Race and Higher Education:
Rethinking Pedagogy in Diverse College Classrooms

Edited by Annie Howell and Frank Tuitt

Order Race and Higher Education

Afterword: Realizing a More Inclusive Pedagogy

by Frank Tuitt 

In recent times, one of the most active debates in academia has been whether or not changes in curriculum and pedagogy should be made to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population.¹ Of growing concern is the possibility that the teaching practices of traditional academic culture do not serve today’s racially diverse student body (Adams, 1992; Banks, 1991). The belief is that university and college faculty members, operating on the notion that one pedagogy fits all students, continue to use traditional modes of instruction that create hostile and potentially harmful learning environments (Feagin & Imani, 1993).²

In response to this dilemma, many theorists, including Antonia Darder (1996) and bell hooks (1994), have explored ways to create a hospitable and productive learning environment that addresses the needs of a racially diverse student population. This chapter is intended as a resource for educators who are seeking to improve their teaching in racially diverse college classrooms. The discussion is divided into three sections. In the first, I describe the theoretical and guiding principles behind pedagogical models that seek to create inclusive learning environments. In the next two sections, I outline the common characteristics of inclusive pedagogical models and present an analysis of the implications this approach has for teaching and learning in racially diverse college classrooms. It is my hope that this essay will contribute to the development of a more inclusive pedagogy for professors seeking to improve the manner in which they teach.

Inclusive pedagogy is a term I use to describe an emerging body of literature (Adams, 1992; Banks, 1991; Darder, 1996; Giroux & McLaren, 1996; hooks, 1994) that advocates teaching practices that embrace the whole student in the learning process. Unlike traditional modes of instruction, proponents of inclusive pedagogical models argue that students enter the classroom as personal, political, and intellectual beings (Reyes, Smith, Yazzie, Hussein, & Tuitt, 2001). These scholars propose a variety of pedagogical models that focus on the education of the whole individual — that is, the union of the mind, body, and soul of human beings. By viewing students as whole human beings with complex lives and experiences, inclusive pedagogy offers some insight into how college educators can create classrooms in which diversity is valued as a central component of the learning process.³

While the inclusive pedagogy literature offers a range of theoretical and pedagogical practices related to educating the whole student, limited research has been conducted on the impact of inclusive pedagogical practices in higher education (Baker, 1998; Zimmerman, 1991). However, the literature does provide some insight into the benefits and consequences of inclusive pedagogy on the educational experience of students in racially diverse college classrooms (Baker, 1998; Steele, 1999; Zimmerman, 1991). For instance, Zimmerman’s study indicates that college teaching and learning can be improved through inclusive pedagogical practices. She identifies increased opportunities for student interaction during the learning process and the development of a genuine sense of community in the classroom as positive influences on the educational experience. Steele studies whether or not reducing the “stereotype threat” that Black students might experience improves academic performance.⁴ Finally, Baker examines undergraduate African American students’ perceptions of their classroom environment at a traditionally White institution.  

Baker (1998) notes that while higher education classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse, existing pedagogical practices are not leading toward a healthy learning environment for these students. She identifies three components that, in theory, are central to creating a learning environment that is accessible to all students regardless of their race or ethnicity. These components — the synthesis of faculty-student relationships, issues of instructional design, and understanding perceptual barriers — serve as a functional link to theoretical arguments about inclusive pedagogy and provide the framework for this essay. 

First, Baker (1998) argues that teaching is a process of social interaction in that the classroom climate is directly connected to the interpersonal relationships among professor and students. Like their White counterparts, African American students view their relationships with faculty members as important factors in achieving success within the academic environment (Dorsey & Jackson, 1995). Higher education scholarship has shown that the relationship between professor and student has a significant impact on the success of students of color in the classroom (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 2000). However, in traditional college classrooms, there is little teacher-student interaction because these college classes revolve around the activity and control of the professor. As Palmer (1993) states, “In many circumstances the lecturing is authoritarian, the listening is unengaged and the memorization is mechanical” (pp. 32–33). In contrast, inclusive pedagogical models value relationships between professors and students by challenging the notion that only the professor possesses knowledge. For example, Banks and McGee’s “equity pedagogy” (1997) intentionally incorporates students in a process of knowledge construction and production that alters the traditional power relationship between teachers and students. 

