An Integrated Approach to Diversity Education: Intergroup Dialogues and CommonGroundKelly E. Maxwell, Ph.D. Co-DirectorRoger Fisher, Co-Associate DirectorThe Program on Intergroup Relationswww.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-programIn 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 oConflict 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 theoryo 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 oParadox between attitudes and behaviors.

oConflict between conscious egalitarian values and less-conscious aversions

The Program on Intergroup Relations

Student Development TheoryoUnderstanding the cognitive and emotional growth

pathways to young adult development

oAllowing 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

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 American36% Asian/Asian American21% Latino/a5% 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.

COLLABORATIVE ACTION

MonthsIGD

PRE to POST Effect of DialogueTime X Condition InteractionF(1,1349) = 50.92, p < .001, η2 = .036

PRE to 1-YR LATER Effect of DialogueTime X Condition InteractionF(1,1157) = 7.70, p = .006, η2 = .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 wasn’t 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

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-facilitationStudent-centered leadershipMindfulness of power imbalances Utilization of theoryContributions 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 ModelRobert 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

Stud

ent L

eade

rshi

p

Students are recruited into leadership positions, which include: Graduate Intern Program

Coordinators Student

Coordinators Small Group

Facilitators

Students in the program work collaboratively with one another and staff to organize and implement:

Workshops Training Recruitment Marketing Community

events.

Cognitive Increased leadership and organization skills

Students develop as more well-rounded, intelligent, and inclusive leaders.

A more inclusive campus climate

Increased comfort with communicating across identities.

Advancement of co-curricular pedagogy.

Development of an applicable workshop program for peer institutions to model.

Establishment of a program that models a student-centered mission.

Commitment to

collaboration with across other U-M offices, programs and student organizations.

Intrapersonal Development of leadership skills and style

Interpersonal Interaction with other student leaders

Wor

ksho

p Pa

rtici

pant

s

Workshops focus on concepts of social justice such as: Social identities Power Privilege Oppression Social Equality Group Dynamics Communication

Cognitive Understanding basic social justice concepts.

The workshops that U-M students are exposed to increase their understanding and experience of how their (and others) social identities impact their everyday experiences.

Intrapersonal Increased self-awareness and social identity Interpersonal Engagement across identity differences

Wor

ksho

p Fa

cilit

ator

s

Graduate and undergraduate students are recruited to become workshop facilitators.

Students are trained on facilitation skills and concepts of social justice through: Off-campus retreats Planning Meetings Reflections Personal Support

Cognitive Increase in knowledge of facilitation concepts

Students who are more capable of facilitating difficult concepts, activities, and workshops.

Intrapersonal Development of facilitation skills and style Interpersonal Facilitating workshops with diverse groups.

Outcomes-Based Research

MethodsStudent VoiceSurveysFocus Groups1:1 InterviewsEmails

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 ResultsThemes

• 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 ResultsThemes

• 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 LifeHelp 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 GraduationDevelop 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 BelieveRetrieving, reflecting, integrating, and documenting knowledge that has been gained through experience and connecting that knowledge to values, beliefs, and decision making •Supporting Assessment and AccountabilityStudents 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 InstituteThe 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