10

There is no magic recipe or formula for success in teaching any course, let alone a DIA course, and there are bound to be moments when one’s carefully crafted plans go awry, when no matter what one tries it doesn’t seem right, when the best of intentions do not lead to optimal outcomes (Brookfield 2019, 14-16).  Every teaching practice, after all, has pluses and minuses, and what works in one situation may not work in the next. Even so, there are proven instructional “moves that matter” that have emerged over decades of teaching experience in a variety of DIA-related and learning contexts. The important instructional approaches of scaffolding, modeling and building community noted above are good examples of moves that matter. In addition, the following list includes some additional instructional moves and specific examples found in the scholarship on anti-oppressive pedagogies, and also from approaches of UO faculty who regularly teach DIA-focused courses.^[1] They can function as guiding lights for facilitating significant learning experiences for students to engage in DIA learning with more confidence, fortitude, and care. That is, these instructional moves can contribute to more pluses for students and instructors alike.

Normalize Gaps in Our DIA Knowledge: Many students’ trepidation in entering a DIA course will stem from a lack of knowledge of DIA issues or lack of experience interacting with culturally diverse others. This may manifest, for instance, as a fear of being “called out” by other students or the instructor for this apparent lack. Instructors, too, can enter a class with concern for their own lack of knowledge or experience with certain issues or cultural groups that will be examined in the course. We can anticipate such anxiety and address it explicitly by normalizing knowledge gaps, that is, noting explicitly that we all have gaps in our knowledge when it comes to engaging in DIA issues. Understanding why this is will often be, of course, a key part of learning in a DIA class. After all, we do not arrive to DIA work as an expert but as a learner. One way to normalize gaps is for instructors to model up front our own knowledge gaps. For example, when introducing specific issue domains related to social identities and power, one UO instructor presents a “Knowledge Continuum” slide with four important areas of knowledge indicated: lived experience, academic knowledge, cultural knowledge, and personal ethical/moral knowledge. For each of these, there is a two-way pointing arrow creating a continuum with no knowledge/experience on one end, and much knowledge/experience (“expertise”) at the other. Next, this instructor will indicate a particular knowledge domain, such as “transgender, non-binary gender, gender non-conforming” or “immigrant undocumented family experience” and so on.  For each domain, the instructor indicates where they are located for each knowledge area (“lived experience,” etc.).  In some domains, they might have little lived experience knowledge, some cultural knowledge, and lots of academic knowledge, whereas in other domains their mix of knowledges is different.  In this way, the instructor can signal what they bring to the learning context for a particular topic or issue, and also model for students that gaps in different kinds of knowledge are quite normal. They can then have students do a preliminary mapping of their own mix of knowledges, then follow-up with an activity designed to help students learn basic vocabulary and fluency in a given domain (e.g. “Racial Justice Dominoes” or “Gender Dominos”).^[2] Later, after such an activity and more engagement with content, students can revisit their initial map and determine what has changed, in other words, reflect on what and how they have learned.  In this way, by normalizing gaps in knowledge, instructors can also indicate that such gaps can be filled by engaging in the work of DIA learning.

Define Key Terms: To ground and guide inquiry that is productive, it is important to define key terms, providing students with clear explanations of what they mean and when and how to use them conceptually. As Ibram X. Kendi suggests, it is in the act of defining terms that we can “begin to describe the world and our place in it. Definitions anchor us in principles…If we don’t do the basic work of defining the kind of people we want to be in language that is stable and consistent, we can’t work toward stable, consistent goals” (2019, 17). Consider the term “racist,” for example, which Kendi notes is not pejorative, not the “worst term in the English language,” and “not the equivalent of a slur.” Rather, it is “descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to is to consistently identify and describe it – and then dismantle it” (2019, 17). To not engage in the work of defining more rigorously the terms we use to conceptualize and describe reality is to risk the kind of “confusion” that results when people rely uncritically on deeply entrenched beliefs (Anderson 1994, 87). Instructors can therefore identify and define key terms and have students practice applying them conceptually in their analysis or, more likely in some cases, introduce varying definitions of key terms (varying among scholars or between scholarly accounts and more conventional understandings), then have students assess which definition seems best and why or even offer alternate definitions with accompanying rationales. Instructors can also ask students to generate working definitions first, then compare them to scholarly versions and consider what is different and why. Yet another method is to engage students in a small group activity in which they must match key terms with definitions, for example the use of “Racial Justice Dominoes” or “Gender Dominos.”^[3] Such activities can generate animated discussions and help definitions “stick” better than taking notes in   traditional lecture. However key terms get highlighted and defined, it is also helpful to use concrete examples to illustrate meaning – rich and varying examples can also help students learn nuance and levels of complexity, particularly for “big” concepts like race, gender, indigeneity, and so forth, the meaning of which often requires a host of significant terms.  In any event, when working with terms and ideas that frequently generate confusion or controversy, it is important for students to know what important terms mean in the context of a DIA course, why they matter, how they work as guiding threads for analysis, and to practice using them rigorously to understand social reality, that is, to “consistently identify and describe,” as Kendi puts it.