Baker (1998) also speaks to the need for faculty members to understand, improve, and apply methods of instruction that include the learner in the process. However, she notes that this transformation in instructional design rarely happens because college professors do not necessarily possess any formal training in instructional design, and they therefore tend to imitate the pedagogical strategies of their own former instructors (Baker, 1998; King, 1995). To create more inclusive learning environments, professors must reconfigure how they situate themselves in their classrooms by regarding each classroom as a distinct space where strategies must constantly be changed, reinvented, and reconceptualized to address each new teaching experience (hooks, 1994). 

Lastly, empirical evidence suggests that students’ perception of their professors’ attitudes toward them have potentially negative consequences for their participation in the learning environment. Several studies (Allen, 1988; Baker, 1998; Feagin & Imani, 1993) indicate that African American students believe their faculty members had preconceived notions about their academic ability. These scholars conclude that such negative perceptions could lead students to withdraw from participating in the learning environment and consequently weaken their academic performance: 

There is extensive evidence that underrepresented minority students — including many academically well prepared individuals — tend to earn lower grades, on average, at historically white colleges and universities than do majority students with similar academic backgrounds, such as similar college admission test scores. (Gándara & Maxwell-Jolly, 1999, pp. vii–viii) 

Steele (1999) found that when gifted Black students take a difficult exam “the extra apprehension they feel in comparison with whites is less about their own ability than it is about having to perform on a test in a situation that may be primed to treat them stereotypically” (p. 52). This suggests that talented Black students who perceive their learning environment to be racially unfair will not perform to their ability. To address these and other pedagogical issues in the classroom, an increasing number of scholars now call for new modes of teaching and learning to create a more inclusive learning environment (hooks, 1994; Karenga, 1995; Obiakor, 1994). Some of these inclusive pedagogical models are described in the next section.
 

INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGICAL MODELS

hooks (1994) argues that students today want a meaningful education, one in which their professors will not offer them information without addressing the connection between what they are learning and their overall life experiences. According to hooks, an engaging pedagogy that respects and cares for the souls of our students is essential if we are to provide conditions in which learning can deeply and intimately begin. Prince and Igbineweka (1995) suggest that professors need to go beyond the inclusion of new course material; they contend that professors also need to transform their consciousness in order to understand that the creation of knowledge must have a liberating purpose behind it. 

Darder (1996) states that “prior to any engagement with instrumental questions of practice, educators must delve rigorously into those specific theoretical issues that are fundamental to the establishment of a culturally democratic foundation for a critical bicultural pedagogy in the classroom” (p. 2). Similarly, Banks and McGee (1997) define equity pedagogy as teaching strategies and classroom environments that allow students from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural groups to obtain the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to function effectively within, and to help create and perpetuate, a just, humane, and democratic society.⁵ Their definition suggests that it is not enough to help students learn to read and write in traditional classrooms without challenging assumptions, paradigms, and hegemonic characteristics embedded in the learning process. As they write, “helping students to become reflective and active citizens of a public, democratic society is at the essence of our conception of equity pedagogy” (pp. 78–79). 

Inclusive pedagogical models seeking to transform higher education are not new to the academic arena. Since the development of women’s studies in the late 1960s and early 1970s, efforts have been underway to transform the higher education curriculum and pedagogy. Sullivan (1995) contends that “the addition of women’s studies in various forms as a part of higher education provides one significant marker for this change” (p. 5). Some consider the women’s studies movement a successful example of how mainstream curriculum and pedagogy can be altered to become more inclusive in the extent to which they address the experiences of diverse students — in this case women.⁶ Another major influence on the movement to transform higher education evolved from the work of Paulo Freire (1971). According to Weiler (1993), both feminist pedagogy and Freirean pedagogy rest on visions of social transformation: 

Both pedagogies assert the existence of oppression in people’s material conditions of existence and as a part of consciousness; both rest on a view of consciousness as more than a sum of dominating discourse, but as containing within it a critical capacity; . . . and both thus see human beings as subjects and actors in history and hold a strong commitment to justice as a vision of a better world and a potential for liberation. (p. 450) 

