|
This chapter provides a model for approaching multicultural
issues in any consultation around teaching, whether they are raised by the instructor or
not. It includes illustrative cases, questions to guide practice, and consideration of
various approaches to consulting related to multicultural pedagogy.
Consultation about teaching occurs in multiple ways among people in
quite different roles. In some instances the consultant is a professional educational
developer located in a center focused on enhancing teaching and learning. In some
institutions and situations, faculty members are consulting with each other, or an
instructor has a part-time responsibility for strengthening teaching and learning in his
or her unit or institution. Or an instructor may be mentoring or supervising a graduate
student teaching assistant. In addition to the roles and locations of consultants, the
types and circumstances of the consultation also differ. Sometimes the educational
developer becomes involved because of a crisis, dilemma, or problem in the classroom. In
other instances, an educational developer works with an instructor over time, providing
assistance in planning a course, conducting midterm observations, assessments and
feedback, and/or assisting an instructor in reviewing and evaluating student feedback and
learning. Contact may be in person, in the classroom or in an office, or may occur over
telephone or email.
Whatever the roles and relationships, we assume that educational
developers encounter diversity issues in all consultations with instructors.
Although many definitions of multiculturalism exist, they can be clustered into a few
categories:
the celebration of diversity that entails accommodating and
appreciating different learning and cultural styles
a focus on societal power dynamics, especially those
associated with race, gender, and so on, how they are replayed in the classroom and become
barriers to teaching and learning
a concentration on social justice learning with the explicit
aim of preparing students to work towards a more socially just world
All of the above definitions are relevant in consulting situations but
may be more or less visible and acknowledged in any given interaction. Moreover, these are
issues we need to learn to address if we assume that teaching should optimize learning for
everyone and prepare students for participation in a diverse society and global
environment. Marchesani and Adams (1992) make clear that diversity is part of all aspects
of teaching. It affects instructors, students, course goals and content, and instructional
methods, and it often involves interrelationships among them.
To help us navigate the complexities of consulting on diversity, we
will explore specific examples of how these issues arise in consulting. To organize, we
use a Concentric Circle Model with three categories defined by how central the diversity
issue is within the goals of the consultation and how aware the instructor is of the
diversity related issues (see Figure One). Before turning to a fuller discussion of our
model, we offer two caveats. First, there is no formula for this process, no one right way
to address diversity in consulting. Each of us will approach these issues based on our own
comfort level, knowledge, and skills as well as our relationship to the instructor and the
nature of the situation. Our purpose here is to provide a framework that can help us to
think about, recognize, and become more aware of the multiple ways that multicultural and
social justice issues can arise in consultations, with some ideas of how they can be
handled once they come up. Second, although we have included the organizational unit and
larger environment in the diagram and believe that it is always important to place
consultation within the larger context, in this article, because of space limitations, we
focus primarily on situations in which the consultant is working with an individual
faculty member.
Using the Concentric Circle Model
I. Consultation Situations in which the Multicultural Issue is Overt
In the following case examples, both the instructor and the consultant
recognize that diversity issues are central elements in the situation. Thus, the tasks
within consultation are twofold: to understand the issues and how they manifest themselves
in the instructional situation; and to consider how the consulting process can assist the
instructor to address them successfully.
Classroom Dynamics
Chris, an instructor for an introductory chemistry lab course, has come
to see you about a situation in the lab. One of the students has a severe physical
disability. "But this is a lab course," Chris says, "and that means that
the students need to be physically engaged in various ways over the four hours of class
time. They need to manipulate instruments, go back and forth to the hood, write down
results, and so forth. I spoke to this student at the beginning of the term to find out if
he thought he could manage, and he insisted that he needed the course as a prerequisite
for a career in the health professions. He’s never come to talk to me since then, but
I can tell that he’s having trouble keeping up. He’s confined to a wheelchair,
which makes it difficult for him to get up to the lab benches, and he sometimes has
trouble with fine motor skills. His lab group started out sympathetic, but lately
they’ve been ignoring him and getting the work done without including him. Whenever I
go over to the group, the three other students are all working together and he is
generally working on his own, usually on a much earlier part of the lab. So it’s hard
for me to ask the group questions that include him because it’s like they’re
almost doing two different experiments. I also call on students to present their
group’s work, and I don’t ever feel I can call on him, not because he’s
disabled, but because he’s not up to speed. What can I do? I don’t want to
single the student out or be discouraging, but I’m also not sure that he can really
succeed in the course."
