Gareth White Goldsmiths College drp01gw@gold.ac.uk

Rationale: This very simple exercise is designed to open up differences in approach and common strategies for dealing with problems arising from difference in working groups

Suitable for: Between 6 and 30 teachers or group leaders.

Timings 30 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes.

Facilitators: Only one facilitator needed.

Resources needed: A flipchart to note outcome of discussion. Print the following hypothetical cases, one copy of all cases for each participant: 1. Two students object to practicing Yoga as part of a physical theatre course, as they consider its spiritual basis in Hinduism to be incompatible with their Christian beliefs. The background to Yoga has been given in preparation for the work. The students are both white; one is an American visiting student, one British. Both are female. Yoga is a key part of the teacher’s practice. They are polite about their reluctance, but clearly concerned.  2. A student who frequently misses performance skills classes. She has expressed anxiety about performing in front of others, particularly in regard to an upcoming assessment based on a piece of solo physical performance. She is overweight; she is older than most of her fellow students; she is one of two Afro-Caribbean British students; she is more conspicuously working class than most of her fellow students. 3. A Japanese student whose English is not good, and who makes little contribution to group work. Fellow students are observed trying to include him but he tends to take a back seat in everything he does. This is a seminar course with a series of short projects, each assessed by the tutor. 4. A male student has made an informal complaint about a ‘gay clique’ in a group that he thinks deliberately make him and others uncomfortable. You have heard jokes about heterosexuals, which you had thought good-natured. Conversations about sexuality and politics are frequent and open, but not part of the curriculum. This is a contemporary dance class, with a roughly equal split between men and women. 5. Your class is all-female. You are teaching nineteenth and early twentieth century realistic and naturalistic drama, in the context of a Modern Drama course delivered in a practical workshop class. Students have already made comments about being fed up with playing men.

 
 
 

Running the Workshop:  Before starting: It is probably worth giving a brief explanation of the structure of the workshop as you are using it: there is no advantage in keeping ‘surprises’ in the exercises planned here. It is also worth introducing some key questions that can be referred to in the discussions that follow, particularly the final discussion. They are: What does it mean to be professionally anti-discriminatory? How do we produce solutions that work well for every student? How do we make best use of a group of students (and its diversity) as a learning situation? Short workshop should use only stage 1, Long workshop should use stages 1 and 2, and 3 if you have plenty of time and want to follow through the workshop with interventions in practice. Stage 1: Hypothetical Problems (20 - 30 minutes) Organise participants into small groups (of four or five, or whatever seems suitable). Give them the hypothetical problems sheet and ask them to discuss their own solutions to some of the problems, (divide the 5 problems according to the number of groups and time available, or ask them to consider all 5), attempting to come to a consensus about what to do. Ask them to work quickly, using their first sensible reaction, rather than analysing extensively at this stage Stage 2: Group Discussion (10- 30 minutes)  Bring the groups together to share their solutions. Ask groups to articulate why they chose a course of action. Where different groups have discussed the same problem, ask them to compare solutions. Establish what principles have been applied, and what practiced or pragmatic short-cuts are proposed. Stage 3: (optional) (10-30 minutes) Extract general questions from the discussions that can be referred to in later exercises.

Guidance notes and recommendations:  The examples given are deliberately difficult and to an extent provocative. Some do not give enough information, yet may still invite an unconsidered response. Some offer information that may or may not be relevant, and likewise invite a response that may be based on prejudice. Be prepared to be open minded about strategies proposed, but consider the cases carefully yourself before running the exercise. The following issues are likely to be come up in relation to each problem: 1. Having a disciplinary base to a course that will exclude some. There are barriers that we may not understand or credit, but should respect. 2. There is a danger of making assumptions about where problems come from. We need to be sensitive to how students may be feeling about work.  3. There are students who will not fit the ‘ideal student’ model in investigative work. How to give individual attention with limited time available.  4. Non-dominant groups can ‘oppress’ as well as dominant ones. Prejudice can play a part in the perception of prejudice.  5. Homogeneity can be problematic as well as difference. Difference is to be celebrated. The content of the canon can create barriers just as the discipline can. And the following questions might, for example, be abstracted from these examples to be used to question later work:  1. When do we stand up for our disciplinary barriers, and when do we adapt them? 2. When should we anticipate that difference is likely to create problems? When should we let the student take charge of their difficulties? 3. How do we plan for differing abilities? 4. When should we prioritise the current group of students over our own political / ethical imperatives? 5. How do we devise work that celebrates and makes use of the particular group of students? What if this clashes with the content of a course or discipline? Of course many more questions may arise. Use your discretion in what to take forward for later exercises.

 

Bibliography: Campbell, A., (2000) ‘Cultural Diversity: practising what we preach..’, in Teaching in Higher Education Vol. 5.3, , London: Carfax Publishing Faulkner, V., (2001) ‘Making Multicultural Education “Real”’, in Teaching in Higher Education Vol. 6.4, ,London: Carfax Publishing Flew, A., (1987) ‘Education Against Racism: Three Comments’, in Journal of Philosophy of Education Vol. 21.1, Abingdon: Carfax Publishing  Leicester, M. and M. Taylor, (1992) Ethics, Ethnicity and Education, London: Kogan Page Ltd. Leicester, M., (1988) ‘Racism, Responsibility and Education’, in Journal of Philosophy of Education Vol. 22.2, , Abingdon,: Carfax Publishing. Littlemore, J., (2001) ‘The Use of Metaphor ... For Overseas Students’, in Teaching in Higher Education Vol. 6.3, 2001, London: Carfax Publishing. Ofori-Dankwa, J. and W. Lane, (2000) ‘Four Approaches to Cultural Diversity’, in Teaching in Higher Education Vol. 5.4, London: Carfax Publishing. Sumsion, J., (2000) ‘Caring and Empowerment’ Teaching in Higher Education Vol. 5.2, , London: Carfax Publishing.