Friere’s work was the genesis of critical pedagogy. According to Giroux and Simon (1988), critical pedagogy “takes into consideration how the symbolic and material transactions of the everyday provide the basis for rethinking how people give meaning and ethical substance to their experiences and voices” (p. 10). Critical pedagogy has spawned several variations. For example, Giroux’s (1992) border pedagogy moves beyond the opening of diverse cultural and historical spaces by allowing students to explore the fragile nature of their identities, as students of color cross borderlands distinguished by different languages, voices, and experiences (Dlamini, 2002). Another extension of critical pedagogy is critical race pedagogy (Solorzano & Yosso, 1997). Lynn (1999) defines critical race pedagogy “as an analysis of racial, ethnic, and gender subordination in education that relies mostly on the perceptions, experiences, and counterhegemonic practices of educators of color” (p. 12). Other pedagogical models take into account the impact of race and ethnicity in their design. 

Recognizing that Black students might perform better in learning environments that are socioculturally, cognitively, and linguistically compatible, several scholars advocate for pedagogy that is grounded in an African American culture (Murrel, 2002). For example, Karenga (1995) embraces the Afrocentric model, which challenges students to frame questions and projects from their own experience and for their own futures. Ladson-Billings (1994, 1995) promotes a pedagogical model that incorporates African and African American culture. She argues that a culturally relevant pedagogy will prepare students for their participation in a White-dominated world. Murrel (2002) engages in an African-centered pedagogy, which seeks to circumvent structures of inequality in schooling that compromise the education of African American students. Hill-Collins (1991) combines Afrocentricism with feminist pedagogy “to form a more integrated and holistic cultural critique . . . that is grounded in the history and struggles of African peoples” (cited in Lynn, 1999, p. 6). According to Henry (1992), African womanist pedagogy provides students with positive reinforcement, promotes collective responsibility and sharing, and teaches them to take ownership of their own learning. The common features of the aforementioned inclusive pedagogical models are outlined in the next section.
 

CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY 

Faculty-Student Interaction 

Baker (1998) posits that the social interaction between faculty and students provides the foundation for a positive faculty-student relationship. She notes that students expect to be challenged, and admire professors who do this in a concerned manner. Baker argues that faculty who are knowledgeable, caring, enthusiastic, and available to students in and outside of the classroom have more positive social interactions with their students: “In order for students to feel comfortable in seeking help, the faculty must foster this relationship by creating an open welcoming environment” (p. 68). In essence, interpersonal relationships are most important to students who need to feel connected to the group, who are aware of being upset when their own voices are not heard, and who do not believe that the instructor is the sole source of knowledge (Zimmerman, 1991). One way inclusive pedagogical models attempt to debunk the notion that the professor is the only source of knowledge is by sharing power in the classroom. 

Sharing Power 

Professors must genuinely value everyone’s presence. There must be ongoing recognition that everyone influences the classroom dynamic. These contributions are resources. Used constructively they enhance the capacity of any class to create an open learning community. (hooks, 1994, p. 8) 

Inclusive pedagogical models challenge the traditional notion that only the professor possesses knowledge, and instead propose that professors and students are equally responsible for constructing knowledge (Tuitt, 2000). According to hooks (1994), before the process of creating an inclusive learning environment can occur, “there has to be some deconstruction of the traditional notion that only the professor will always be responsible for classroom dynamics” (p. 8). Dlamini (2002) posits that in critical pedagogy the concept of power-sharing makes students responsible for their own learning. She writes, “When power is shared, voices are given equal opportunity of expression; different critical ways of knowing and learning are validated” (p. 58). Obidah (2000) contends that critical pedagogy, which begins with human agency, sees professors as transformative intellectuals who reject traditional notions of power and authority in the classroom and “allow intellectual and critical spaces to exist wherein students may make meaning and find power for themselves” (p. 7). 

Feminist pedagogical models acknowledge that professors work with heterogeneous groups of students within a competitive and individualistic culture where the teacher holds institutional power and responsibility — even if she may want to reject that power (Weiler, 1993). The teacher gives grades, is evaluated by colleagues in terms of expertise in a specific discipline or body of knowledge, and is expected to take responsibility for meeting the goals of an academic course, as it is understood within the university. Weiler (1993) notes that “not only does the university structure impose this model of institutional authority, but students themselves expect it” (p. 460). She says that feminist educators address this tension between their ideals of collective education and the demands of the university by using a variety of pedagogical models that enhance their ability to theorize and to recognize their own power. This strategy views authority “not in the institutional terms of a bureaucratized university system, but rather as an attempt to claim the authority of theorist and guide students who are themselves potential theorists” (p. 462). 