Questions to Consider
How comfortable are you with the topic of disability?
What knowledge do you have and what do you know about the resources on your campus for
students with disabilities?
How do your own attitudes toward disability affect how
you would approach this consultation?
What would you want to find out about the instructor
and the instructor’s attitudes toward disability?
What are the issues for the student? Why might the
student not be asking for help? What responsibility does the student have?
What are the group dynamics issues in this case? How
can the instructor work to improve group dynamics?
What else would you like to know about the course or
the students in question?
How would you approach this consultation? Would you
begin with practical suggestions, questions and discussion of the issues involved, other
approaches? Why?
Discussion
The case raises obvious pedagogical issues. One approach involves
helping the instructor consider carefully which issues are specifically related to
disability and which raise more general pedagogical concerns (Border, 2001). For example,
the inaccessibility of the lab, the need to physically manipulate instruments, and student
reactions and attitudes all relate to the issue of disability. On the other hand, the case
involves a set of questions around teaching methods more generally, such as the set-up and
function of groups, the intervention by the instructor in negative group process, and
dealing with students at different levels of competence. By helping delineate between the
two, the consultant can refocus the instructor, who, at this point, has concluded that all
of the difficulties stem from the student’s disability (implying some blame, as if
the situation would disappear if the student did). Instead, this case demonstrates that
concentrating on students at the margins can lead to wider insights that benefit the whole
class. (For more information on Universal Instructional Design, please see chapter 29 by
Burgstahler, Faculty Development and Students with Disabilities.)
Such an approach enables the consultant to talk candidly with the
instructor about his or her attitude toward and knowledge of disability, since the
instructor’s attitudes and lack of knowledge could well explain the tendency to view
a complex teaching issue through the single lens of student disability. Studies on the
learning environment for students with disabilities indicate that the instructors who are
aware of local campus policies (such as the possibility of making rooms accessible or
changing locations, or the use of lab aides to help with fine motor tasks) and the
rationale behind them, are more likely to be helpful and accommodating (Rickman, 1995).
Moreover, it is important for faculty to understand that their attitudes set the tone in
class and that students with disabilities find negative faculty attitudes to be a major
barrier to their full participation in higher education. Finally, in order to be
effective, the consultant needs to know about institutional policies on and support for
students with disabilities (or at least know how to get hold of them) and have the skill
to begin an honest discussion about the source of Chris’s discomfort and ways to
overcome it.
Challenges
Angela is a young, Latina assistant professor who has come to you about
a large introductory anthropology course she teaches. Over the past few years, she has
revamped the course, making the content both more rigorous and more relevant to
students’ lives (by including guest speakers, demonstrations, and relevant films on
the topic). Enrollment is up substantially, to the point where the department is turning
away students. The number of majors has also risen.
These positive outcomes have been marred for Angela by the presence of
a small but vocal group of students who are disaffected and disrespectful, and almost all
of whom are male. Sometimes these students can be downright aggressive. For example, at
the beginning of the term Angela had to turn away some students who wanted to add the
course. One student this past term refused to give up, eventually yelling at her and
getting really angry. Angela was intimidated by this behavior and finally felt she had to
yell back at him to get him to back off.
