Gareth White Goldsmiths College drp01gw@gold.ac.uk

Rationale: This exercise invites participants to consider the implications of student diversity and difference in some of their own work.

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

Timings 20 minutes total.

Facilitators: Only one facilitator is necessary.

Resources needed: A flipchart to note the outcome of discussions

 
 

Running the Workshop: Stage 1: Pair Work Print the questions below; make one copy for each participant.  Leave space between each question for the participants to make notes if they wish. Ask the participants to work in pairs. The pairs should take turns to describe their course and to respond to the questions in relation to it.  Partners can assist by further questioning these responses. Partners should be encouraged to gently challenge the assumptions on which the course validates itself, using the questions provided, not in order to undermine it, but in order to see where a course’s ethos can be strengthened. Avoid giving your definitions of the terms used here – it is quite likely you will be asked – invite participants to find their own definitions, perhaps to discuss the range of different responses possible, and how defining these terms differently helps to think through the issues. Consider the following questions in relation to some of your teaching that involves group work.  The questions may require you to look at your work from a new perspective. Are the students informed of what they are to do? Do they get the chance to give consent to the work? Who is explicitly excluded from the work or the discipline? Do any invisible barriers exist in the work or discipline? How will the student change? What is the purpose of the work – a process, a product, the acquisition of a set of skills, or each individual student’s learning? Do your answers to these questions comply with your ambitions for the work?  Stage 2 (optional) Come back together to share ideas of how an ethos for a course can be identified and elaborated. Discuss key ideas that have to be addressed in terms of pedagogy and ethics.

Guidance notes and recommendations:   Make it clear that participants do not have to share this work apart from with their partner, and that it is meant to offer opportunities to strengthen rather than attack work as it is.

 

Variations This exercise draws discussion to the specific practice of the participants. It introduces further problematics in teaching and admissions, and should be used where more time is available to generate reflection on real local issues.

 

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.

Gareth White
Goldsmiths College
drp01gw@gold.ac.uk
 
 
 
 

.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Gareth White
FDTL - Assessing Group Practice
Goldsmith’s College
First delivered 7/11/02
drp01gw@gold.ac.uk