According to hooks (1994), professors’ efforts to respect cultural diversity often lead them to confront the limitations of their own training and knowledge, and the potential loss of their authority. She writes that “many teachers are disturbed by the political implications of a multicultural education because they fear losing control in a classroom where there is no one way to approach a subject — only multiple ways and multiple references” (p. 36). As an alternative, hooks proposes that the central goal of transformative pedagogy is to make the classroom a democratic setting where everyone has the responsibility to contribute. Consequently, in an effort to alter power relationships in the learning environment, inclusive pedagogical models advocate for a dialogical relationship between professor and students. 

Dialogical Professor-Student Interaction

According to Shor (1992), a dialogue is “a mutually created discourse which questions existing canons of knowledge and challenges power relations in the classroom and in society” (p. 87). He advocates for a dialogical process that values student voices as much as teacher expertise and knowledge.⁷ Consequently, the dialogical process seeks to create respectful, challenging, and collaborative learning environments and to ensure that there is mutual professor-student participation. However, this work requires more time and effort from teachers and students and a willingness to trust and take risks with one another (hooks, 1994). Therefore, it is safer for professors, and perhaps more comfortable for some students, to choose safe, conventional techniques, such as the lecture mode (Zimmerman, 1991). Zimmerman notes that “when teachers deviate from lecture format there often is discomfort among their students, some of whom may feel that not lecturing is tantamount to a dereliction of duty. These instructors may be seen as stepping outside the traditional role and even accused of withholding knowledge” (p. 58). One strategy for creating a successful dialogical interaction between professor and student is the activation of student voices. 

Activation of Student Voice 

Another important element of inclusive pedagogical models is the acknowledgment that all students have a voice and that they should be encouraged to use it. Darder (1996) stresses that one of the most important goals of a critical pedagogy is to allow for diverse voices to make their way to the center of the dialogical process, rather than to remain forever silent or at the periphery of traditional classroom life. According to Giroux and McLaren (1996): 

The concept of voice is crucial to the development of a critical classroom pedagogy because it provides an important basis for constructing and demonstrating the fundamental imperatives of a strong democracy. Such a pedagogy attempts to organize classroom relationships so that students can draw upon and confirm those dimensions of their own histories and experiences which are deeply rooted in the surrounding community. (p. 324) 

As a teacher, hooks “recognizes that students from marginalized groups enter the classrooms within institutions where their voices have been neither heard nor welcomed, whether these students discuss facts — those which any of us might know — or personal experience” (1994, p. 84). Her pedagogy is shaped to respond to the misuse of power by bringing to the classroom pedagogical practices that affirm students’ presence and their right to speak in multiple ways on diverse subject matter. This type of pedagogical strategy is based on the assumption that everyone brings to the classroom experiential knowledge that can strengthen the learning environment. One approach to building community in the classroom is to acknowledge individual voice.⁸ hooks accomplishes this by having her students keep journals and write paragraphs during class that they read to one another. She believes that “to hear each other is an exercise in recognition. It also ensures that no student remains invisible in the classroom” (p. 41). 

Burbules and Rice (1993) posit that professors should be careful how they attempt to activate students’ voices in the classroom so that they are sensitive to the various kinds of diversity that may exist. Traditional pedagogy often favors speech that is dispassionate and disembodied. It tends to demand a separation between mind and body, reason and emotion (Young, 1996). It falsely identifies objectivity with calm and unemotional expression. “Thus,” writes Young, “expressions of anger, hurt, and passionate concern discount claims and reasons they accompany” (p. 124). To reduce this pattern, Burbules and Rice (1993) suggest that professors must ask questions such as: 

• Who may feel unable to speak without explicit or implicit retribution?  
• Who may want to speak, but feel so demoralized, or intimidated, by the circumstances that they are entirely silenced? 
• What tacit rules of communication may be operating in schools and classrooms that rule certain areas of concern or modes of speech out of bounds by the very procedures the discussion takes for granted? (p. 5) 

Finally, the activation of students’ voices in diverse classrooms needs to be accompanied by a sense of the context and personal histories that inform the various outlooks that individuals in different positions have on the situation. 

