Another theme prevalent in the data was the concern that students think critically. This theme was seen to be fundamental to carrying Themes 2, 3, and 4. The professors in the study wanted to see their students willingly and effectively able to question the status quo, to interrogate and deconstruct various hegemonic ideas, perspectives, and norms in society, particularly those that leave certain groups marginalized and disenfranchised. The promotion of critical thinking fosters an environment in the classroom that allows their students to pushback on a range of hegemonic perspectives. Lauren underscored that she wants to help her students
to learn how to think critically, to find ways to think critically and to analyze their decisions and analyze their knowledge…to kind of help them see how you could be thinking in different and unique and diverse ways.
Regarding her classroom and students, Jennifer stated, "I want there to be dissent in the room. But I want it to be informed dissent".
Victoria indicated she tries to unsettle her students. She wants them to question their long held assumptions particularly as it pertains to hegemonic power. She said, "I push a lot of critical questions. I've been called the Devil because I tend to discomfort people. I do try to provoke aporia, you know, that kind of grappling" (Victoria). Sofia emphasized that she felt it was her responsibility to introduce her students to a broad range of perspectives to foster critical thinking and contemplation instead of just telling them of only one right way to consider something. She stated,
But I will, for example, teach a variety of perspectives on justice, education, on whatever I'm teaching about. I do that intentionally because I think my job as a teacher is more about opening up students to think about the world in broader ways that it is to tell them this is the one right way to think (Sofia).
Underneath the skill of thinking critically is the ability to listen well, to listen carefully. Sofia saw it as part of her duty, part of her calling as a teacher, to help her students become good listeners to the end that her students would become engaged and effective citizens. Sofia explained,
I try to create an environment in which there's a lot of encouragement for students to listen carefully to each other. And sometimes that is as straightforward as me just saying, 'so you heard what Michael just said, what do you think' or whatever, and just really trying to create an environment where they need to listen to each other to do well in the classroom. And then also, ultimately, I mean, our
department's mission statement says that we are trying to create engaged citizens.
In terms of pedagogical practice, in my observation of one of Lauren's classes she had the students get into groups and work through a 'hate speech' worksheet. She pressed them to make a distinction between 'hate speech' and honest, legitimate dissent. She
warned them to not regulate all disagreement to one category. She exhorted them to "think critically" (Lauren). She wanted them to be thorough and assiduous in their assessment and pressed them to do so. During the past Presidential election season, Lauren felt that students who were for Trump felt silenced at times. "My guess, from what I see, is that the students who are in favor of Trump do feel a bit silenced at times" (Lauren). Given the climate, she tried to ensure that divergent voices could be expressed and heard in the classroom. In terms of pedagogical practice, she recounted one of her assignments where her students had to take several ethical systems under consideration and apply them to an outside event taking place in society. She had a Muslim student who focused on Trump's Muslim Ban, Trump's Executive Order that banned foreign nationals for 90 days from visiting the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries; a ban that was instituted in January of 2017. Lauren said the student did an excellent job and while the student was against the ban (as were most of the students in the class) she presented different sides of the argument in keeping with possible ethical approaches to the ban. Lauren stated,
And so she [the student] looked at a couple of different perspectives. One of them saying that if we look at it from this ethical perspective, we might be able to justify that this is an ethical decision. And if we look at it from this system, we could clearly say, no, this is not an ethical decision, or an ethical proposal, which I thought was really great. And that's really the bottom line for me is I want students to be able to look at things from different perspectives, even if it
challenges their own beliefs. I want them to be able to logically take - take ideas and look at how they could be seen from different angles.
Even if they are super passionate about a side, they need to understand the other side completely.
Each of the professors valued diversity of thought. In my observation of Katerina's class, she encouraged her students that they could and needed to learn from people with different identities than theirs. In a similar vein, Kevin puts material in front of his students to compel them to meaningfully interact across difference. He wants them to think critically, to be able to interrogate prevailing ideas and deconstruct how power is siloed. Kevin said,
Yeah so let me speak to that. So I see -- I look at it as being very broad. So for me it's bringing in readings to get people to think about meaningfully interacting across difference, reading about how folks really think about -- so again, the understanding piece of a lot of power, privilege, oppression, the different isms, and again, some of the things I said earlier, getting folks to ask those questions, looking at different policies and practices and interrogating them.
In terms of pedagogical practice, during my observation of Jennifer's class, Jennifer put her students through an exercise to enable them to "de-center whiteness". Later in the observation, towards the end of the class period, Jennifer softly challenged an older white male student who she perceived was using some antiquated, patriarchal speech that might be offensive to some other students. She encouraged him to think critically and deeply about the words he used. He seemed to receive her comments well. One of her goals for the class period was to make it "social justice centric" and "anti-racist". Part of the class time was dedicated to discussing and unpacking white privilege. She also exhorted her students to re-evaluate their impression of Blacks living prior to the Civil War. To not think of them exclusively and only as slaves, but to understand that there were whole areas, towns and townships where Free-Blacks were living and thriving.
For many of the professors, teaching their students to think critically was directly related to teaching their students to get directly involved in society and becoming "people who can participate in politics effectively" (Sofia). As Lauren put it,
I think that if we are teaching students to think critically and to relate to people and to think about how we can best create communities that will create positive change, then we are ultimately preparing them for anything that they will encounter in the world.
Thus far we have considered themes that are primarily (but not exclusively) connected to student and classroom ideology, comportment, and pedagogy (micro analysis). Now we will move to themes that are primarily (but not exclusively) connected to things outside of the classroom (meso and macro analysis).