For me, engagement begins with the question, “what meaning does this have for you?“
I engage with people from a range of disciplines, thus the way in which one constructs meaning is dependent on their background, expertise, and life experience. I begin by demonstrating how positionality influences each person to understand themselves, their peers, our content and how establishing each individual’s frame of reference allows for a learner-centered approach. My epistemological point of departure is that contexts matter.
Thus, my role is to curate learning opportunities, and my goal is to create a brave, safe, and ethical space that facilitates discussion of difficult topics. When learners feel brave enough to share their opinion without challenge, they, in turn, feel safe in venturing into deeper, more vulnerable discussions. A willingness to examine our differences with care and empathy leads to an ethical place that codifies humility, genuine curiosity, and an understanding where learners can expand their worldviews.
My inquiry-based approach is reflected in some of the learning apparatus that I utilize, to generate dialogue and to garner the varied perspectives in the learning environment. With an appreciation of how one’s positionality intersects with our content; my preferred learning tools initiate dialogue through a studio-style approach that incorporates case studies and examples of wicked problems that stimulate engagement and connection.
Being cognizant that some concepts can be seen as esoteric, the use of theory is interwoven with real-world events to encourage peer discussion through the association of current events and their relevance to our sessions themes. This becomes an opportunity to welcome multiple (external) voices into the space(s).
Employing the tenets of Bhaktin’s (1981) dialogism within the classroom promotes a learning cycle that is iterative and inclusive of all voices, personalized accounts, country contexts, anecdotal evidence, and individual perspectives. It places a greater emphasis on problem-solving and, in doing so, omits academic privilege out of inquiry, embracing multiple knowledgabilities and the non-linear structure of our realities.
I believe our information society (Castells, 2010) can be leveraged to facilitate a constructive approach to information dissemination. I am a proponent for employing critical analysis and multiple considerations about the framing of our contemporary issues. Building on Dubois’s (1903) concept of double consciousness, my interest in diaspora studies encourages participants to challenge the conception of the ‘other’ and consider how avowal and ascription give relevance to how we interact with the world. By highlighting literature from authors from the global south, I demonstrate how curriculum and pedagogy can challenge imperialist epistemology (Thussu, 2009) by continually reframing each issue through alternate narratives and considering the importance of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989).
To support my values of Connection, Collaboration, Centering, Candour, and keeping it Current, I believe assignments should offer multiple output options for deliverables and embrace a trans-disciplinary multi-media approach that celebrates students’ strengths and praxis.
Thus, assignments like Diaspora DetectiveTM invite real-world application and primary research components, and are developed with robust and comprehensive rubrics that reiterate our course learning outcomes and state the assessment criteria and achievement level descriptors. Drawing on student agency and creativity, there is an emphasis on the experiential and process-oriented elements of developing a submission. I believe that this ambiguity allows for discovery and greater awareness of the learner’s positionality. However, given the nature of these open-ended assignments, if assessment discrepancies occur, this transparency also invites students to engage in a respectful rebuttal and collaborative re-consideration of their submission. Group assignments are crafted in a way that catalyzes divergent convergence (Cockburn & Polatajko, 2004) and generates reflection through discourse around our course themes thereby achieving the higher levels of Blooms’ Taxonomy of Learning (1956).
I believe that success within the classroom is achieved in the respectful interaction and osmosis of ideas that are exchanged within our learning community. It is espoused by the learner’s application of our content to self, community, and the world at large. By closing each session with reflective questions, I facilitate this process of reflection on both macro and micro levels.
As a co-learner and co-contributor, I am continually iterating, learning, and being enriched by the myriad of shared perspectives within each classroom space. Each student that I have met has enhanced my co-learning journey in the expansion of my knowledge on subject matter, and in the reflection that inspires the evolution and adjustment of my varying approaches to inquiry.
Bakhtin, M. M., & Holquist, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: The Cognitive Domain.” New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society. Wiley-Blackwell.
Cockburn, L., & Polatajko, H. (2004). Using the divergent case method. Medical education, 38(5), 550–551.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). “Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics”. University of Chicago Legal Forum. University of Chicago Law School. 1989: 139–168.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (William Edward Burghardt), 1868-1963. (1968). The souls of black folk; essays and sketches. Chicago, A. G. McClurg, 1903. New York :Johnson Reprint Corp.,
Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement, Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 193-203.
Thussu, D. (2009). Internationalizing media studies. Routledge.