According to Giroux and McLaren (1996): 

When communities are ignored by teachers, students often find themselves trapped in institutions that not only deny them a voice, but also deprive them of a relational or contextual understanding of how the knowledge they acquire in the classroom can be used to influence and transform the public sphere. (p. 26) 

The failure to create a space for voice appears to limit some students’ ability to imagine how they can make a difference in the communities about which they care. By having a voice, students can bring into the classroom the world as they have experienced it.  

Utilization of Personal Narratives 

In inclusive pedagogical models, life experiences are a central part of the curriculum (Courts & McInerney, 1993). In this instructional strategy, professors encouraged students to personalize subject matter with examples from their own histories and to make connections between the ideas learned in the classroom and those learned through life experiences (Tuitt, 2000). This synthesis can be accomplished using personal narratives. For example, Obidah (2000) encourages students in her classes to integrate their life experiences as they discuss the required readings. 

According to Adams (1992), teaching methods should involve a balance of subjective exploration of course material with objective presentation and an invitation for students to personalize the subject matter with examples from their experience. Weiler (1993) explains that “the self-examination of lived experience is then used as a source of knowledge that can illuminate the social processes and ideology that shape us” (p. 466). Fuss (1989) suggests that this initiative introduces narratives of life experience into the classroom and pushes students to explore collectively how these narratives are shaped socially and historically. The Afrocentric model advocates the creation of spaces where students can ascertain and articulate the truth and meaning of their own cultural experience. Critical race pedagogists use the experiences and life stories of students of color to build theories about the impact of race and racism in the United States (Solorzano, 1997). 

Macedo declares that “if students are not able to transform their lived experiences into knowledge and to use the already acquired knowledge as a process to unveil new knowledge, they will never be able to participate rigorously in a dialogue process of learning and knowing” (Macedo & Freire, 1996, p. 208). In theory, students are successful in connecting their lived experiences to the content when they are getting the information from a caring, compassionate teacher (Baker, 1998). However, professors must be cautious when introducing life experiences into the classroom; in settings where students come from differing positions of privilege or oppression, the sharing of experiences may generate conflicts rather than build solidarity (Weiler, 1993). When weighing the benefits, inclusive pedagogy recognizes the teacher’s responsibility to design instructional strategies that help students use the curriculum to make sense of their particular life experiences within a community of fellow intellectuals (Omolade, 1987).
 

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN ISSUES 

Faculty members must understand, improve, and apply methods that include the learner in their instructional design. If professors hope to create inclusive learning environments, they must reconceptualize how they situate themselves in their classrooms.⁹ Using theoretical frameworks is one way professors can address this challenge. 

Utilization of Theoretical Frameworks 

Inclusive pedagogical models employ a range of theoretical frameworks to guide classroom experiences and student learning. According to Severance (1993), “education often seems focused on what goes on in an individual’s head; ethos, on the other hand, looks at what occurs in the community of learners and that contributes to the individual’s experience of higher education” (p. 115). He argues that professors should move beyond just questioning how learning takes place in the classroom at any given time and place, and consider under what conditions students would like the learning to occur. 

— Student Centered 

Inclusive pedagogical models situate the student at the center of the learning process and focus on the effectiveness of the learning environment. For example, the ecosystem model (Moos, 1979) asserts that environments, like people, possess unique coherent characteristics. Just as we describe an individual’s personality, it is possible to characterize an environment. Moos affirms that a student’s comprehension of a classroom influences the way he or she behaves in that space. “Thus”, he writes, “environments develop and shape potential as well as support or inhibit initiating and coping behavior” (p. 18). Zimmerman (1991) uses social construction theory as an emerging paradigm for understanding how knowledge is generated. In traditional paradigms, obtaining knowledge involves the student internalizing and reflecting on the ideas and beliefs of the teacher. Zimmerman notes that “this internalization stage is the beginning of an interpersonal process to construct knowledge through interaction and revision with peers” (p. 60). 