In addition, there are problems with classroom dynamics. Angela teaches
in a large lecture hall that seats 400. Last term, a group of students sat in the center
of the hall and talked throughout the lecture. They also asked questions that seemed to
challenge Angela’s knowledge of the subject. After stopping several times to ask
politely for quiet, she finally lost her temper and yelled at this group of students. On
the end of term ratings, a small subset of students mentioned this incident, and some used
disparaging language about her. Angela also tells you that when she team taught the course
with a male colleague, these disruptions never came up during his lectures. Her department
appreciates the good work she is doing but worries about the student ratings and her
interactions with students. She would like to know how she could avoid these situations,
and she has come to you for suggestions as she plans the course.
Questions to Consider
What issues does this case raise for Angela? Where
would you start?
What is your own experience with challenges to
authority? How might that affect your consultation?
What else would you want to know about Angela, her
teaching, and this course?
How might gender and race be interacting in this case?
How would you raise the issues of race and gender, if Angela did not name them first?
What do you know about the challenges to their
authority that women and people of color often face in the classroom? How might you use
this knowledge in a consultation?
What might Angela do to avoid this behavior in the
future?
How might Angela handle problems that arise during the
term?
Would you advise Angela to let her department know
about the challenges she faces? If so, who and at what level? Why? Why not?
Discussion
Angela, like Chris, faces difficult, general pedagogical issues, such
as classroom incivility, the consumer-oriented attitude of today’s students, and the
many challenges of teaching large classes effectively. Unlike the lab instructor, Angela
seems keenly aware of her own identity and how it might contribute to the obstacles she
faces: her authority in the class is being challenged by the male students in particular.
What is not clear is the degree to which there is an intersection between gender and other
identity characteristics, such as age, physical stature, and race. A growing body of
literature has documented similar challenges faced both by women and faculty of color
teaching in predominantly white institutions (Basow, 1998; Benokritis, 1998; McGowan,
2000; McKay, 1995; Smith, 1999; Thomas & Hollenshead, 2002; Vargas, 1999).
Obviously, Angela cannot change who she is. However, if the consultant
is willing to discuss the challenges faced by underrepresented faculty (either based on
research findings or personal experience), the issue can be normalized. It would no longer
be a problem based solely on the instructor’s individual skill or competence, but one
that reflects a wider pattern based on students’ expectations of who does or does not
have authority in the classroom. The shift from the personal to the structural could help
Angela put the experience in a larger context and be better able to develop strategies to
address student attitudes and behavior. The literature on such strategies is less well
developed than the descriptions of the problems. Recommendations tend to focus on being
clear about all the administrative aspects of the course, maintaining a professional
distance from students, and emphasizing one’s background in the subject area.
Another possibility would be to make the cultural expectations at play
in the class a subject of inquiry or discussion. Such an approach would depend upon a
match between these issues and the course content. One of us (Reed) has taken a similar
approach in social work, making the teaching and learning process both transparent and an
object of inquiry for class discussion. In a discipline such as anthropology (or sociology
or social psychology) Angela might find ways to turn classroom dynamics into a case study
to promote student self-reflection and learning. Many humanities courses could do this
through reading selections. In areas where teamwork or leadership skills are important
(for example, engineering and business), direct attention to group dynamics would also be
relevant.
Finally, while we concentrate in this article on individual
consultations, Angela’s situation raises systemic questions of organizational
development. While Angela holds the institutional authority in the classroom,
students’ voices exercise a significant influence since they affect the
department’s perspective on Angela’s viability as a faculty member. Faculty
executive committees, department chairs, and other administrators need to be aware of the
challenges affecting underrepresented faculty so that information (such as comments on
student ratings) is not interpreted naively. Strategies need to be developed to support
junior women faculty and faculty of color. The strategies used to raise administrative
awareness will depend on the consultant’s role in the institution.
II. Consultation Strategies with Embedded, Emerging, and/or Hidden
Issues
In situations we have defined as embedded, emerging, or hidden, the
consultant perceives that a diversity issue is a major element of the teaching situation,
but the instructor is less aware of this issue and has not defined it as a goal for the
consultation. In these types of situations, the consultant must decide whether and how to
raise the issue and how to assist the instructor to recognize, accept, and understand its
importance. Then, depending on how this discussion goes, a major task is to assist the
instructor to decide how to approach the issue. The following case and the subsequent
discussion offer an example of the steps involved.
