October at George Washington University has been designated Teaching Month by GW’s Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) in the Division of Libraries and Academic Innovation. The month kicked off on Teaching Day, with workshops and a panel to help the nearly 50 faculty members in attendance learn ways to foster constructive dialogue in their classes.
As President Ellen M. Granberg said in welcoming remarks, creating an atmosphere in which students want to contribute to discussion with classmates who have different views goes to the heart of GW’s mission. The more students feel empowered in the classroom, the more effectively they will participate in civil society later.
“I know firsthand how challenging it can be to introduce and to sustain conversations about difficult or divisive topics, but I also know that those conversations, when they're handled with care, can be transformative,” Granberg said. “We all want every GW student to leave here prepared for a career but also prepared to be thoughtful and engaged citizens who can bridge divides in their workplaces and in their communities.”
Granberg’s office previously provided funds for three GW educators, who gave presentations on Teaching Day, to attend sessions offered by the Institute for Citizens & Scholars. The trio’s efforts, Granberg said, lay a foundation for stronger classrooms, for a more engaged campus and ultimately for a more civil society.
“The classroom is by far one of the most powerful spaces where students learn not only what to think, but also how to think,” Granberg said. “Your example of what it means to have civil discourse, to speak deeply and candidly about issues about which we disagree, is also a great counterpoint to some of the social media deluge students are getting.”
Patricia Dinneen, recently retired as director of faculty development, said faculty members and students alike are showing more hesitancy to discuss controversial topics in the classroom. Such disengagement reflects a lack of trust, Dinneen said, harming not only the educational enterprise but democracy itself.
Patricia Dinneen told the group there are three types of conversation, with some overlap between them. They are dialogue, discussion and debate. (William Atkins/GW Today)
“The consequences ripple outward to society at large when students avoid voicing their thoughts,” Dinneen said. “They miss opportunities to practice simple discourse. Instead of learning how to talk across differences, they may carry habits of silence, avoidance or polarization into society.”
There are three main types of conversation, Dinneen said, often with some degree of overlap: dialogue, discussion and debate. The latter is about winning and using logical argumentation.
“When a debater seeks to understand another debater, it’s generally for the purpose of finding weaknesses to exploit,” she said.
But genuine understanding is better achieved through dialogue, which flows at a slower pace and is more reflective, while discussion is more probing and moves more quickly. It is possible to practice dialogic skills, which help by slowing conversations down and provide ways to stay engaged in conversation rather than retreating in disagreement. In her opening workshop, she broke the audience into teams and had them conduct two versions of the same conversation, one in which challenging questions were asked, beginning with phrases such as “Why don’t you…?” or “Wouldn’t it be better if….?” and so on, and the other focused on a vein of questions more likely to result in understanding: “What makes you say that? Have you always felt that way?”
Two additional workshops followed, the first presented by Alex Dent, professor of anthropology and international affairs, who began by noting that when communication goes bad, listening is implicated. He broke the audience into pairs and had them engage in a brief discussion while listeners remained quiet and as affectless as possible. While this made for a contrived and stilted conversation, it provided a forcible demonstration of how feelings complicate dialogue. Speakers felt like they were talking into a void, while listeners found themselves fighting off the desire to connect.
Alex Dent led participants through exercises in a "listening gym." (William Atkins/GW Today)
A final workshop was presented by David Rain, associate professor of geography and international affairs, who recommended negotiating with students to create classroom agreements governing the ways they will interact with each other. This can be a very effective technique, Rain said, for making discussion comfortable for all students in a class.
A panel then presented remarks based its members’ experiences working with the Honey W. Nashman Center for Civic Engagement and Public Service to create class activities that foster dialogue and support civic engagement in their classrooms. Moderator Daphna Atias, an educational developer with the Center for Teaching Excellence, introduced the panelists and provided conversational prompts. The speakers included Elizabeth Chacko, professor of geography and international affairs; Kavita Daiya, associate dean of academic innovation and professor of English; Jacob Richter, a teaching assistant professor of writing; and Amy-Leah Joaquim, assistant director of the Nashman Center.
“When I think of civic engagement, I always do it through the lens of a geographer,” Chacko said. “I want my students to understand that you can start at the local level in your civic engagement but it can go all the way up to the global level. And that what they can do in their environment, in their neighborhoods, on campus could actually have effects at a bigger scale.”
Daiya said she tried to help students translate the ideas they encounter in class to the broader public sphere, by requiring them to write four letters to the editor and two op-eds. Similarly, Richter said he wanted to assist students as they make the transition from spectator to participant, or to being an active contributor with confidence that their own voice matters.
David Rain discussed involving students in creating rules for classroom conduct. (William Atkins/GW Today)
Joaquim stressed that civic engagement is applicable in many arenas less obvious than straightforward politics and policy.
“There is not a discipline that you all are teaching that does not have consequence,” Joaquim said. “If it didn't have consequence, then what you will be teaching is inconsequential, and you don't think that, and I don't mean that. It has consequence, and I think the foundation of civic learning is pulling the thread and getting students to think, ‘OK, well if it has consequence, what is the consequence? Who feels the consequences? What communities feel them stronger? In what ways are those impacts disparate? Why are they disparate?’”
In closing remarks, John Lach, interim provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, said that when he came to GW six years ago as dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, he was surprised and impressed by the degree of student curiosity about the world outside campus.
“I met a whole bunch of engineering students who not only wanted to learn engineering—they also wanted to engage in community, and they wanted to engage in politics and all of that,” Lach said. “Our ability to foster constructive dialogue and civic engagement really is core to all of GW, across all of our schools and colleges. Every GW graduate, regardless of the discipline, should be prepared to engage in the world as an active citizen.”