— Collaboration 

Zimmerman (1991) explores various theories of how learners benefit from interacting with and relating and connecting to each other in the classroom. She argues “that each of these theories directly or indirectly support the notion that effective learning is not an autonomous and individualistic act but rather an act of social interaction, of collaboration, and of personal connection” (p. 59).¹⁰ Bruffee (1984) advocates for learners to have more opportunities to collaborate in “knowledge communities” (p. 642). Writing exercises that involve collaboration and class discussion are seen as effective ways to create these knowledge communities, which foster ways of learning together (Zimmerman, 1991). 

According to Bruffee (1984), it is not enough to have students work together; it is also necessary to “create and maintain a demanding academic environment that makes collaboration — social engagement in intellectual pursuits — a genuine part of the students’ educational environment” (p. 652). Zimmerman (1991) proposes that collaborative learning can have positive implications for students when educators realize that some college learners have a profound desire to feel a personal connection to their teachers, their peers, and their subject matter. She believes that “the ability to develop a sense of community within the structure of a single course could be a great asset to today’s college educator” (pp. 220–221). In inclusive pedagogical models, collaborative frameworks are used to embrace the range of cultural differences in the learning environment. 

— Cultural Fit 

According to Bruner (1996), instructional theory should consider how culture influences learning and apply this knowledge to develop instructional designs that will enable and empower students. For example, Gilligan (1982; Gilligan, Lyons, & Hanmer, 1990) contends that male-generated theories tend to be grounded in ideas of autonomy, competitiveness, and rules — or the “ethic of justice” — while women’s developmental theory was grounded in intimacy, cooperation, and caring — or the “ethic of care.” Consequently, in inclusive pedagogical models there is recognition of greater diversity in the needs of learners and the awareness that for some students “opportunities for connectedness or relationships are valuable components of the learning process” (Zimmerman, 1991, pp. 73–74). 

Baker (1998) believes that educators should engage in “learner analysis,” a process that involves identifying the needs of learners in an effort to develop modes of instruction that promote an optimal learning environment. This approach suggests that theoretical frameworks should be developed to design instruction that accounts for cultural differences in the learning environment. For example, Afrocentric womanist pedagogy seeks to guide students’ learning by focusing on their academic, intellectual, and cultural development. Similarly, de los Reyes et al. (2001) make their learning model (consisting of three theoretical lenses: the personal, the political, and the intellectual) explicit to their students. They encourage their students to reunite these different ways of understanding the world to engage in coherent, transparent, and effective social and political action. By focusing on the personal, intellectual, and political, students enter the learning environment as whole human beings.  

Awareness of Different Learning Styles

Inclusive pedagogical models also take into consideration the fact that students may have different learning styles or different ways of knowing (Tuitt, 2000). Shaw (1996) defines learning style as the characteristics that students bring to a learning situation and that influence how they learn. Anderson and Adams (1992) explain that “a diverse student population means that there is greater variability in learning styles in the same classroom than typically exists with a (racially) homogeneous population of traditional college students” (p. 24). While there is no consensus within the research tradition to directly connect cultural ways of knowing based on race or ethnicity to classroom learning (Adams, 1992), there is adequate evidence to suggest that faculty members should give consideration to the various ways in which students acquire knowledge: 

Recent emphasis on social and cultural diversity in the college classroom reflects the recognition that groups of students enter college with variations in the following areas: (1) social relational skills, values, and characteristics, (2) information-processing orientation and skills, (3) communication patterns, (4) motivational styles, and (5) psychological characteristics. (Anderson & Adams, 1992, p. 20) 

Anderson and Adams (1992) discerned that the research concerning learning styles tends to find that White females and African American, Native American, and Hispanic American males and females fall toward the relational end of the continuum, whereas Euro-American and Asian American males fall toward the analytical end of the spectrum. They write, “These differences have distinct implications for preferences in student instruction and teaching strategies. Correspondingly, one initial approach to a teaching change might be to develop a sense of the expectations of students and instructors as they simply interact with one another” (p. 23). Bell (1994) suggests that African American students have a preference for social, interactive learning. Learning environments that foster these characteristics will positively enforce African American students’ problem-solving ability. Shade (1984) indicates that African American students analyze and organize information in a relational or holistic rather than an analytic manner. Additionally, Irvine and York (1995) identified three important areas discussed in learning-style research. They include “the cultural content of the teaching-learning process, the importance of affect in teaching culturally diverse students, and the recognition that teachers are accountable for designing instruction that meets individual learning needs” (p. 19). Paying attention to the various ways in which students might be most comfortable accessing the learning environment requires professors to be flexible in managing classrooms. 