Laying the Groundwork for Multicultural Learning
Paul, a TA in English, is teaching the introductory writing class in
the fall. Paul is an experienced TA who is about to finish his degree and start looking
for a faculty position. He has taught this course several times before and says that he
has always enjoyed it and done well with it. He has come to you in the summer to review
his syllabus with you and get your advice particularly about issues of workload and using
groups effectively. At the beginning of your meeting, Paul explains his concerns about the
course. He has used peer review of compositions on several occasions, and he would like to
now move this process online using the university’s courseware system. In addition,
Paul wants to integrate online discussions into the course to extend student thinking
about discussion topics and to give them practice with informal, "low stakes"
writing. After Paul finishes his explanation, he gives you a few minutes to look over the
syllabus. You notice that the course is divided into major sections devoted to writing for
different types of audiences: writing for popular culture, exploration of public issues,
and disciplinary writing in academia. As you read over the assignments and activities Paul
has sketched out in the syllabus, you notice that he has focused the "public
issues" section of the course around the issue of gay marriage. The readings include
very recent editorials both pro and con, with a range of titles including pieces that use
inflammatory language. These readings introduce the section, and students are then free to
write an essay on a public issue of their choosing. As you look back over the syllabus,
you notice that this is the only sensitive issue dealt with overtly in the course. You are
still considering the implications of Paul’s choice as you finish looking through the
syllabus, and he says, "So now that you’ve got a sense of the course, I’d
like to talk about the Web. Have you worked with other TAs or faculty who have their
students give feedback online?"
Questions to Consider
How can you determine how aware Paul is of the
potential issues that his choice of topics may raise?
How can you assess whether Paul is prepared to handle
the ways that class members may react to these topics, or to recognize the teaching issues
likely to arise?
In what ways might Paul help to lay the groundwork in
earlier sessions that can support productive learning?
How can you frame your perceptions so that Paul can
hear them and learn from them?
How does your own identity affect your approach to
this situation?
How ready is Paul to recognize and consider how to
handle issues he previously has not recognized?
The consultant notes elements of the course content that are likely to
need preparation and contextualization for students for optimal learning. It is not clear
from the syllabus and interactions with the instructor thus far how much the instructor
has explored his own identities relevant for the proposed topic, how much experience this
instructor has in using controversial topics to promote learning and in managing the
classroom dynamics likely to occur, or whether the instructor has anticipated
students’ reactions to proposed topics and assignments. The instructor’s
explicit goals focus much more narrowly on the use of technology. In addition to all of
the topics considered earlier, the consultant must consider at least three additional sets
of concerns: instructor readiness, consultant styles and approaches, and the values and
ethics of raising or not raising the issue.
Readiness for Change
Originally developed by studying successful self-changers trying to
modify undesired behaviors (such as smoking), psychologists have outlined common stages of
change (Prochaska, Norcross, & DiClemente, 1994) that can provide a useful framework
for thinking about working with instructors on diversity issues. Although the model
delineates stages of change, it also stresses that change can be cyclical and that people
may move back and forth a number of times. The stages are:
Precontemplation. No recognition or acceptance that change is
necessary.
Contemplation. Awareness that issues require change, but no
action yet taken.
Transition. Instructor actively deciding to change, gathering
resources and information to support change.
Changing practice. Change process is underway along with
attendant difficulties, struggles, and so forth. Often new practices are inconsistent with
some that have not changed.
Maintaining progress and deepening change. Sustaining,
consolidating, and extending new practices over time.
