evaluating student learningcrlt.umich.edu/sites/default/files/crlt50/poster... · (4) mixed methods...

WHAT IS INTERGROUP DIALOGUE?Intergroup Dialogue peer facilitation as a pedagogical tool fosters:

• Criticallearningthroughpraxis

• Democraticengagement

• Socialresponsibility

• Ethicsinregardstocivilaction

In Intergroup Dialogue, students who facilitate are guides in the collective learning process:

• Co-facilitationcreatesarelationshipof sharedpowerbetweenfacilitatorsandwithinthegroup• Theenvironmentfostersspaceformultipleperspectivestoco-exist• Criticalfacilitationteachesstudentshowtomaketheconnectionsbetweenthepersonalandthestructural

• Peerfacilitatorsareabletoengagetheimplicationsof socialidentitywithintheirco-facilitatorrelationshipandtheirgroupdynamic

METHODS FOR SURVEY VALIDATIONThisprojectbeganwiththedevelopmentof anewsurveytomeasureprocessesandoutcomesforundergraduatefacilitatorsof intergroupdialoguecourses.Weexaminedprevioussurveysthatweretakenbytheparticipantsinthesecourses,aswellastheliteratureonsmallgrouppeerfacilitation.ItemsweredevelopedwithinputfromtheIGRprogramstaff andthecourseinstructors.Additionally,afocusgroupof undergraduatefacilitatorspre-testedthescalestoinsurebothvalidityandculturalsensitivity(Rubin&Babbie,2005).A pilot pre-test and post-test of 22 Likert scales(137items)wasadministeredanonymouslyandonlineintheFallof 2010toaconveniencesampleof 22studentsintheTrainingProcessesforIntergroupDialogueFacilitationcourse,and24studentsinthePracticuminIntergroupDialogueFacilitationcourse.DataweredownloadedintoSPSS,Cronbach’sAlphawascalculatedforallscales,andpairedt-testswererun.Additionally,studentssubmittedfinalartifactsof learningandsummariesof learning,andasampleof thesewasstudiedaswellforqualitativeanalysisof outcomesof studentlearning.

Key Demographics• ClassYear:90%juniorsandseniors• Gender:65%werewomenand35%weremen• Nationality:U.S.citizens86%(Training)and67%(Practicum)

Foreignborn,livingpermanentlyinU.S.0%(Training)and13%(Practicum)

• Race:55%identifiedaswhite/EuropeanAmerican,33%asAfricanAmerican,15%asAsianAmerican/PacificIslander,7%asLatina/o,and7%asArabAmerican(studentswereallowedtoselectmorethanonerace.)

• Religiosity:33%identifiedasnotatallreligious,15%notveryreligious,22%somewhatreligious,30%fairlyreligious,and0%veryreligious

Previous Courses: • 95%hadpreviousIGRexperience• 51%servicelearningcredit• 93%race/ethnicstudiesclass• 69%genderstudiesclass

KEY FINDINGS(1) Several scales evidence good reliability for future research on IGR:

• CognitiveEmpathy,5itemsmeasuringperspective-taking(α=.65to.86onpre-/andpost-tests)• ParallelEmpathy,4itemsassessingempathicunderstandingwithdifferentsocialgroups(α=.67to.80onpre-/andpost-tests)• EmotionsinIntergroupSettings,8itemsratingrespondents’feelingsingroupdialogues(α=.85to.86onpre-/andpost-tests)• GenderInequality,4itemsassessingawarenessof andstructuralattributionforsocialstratificationbygender(α=.72to.89onpre-/andpost-tests)• BlameforWealth,Borrowedfromtheworkof JoeFeagin,3itemsmeasuringperceivedimportanceof politicalpowerandwealthonsocialdynamics

(α=.70to.90onpre-/andpost-tests)• FacilitatorEffectiveness,13itemsself-assessingpeerfacilitator’seffectivenessatmanaginggroupdiscussion(α=.79to.89onpre-/andpost-tests)• Frequencyof Action,9itemsaskingparticipantstoindicatehowfrequentlytheyengageinbehaviorssupportingadiversesociety(α=.75to.80onpre-/

andpost-tests)

(2) Four NEW scales have potential for future research. For some implementations of the survey, Cronbach’s alpha was low, which may be due to small sample size.