Fluid and Reflective Practice 

Professors must develop a variable, flexible repertoire of teaching strategies that allow them to match the cultural styles of students from targeted social groups in their college classes. . . . A mixed repertoire enables all students in a college classroom to experience an environment that equalizes cultural styles rather than requires minority cultural styles to give way and acculturate or adapt to the dominant mode, maintaining thereby the cultural edge of students from the dominant culture. (Adams, 1992, p. 15) 

Inclusive pedagogical models include a great deal of fluidity in classroom instruction. Correspondingly, agendas are flexible and allow for spontaneous shifts in direction. For example, an engaged pedagogy (hooks, 1994) assumes that, to teach in diverse classrooms, professors must shift not only paradigms but also the way they think, write, and speak. hooks writes that “the engaged voice must never be fixed and absolute but always changing, always evolving in dialogue with a world beyond itself” (p. 11). Freire (1987) suggests that technical expertise and the mastery of content area and methodology is not enough to ensure effective instruction of subordinated cultures. He posits that teachers must have political clarity to effectively create, adopt, and modify teaching strategies that simultaneously respect and challenge learners from diverse cultural groups in a variety of learning environments.  

Baker (1998) contends that flexible teaching is critical to the promotion of optimal learning. The students in her study felt that when professors employed multiple strategies, such as group process, lecture, and discussion, their ability to grasp the information improved. Engaging in flexible practice allows professors to adopt and modify their teaching to fit the needs of diverse students in the learning environment. But in order to make adjustments to their teaching, professors should take the time to reflect on their practice. 

Professors who employ inclusive pedagogies must constantly interrogate the beliefs and assumptions that guide their practice and allow themselves to enter uncomfortable territory (Obidah, 2000). According to Obidah, this reflective practice protects faculty members from developing new forms of academic rigidity. De los Reyes (2000) states that, for professors to become compassionate and effective educators, they need to engage in the process of introspection, reflection, and action. She combines the concept of praxis (reflection and action) with the process of introspection, or the “systematic and careful linking of the personal, political, and intellectual in a system of beliefs and values” (p. 40). Essentially, professors need to invent and — through reflection — reinvent their teaching so that it is consistent with the goals set for the learning environment (de los Reyes et al., 2000). The aforementioned instructional design strategies take into consideration the fact that students enter the learning environment with their own set of expectations, perceptions, and beliefs that may or may not be in sync with those of the professor. 

Perceptual Barriers 

Inclusive pedagogical models recognize that students’ perceptions of their professors’ attitudes toward them may have negative consequences for their participation in the learning environment.¹¹ Steele (1999) observed that, when Black students’ “stereotype threat” was removed, their level of performance increased to that of equally qualified Whites. This change occurred when the students in his study believed that they were participating in a racially fair environment. In Baker’s (1998) study, students identified the professor’s ability to be “unbiased” as being important to the establishment of an effective faculty-student relationship. She observed that “faculty members created a positive learning atmosphere by being open to the ideas of others, challenging students, and demonstrating concern and belief in the (academic) ability of students” (p. 58). In this context, openness did not just involve openness to students but openness to the ideas of others often excluded from the discourse as well. Both Steele’s and Baker’s findings suggest that “the success of Black students may depend less on expectations and motivations — things that are thought to drive academic performance — than on trust that stereotypes about their group will not have a limiting effect in their school world” (Steele, 1999, p. 51). In theory, where perceptual barriers may lead students to withdraw from the learning environment, positive faculty-student interaction can lead to higher levels of trust on the part of students. 