A consultant’s awareness of these stages can help her identify the
type of support a client needs, and can lead to careful questioning, listening, and
observation to determine whether a client recognizes the issues, and what, if any, action
has already been taken. Obviously, different strategies will be needed at different
stages: education to raise awareness in precontemplation; information about options in
contemplation; during transition, help with assessment, planning, and feedback on plans;
and while changing and consolidating changes, assistance handling the struggles of success
and failure. Although we might assume that an instructor facing an overt or emerging
multicultural issue would need at least to be aware of the need for change, responses from
the instructor might make it clear that he or she wants the issue to "go away"
without any change. While level of readiness is important in other levels of our
concentric circle diagram as well, it is especially important in this middle level of
embedded issues.
For example, the consultant should expect some defensiveness when
raising news that is unexpected, or experienced as "bad" by the recipient,
especially if these were not the reasons why the instructor sought consultation.
Defensiveness may arise for many reasons—because of embarrassment, not wanting to
face the extra work and learning, not feeling support from the larger environment, or
worry about not having the skills or courage to address the issues. Jumping straight to
strategies without discussing the underlying resistance could ensure that any change is
poorly implemented and could possibly make a situation worse.
Working with a client who is resistant might challenge a
consultant’s view of his or her role in the consultation process. Brinko (1997)
describes five "models" of consulting, most of which involve providing
resources, expertise, or support. However, she also includes a "confrontational
model," in which a consultant must challenge existing practices and reframe and focus
attention on issues not yet recognized by the instructor. While this approach may take us
outside our comfort level, it might be necessary when an instructor does not see (or
ignores) an issue of diversity, or assumes that no change is necessary. Confrontation does
not need to be aggressive. In fact, confrontations are heard and accepted better if they
occur within a context of empathy, with a careful assessment of the constraints and
barriers the instructor faces. Nonetheless, there are times that a consultant has to
consider ways to raise and actively pursue topics and issues that were not put on the
agenda by the instructor and that some instructors will not want to hear or address.
Values and Ethical Issues
Mintz (1994) and Mintz, Smith, and Warren (1999) discuss some ethical
and value guidelines for instructional developers. The consultant must consider what the
consequences are for students and student learning if the emerging issue is or is not
recognized and addressed. What are the implications for the instructor if the issue is not
identified, or if it is? What should the consultant’s role be in relation to
diversity and social justice issues if these are not identified by the instructor, and
especially if the instructor is reluctant to recognize them? We know that barriers to
learning and teaching related to race, gender, culture, sexual orientation, and other
factors occur partly because they are invisible. In fact, some believe that we are
"taught" not to see them and that the many barriers that exist to recognizing
them are part of the forces that sustain inequitable social structures and processes. Even
when we "see" them, we often do not have the knowledge and skills to address
them, and recognizing them can increase feelings of helplessness and guilt if we do not
know how to address them. The instructional consultant will need to weigh all these things
while deciding whether or not to raise embedded or hidden issues and to consider when and
how to do this. If an instructor is dealing with other crises, for instance, the
consultant may want to wait until things have subsided, when the instructor may have more
time and energy to consider additional difficult issues. If the consultant feels that an
issue must be raised and confronted (perhaps because of the likeliness of negative
consequences if the issue is not addressed), there is also an obligation to be available
to assist the instructor and students to navigate what happens subsequently.
III. Everyday consultation
This category includes the wide range of consultations that do not seem
to raise multicultural issues overtly either for the consultant or the instructor.
Consultants have an obligation to carefully consider raising issues of good multicultural
practice in any consultation for two reasons. First, as seen in the cases in sections one
and two, the impact of identity, inclusive classrooms, and multicultural content will
affect the teaching and learning process whether or not they are raised. When we are
proactive, we can help instructors plan and think through ways to use diversity and power
differences as positive forces that can enhance the learning of all students. Second, as
stated at the outset, preparing students to participate in a multicultural society –
both in the political arena and the workplace – is now seen as a major responsibility
for higher education. While the presence of a diverse student body is a necessary
condition for promoting such goals, they cannot be fully realized unless students and
faculty deliberately and skillfully engage with multicultural issues in as broad a
spectrum of classes as possible. Many of the issues raised in the previous section about
readiness and resistance also apply to these cases. In particular, the following questions
can help consultants make the decision about whether to explore multicultural issues with
a client:
What are the pros and cons of raising or not raising multicultural
issues?