• ReligiousInequalityAwareness,4itemsassessingawarenessof andstructuralattributionforreligiousinequality(α=.72to.89onpre-/andpost-tests)• IdentityAwareness,4items(α=.39to.74onpre-/andpost-tests)• Co-facilitatorRelationship,12items(α=.89onpost-tests)• SexualOrientationInequalityAwareness,4items(α=.30to.74onpre-/andpost-tests)

(3) Several scales have potential for future research but need to be enhanced, because of challenges in assessing student social justice learning.• Forexample,Allyhood,whichmeasuresagreementwith4statementsabouttheconcept,offersmixedresponsesbecauseitmaycapturebothstudents’

beliefsandknowledge.

(4) Mixed methods are needed to fully assess student learning from courses like IGR.

• Studentworkanalysisgaveusmoreinsightintostudentlearning.

• Themesincludestudents’developmentof facilitationskills,personalidentity,relationshipskills,andunderstandingof socialjusticeconcepts.

KEY THEMES FROM STUDENT FINAL PROJECTSFacilitation skills“Idevelopedtheabilitytotrustmyco-facilitatordespiteourdifferentfacilitationandworkstyles”

Identity exploration and development“Mypositionasafacilitatorenabledmetobeapositiverolemodelformypeersofcolortoinstillinsomeofthemastrongerracialconsciousnessandtoconnectwithothersthroughourexperiencesofbeingracialminorities.”

Understanding social justice concepts“Igainednewideasabouteffectivelycommunicatingtherealityofpowerandoppressiontoparticipantsandchallengedmyselftomakesimilarlycreativecontributions.”

Building interpersonal and intergroup relationship skills, collaboration and action“WhileinthepastIneverchallengedtheperpetuationofstereotypesinpublicspaces,mydoingsohasbecomemorecommonplaceinmyday-to-dayexperienceattheuniversityandintheworkplace.”

REFERENCES:• Chesler,M.A.,Kellman-Fritz,J.,&Knife-Gould,A.(2003).Trainingpeerfacilitatorsforcommunityservicelearningleadership.MichiganJournalof CommunityServiceLearning,9(2):59-76.• Maxwell,K.E.,Nagda,B.A.,&Thompson,M.C.,Eds.(2011).Facilitatingintergroupdialogues:Buildingbridges,catalyzingchange.Sterling,VA;Stylus.• Miles,J.R.,&Kivlighan,D.M.(2008).Teamcognitioningroupinterventions:Therelationbetweencoleaders’sharedmentalmodelsandgroupclimate.GroupDynamics,12(3):191-209• Nagda,B.A.,Gurin,P.,Sorensen,N.,&Zúñiga,X.(2009).Evaluatingintergroupdialogue:Engagingdiversityforpersonalandsocialresponsibility.Diversity&Democracy,12(1),4-6.• Rubin,A.,&Babbie,E.(2005).Researchmethodsforsocialwork.Florence,KY:Thomson/Brooks-Cole.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:WewouldliketoacknowledgetheInvestigatingStudentLearning(ISL)GrantProgram.

ABSTRACTThepurposeof thisstudyistopilot measuresthatevaluatethelearningprocessandoutcomesforundergraduatestudentpeerfacilitatorswhofacilitateintergroupdialoguecourseswithTheProgramonIntergroupRelations(IGR).Wereportonthereliabilityof theinstrumentsdesignedtomeasuretheextenttowhichstudentsachievefourlearninggoalsacrossatwo-semesterpeerfacilitationteachingmodel.Wealsoreportonkeythemesaboutstudentlearningfromstudents’finalprojects.

KEY RESEARCH QUESTIONS:To what extent do students in Training and Practicum in Intergroup Dialogue Facilitation courses:

• Developfacilitationskills• Examinetheirsocialidentities• Understandsocialjusticeconcepts

• Buildinterpersonalandintergrouprelationshipskills,collaborationandaction

EVALUATING STUDENT LEARNINGInIGRDialogueFacil itationTrainingandPracticumCoursesAdrienne Dessel, IGR, LSA and Monita Thompson, IGR, DSAGraduate Student Collaborators: Johanna Masse, School of Education; Patrice French, School of Social Work, and Elisabet Medina, School of Social Work