Bring Misconceptions, Myths, and Stereotypes to Light: It is normal for most students to bring misconceptions to bear when engaging with DIA content. Instructors can anticipate these misconceptions and use them productively. For example, Alex-Assensoh (2000) has students complete a non-graded quiz about the racial and ethnic characteristics of various issues, about which conventional wisdom is often inaccurate – such as most students assuming whites have the highest median family income in the U.S. or that blacks are the primary recipients of welfare benefits (Alex-Assensoh 2000, 202). Although no one likes to be “exposed” as wrong, which a quiz of this kind will often do, such exposure of misconceptions can prompt student confusion and a related curiosity to learn what is correct or accurate. Alex-Assensoh directs such feelings to relevant exercises of self-reflection and then subsequent engagement with informative accounts to fill in knowledge gaps, classroom discussion and activities, and research assignments.   In another example, a UO instructor introduces and explains key concepts, such as settler colonialism, then shows a slide that has “But, [instructor’s name]…” at the top, and below this is a list of common misconceptions and stereotypes. The instructor then introduces scholarly explanations or data to counter these or might first invite students to offer reasons why they are misconceptions or stereotypes before introducing the explanations of scholarship. Yet another approach is the way another UO instructor will put before their class the common myths associated with challenging content, such as rape, for instance, explicitly identifying them as misconceptions (not up for debate…) that support a larger social narrative. The instructor then asks students to reflect on and discuss where this narrative comes from, why it is still used, what purpose it serves, and what it reproduces. This discussion is then followed by a clear presentation of facts, supported by scholarly research, which the instructor then has students use to question the narrative under scrutiny. Common to these different approaches is the move to bring misconceptions, myths, and stereotypes explicitly to light at the beginning of a course, unit or class session, then address them up front using scholarly research and also engage students in critical examination, reflection, and discussion.

Be Ready for Hot Moments: Challenging or heated moments can occur at any time, in any class, for a variety of reasons. As discussed above, DIA classes elevate the potential for heated moments and raise the stakes for those involved. Having a set of norms or ground rules in place, along with specific protocols for action, can be helpful for guiding the class through such moments. Suggestions for establishing norms and protocols are indicated above (see “Community Building”). Here we want to emphasize the significance of establishing a clear protocol or set of protocols for working collectively in and through a heated moment. It is worth the investment of time early in a class (perhaps the second or third session) to engage students in developing a process for heated moments. There are numerous strategies that can be agreed to, including pausing to inquire and reflect, taking a short break to cool down or even deferring things to the next class, allowing conflicting sides an opportunity to clarify or even take back their views, and so forth.  The strategy of pausing to inquire and reflect can be especially helpful, and if this is something students have already discussed (in the abstract, as a possibility that might occur) and established a protocol around, it will much less awkward for an instructor to say something like “This is one of those heated moments we discussed might happen, and as we agreed to do, it is now time to pause and inquire into what is happening, and reflect on it.”  Protocol questions for inquiry and reflection can include: “What do I think just happened?”  “Why did it happen?” “What does it mean?” What are the consequences for everyone in this room?” “What alternative behaviors do we have available to us?” (Pasque, et al. 2013, 9). Another possible strategy, particularly in situations where a student’s sharing of a personal experience is met with strong reactions by others, is to pause the discussion and have all students write their thoughts about what they heard a the first student say and what they understood them to be thinking and feeling, then do the same thing for the student(s) who reacted strongly, and finally reflect on what they think the first student wanted as a response to sharing their experience (Wood 2009, 144).  Protocols of this kind can be very helpful in turning heated moments into important learning opportunities for how to listen respectfully, process emotions, and engage ethically and civilly. They can highlight the powerful role that emotions play in DIA learning, along with the efficacy of using critical reflection as a tool for navigating situations of unequal power, which many hot moments involve. For more strategies and resources for engaging hot moments, visit TEP’s Teaching in Turbulent Times Toolkit.