How ready do we feel the instructor is to engage with these issues?
How urgent are other issues? Can the instructor handle having these
issues raised simultaneously? Can you schedule a later time to follow up with a discussion
of multiculturalism?
How much support can you provide if you do raise these issues?
For example, for TAs about to enter the academic job market and for
faculty considering promotion, tenure, or the search for a new position, self reflection
is inherent to the writing of a teaching philosophy. Consultations about teaching
statements involve conversations to help instructors begin formulating (or refining) their
ideas about teaching and learning. In addition, consultants often provide faculty and TAs
with exercises to help them start making implicit values and assumptions about teaching
explicit (Chism, 1997-1998; Goodyear & Allchin, 1998; Coppola, 2000). Questions about
multicultural topics can be easily incorporated into both one-one-one discussions and
worksheets along with some discussion of the current focus at institutions across the
country on creating a successful learning environment for an increasingly diverse student
body (Kaplan, 2001-2002). Senior graduate students represent the next generation of
academia. Helping them to consider their thoughts on such issues has the potential to
create a new ethos in the professorate; not raising the issue ensures the status quo.
The consultant can also raise multicultural topics as part of the range
of issues discussed about a course or curriculum change. Such an approach normalizes a
topic that might seem unfamiliar and threatening to some faculty and validates the
concerns of other faculty who consider the issues central to teaching and learning but are
unsure of how the consultant (or the institution) will react to their interest. Perhaps
most importantly, curriculum – whether that means an individual course or a set of
courses in a degree program – is a primary area of intellectual engagement for
faculty and students. If we are concerned with institutional change, we need to find ways
to generate productive conversations about the impact of multiculturalism and diversity on
the curriculum.
Discussion and Conclusions: Getting Started
Effective consultations involve a complex set of skills, knowledge, and
attitudes that, as we have argued, include the ability to raise and react effectively to
multicultural topics in teaching and learning. In many cases, consultations around
multicultural topics can ask us to stretch beyond our comfort zones. Unfortunately,
faculty and faculty developers involved in consulting often have little training in
multiculturalism. Kardia (1998) outlines a number of reasons for this disconnect and then
suggests strategies to build competence and confidence around multicultural work by
expanding our knowledge base, pedagogical strategies, professional skills, and self
reflection. In particular, she suggests three steps for getting started: developing a
working definition of multiculturalism, talking to colleagues who share a similar
background about these issues, and talking with colleagues who are different from us. The
cases in this article could provide an entry point for such exchanges, either within the
context of a teaching center staff, among a group of faculty or graduate students who
regularly consult on teaching, or as part of a mentoring program in which junior and
senior faculty meet to discuss pedagogical issues. Such discussions can help novices gain
confidence in their ability to talk about multiculturalism within and across differences
and can highlight resources for developing a broader knowledge base. More experienced
practitioners would gain the insights that always come with teaching and mentoring and the
energy that comes from cultivating an expanded group of allies on campus.
Productive discussion among consultants will depend in part on the
degree of self knowledge and reflection of participants. Just as we ask faculty and TAs to
consider their identities and perspectives and how they affect the teaching and learning
process, we need to ask ourselves how these same issues play into our approaches to
consulting. Figure Two contains a set of questions to help faculty and developers begin
the process of self reflection.
Finally, we must note that our narrow focus on one-on-one consulting is
in many ways artificial and contrary to best practice, especially concerning
multiculturalism. Oftentimes consultants will need to ask themselves when the topics
raised in a consultation have broader implications for a department, a group of
instructors, or an institution as a whole. While such considerations are beyond the scope
of this chapter, we do need to think carefully about how and when we—and the
instructors with whom we work—can take issues beyond the privacy and safety of
individual conversations to forums that have a potential impact on organizational
development.
References
Banks, J. A. (1995). Multicultural education:
Historical development, dimensions, and practice. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks
(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 3-24). New York:
Macmillan.
