions about sensitive issues), we feel that more could’ve been done to push students’ thinking further and set up a model for future discussions (i.e. about the intersections between gender roles, sexual orientation, and power). Despite the frequency of different forms of student discussion within PCW, a model was never agreed upon or explicitly discussed during any of the PCW sessions. Although students usually were able to engage in large group conversation in a respectful manner, it was perhaps an oversight and a problematic assumption to expect all students to understand the function and methodology of discussion with a college class context. The instructor also had no way of predicting how students would respond to the video, and she did not even preface the lesson by saying that the day’s class content may be sensitive or potentially offensive to some students. Foregrounding the rules, expectations, and modes of discussion at the beginning of this lesson, if not at the beginning of the semester, would’ve been an excellent starting place for all PCW students that would place them on a level playing field when it comes to dialogic discussion.
Mary Adler and Eija Rougle assert that making expectations for dialogic discussion explicit is important because “listening well and adeptly building on others' comments are really advanced skills that take a long time to assimilate as a habit” (45). Assuming that students are experts at these skills is limiting to all members of the conversation, as students who haven’t been exposed to dialogic discussion may not know how to participate within one effectively. Moreover, setting up ground rules for discussion that outline expectations for respect, turn taking, listening, and cultural sensitivity will not only provide students with tools to engage in culturally diverse and inclusive discussions, but also help build classroom community; “involving students in generating rules is crucial, as it gives them a stake in sustaining conversations along agreed-upon lines” (Adler and Rougle 42). When students are involved in defining how discussion will work within their own classroom, they feel as if their voices are valued and they have some autonomy when it comes to their education. Posting these class generated rules can also serve as a guide and reference during discussion, and can be used to remind students of what they have agreed upon as a class.
If such a conversation had taken place at the beginning of the semester, we feel that that the comments about homosexuality and women's power which prompted this research could have been more easily addressed through the utilization of an agreed upon process for discussing sensitive topics.
For a detailed explanation of methods for setting up discussion rules, please see the Activities tab.