Basow, S. A. (1998). Student evaluations: The role of gender bias and
teaching styles. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler, & K. Quina (Eds.), Career
strategies for women in academe: Arming Athena (pp. 135-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Benokraitis, N. V. (1998). Student evaluations: Working in the ivory
basement: Subtle sex discrimination in higher education. In L. H. Collins, J. C. Chrisler,
& K. Quina (Eds.), Career strategies for women in academe: Arming Athena (pp.
3-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Border, L. L. B. (2001, October). Case study: Instructors with
disabilities. Workshop presented at the meeting of the Professional and Organizational
Development Network in Higher Education, St. Louis, MO.
Brinko, K. T. (1997). The interactions of teaching improvement. In K.
T. Brinko & R. J. Menges (Eds.), Practically speaking: A sourcebook for
instructional consultants in higher education (pp. 3-8). Stillwater, OK: New Forums
Press.
Chism, N.V.N. (1997-1998). Developing a philosophy of teaching
statement. Essays on teaching excellence: Towards the best in the academy, 9(3).
Athens, GA: The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
Coppola, B. (2000). How to write a teaching philosophy for academic
employment. American Chemical Society, Department of Career Services Bulletin.
Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
Goodyear, G. E., & Allchin, D. (1998). Statements of teaching
philosophy. In M. Kaplan (Ed.), To Improve the Academy, 17 (pp. 103-22).
Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Kaplan, M. (2001-2002). The multicultural teaching portfolio. Essays
on teaching excellence: Towards the best in the academy, 13(3). Athens, GA: The
Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
Kardia, D. (1998). Becoming a multicultural faculty developer:
Reflections from the field, In M. Kaplan (Ed.), To improve the academy, 17
(pp. 15-33). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Marchesani, L. S., & Adams, M. (1992). Dynamics of diversity in the
teaching-learning process: A faculty development model for analysis and action. In M.
Adams (Ed.), Promoting diversity in college classrooms: Innovative responses for the
curriculum, faculty and institutions (pp. 9-20). New Directions in Teaching and
Learning, No. 52. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGowan, J. M. (2000). African-American faculty classroom teaching
experiences in predominantly white colleges and universities. Multicultural Education,
8(2), 19-22.
McKay, N. Y. (1995). Minority faculty in [mainstream white] academia.
In A. L. DeNeef & C. D. Goodwin (Eds.), The academic’s handbook (2nd ed.,
pp. 48-61). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Mintz, J. (1994). Challenging values: Conflict, contradiction, and
pedagogy. In E. C. Wadsworth (Ed.), To improve the academy, 13 (pp. 177-190).
Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
Mintz, J., Smith, R., & Warren, L. (2001). Ethical guidelines for
educational developers. In D. Lieberman (Ed.), To improve the academy, 19
(pp. xvii-xxiii). Bolton: MA: Anker.
Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, D., & DiClemente, C. (1994). Changing
for good. New York: W. Morrow.
Rickman, J. C. (1995). The microculture of disability. In J. Q. Adams
& J. B. Welsch (Eds.), Multicultural education: Strategies for implementation in
colleges and universities, 4 (pp. 177-186). Macomb: Illinois Staff and Curriculum
Developers Association.
Smith, R. (1999, Spring). Walking on eggshells: The experience of a
black woman professor. ADE Bulletin, 122, 68-72.
Thomas, G. D., & Hollenshead, C. (2001). Resisting from the
margins: The coping strategies of Black women and other women of color faculty members at
a research university. Journal of Negro Education, 70(3), 166-175.
Vargas, L. (1999) When the "other" is the teacher:
Implications of teacher diversity in higher education. The Urban Review, 31(4),
359-383.
Matthew Kaplan is Associate Director of the Center for Research on Learning and
Teaching at the University of Michigan. Beth Glover Reed is a faculty member
affiliated with both the Women’s Studies department and the School of Social Work at
the University of Michigan.
|
|