Reexamination of Belief and Value Systems 

To diagnose our students well we must diagnose ourselves. (Palmer, 1993, p. 11) 

Inclusive pedagogical models mandate that faculty members examine basic issues as well as deep and unconsciously held beliefs (Prince & Igbineweka, 1995). For example, equity pedagogy requires professors to examine their understanding of the histories, modal characteristics, and intragroup differences of students of color (Banks & McGee, 1997). The majority of people who teach students of color in college are White, and these White teachers must invest time and energy in establishing critical dialogues with students of color if they wish to understand their communities better (Darder, 1996).¹² If professors want to effectively instruct in a racially diverse learning environment, “they must be well versed in the various cultural paradigms that serve to guide human behavior” (Adams, 1992, p. 11). It is not simply a matter of learning about the cultures and experiences of students of color; professors must also examine how their own experiences, values, and beliefs influence how they understand these diverse groups. 

Weiler (1993) argues that professors need to name their particular historical and social identity, to locate themselves, and to build coalitions from an awareness of the partial knowledge of their own constructed identities. Understanding how students enter the learning environment — shaped by their experience of class, race, gender, or other socially defined identities — has powerful implications for pedagogy. “It emphasizes the need to make conscious the subject positions not only of students but of teachers as well” (pp. 469–470). Fundamentally, professors need to look inward to understand how their life experiences influence their behavior in the classroom. 

Transparent and Self-Actualized Professors 

According to hooks (1994), the vast majority of her professors lacked basic communication skills, were not self-actualized, and often used the classroom to enact rituals of control that were about domination and the unjust exercise of power. In contrast, inclusive pedagogical models ask that professors be willing to demonstrate their humanity by identifying weaknesses and sharing personal accounts. It is important for students to understand what experiences and philosophies shape the way their professors teach, for example, what ideology informs their practice. This approach seeks to alleviate perceptual barriers by asking professors to give students a sense of who they are as individuals when they enter the classroom. What lessons do they expect students to take away from their class? For example, Steele (1999) suggests that when professors hold high standards that are reflected in their direct feedback, students feel that they are not viewed stereotypically. According to Steele, 

high standards, at least in a relative sense, should be an inherent part of teaching, and critical feedback should be given in the belief that the recipient can reach those standards. These things go without saying for many students. But they have to be made explicit for students under the stereotype threat. (p. 53) 

Steele’s study shows that when professors make their expectations and standards explicit, the students trust and respond to the feedback they receive. In theory, increased levels of transparency give students a way of better understanding the intentions and ideas of their professors. 

Clarity in Theoretical Objectives of the Course 

Many students of color enter learning environments committed to transforming their lives and the communities from which they come. However, a mismatch often exists between faculty and student expectations that is potentially harmful to everyone involved in the learning process (Severance, 1993). hooks (1994) argues that when professors allow their pedagogy to be radically changed by their awareness of a multicultural world, they can provide students the education they desire and deserve. Professors are more explicit about the learning that is supposed to take place in their courses when they are clear about their theoretical objectives. This clarity helps students know what is expected of them. Faculty members must be transparent, and one way professors can accomplish this is to connect their own life experiences to the subject matter. 

In theory, when students are allowed to bring life experiences into the learning environment, they are able to use personal narratives as a way of understanding the subject matter. However, professors who are unwilling to share their own personal narratives should not expect students to do so. Exercising power in this manner is coercive. hooks (1994) argues that when professors bring their personal narratives into the discussion it keeps them from functioning as all-knowing, silent interrogators. She advocates for professors to take the first risk by linking personal narratives to academic discussions to show how experience can illuminate and enhance our understanding of academic material. Furthermore, most inclusive pedagogical models invite the sharing of personal experience as a tool for liberatory or transformative agendas. 

Transformative Intellectuals 

Inclusive pedagogical models are transformative, meaning that the educational process seeks to empower students to change the worlds in which they live. For example, Macedo (Macedo & Freire, 1996) posits that the exchange of life experiences requires a political and ideological analysis and must always be understood within a social praxis that involves both reflection and political action: “A dialogue as a process of learning and knowing must always involve a political project with the objective of dismantling oppressive structures and mechanisms prevalent both in education and society” (p. 203). Accordingly, the Afrocentric pedagogical model encourages students to raise and seek to answer questions about the meaning, the quality, and the direction of their lives, not as abstracted individuals but as members of a community (Karenga, 1995). Therefore, their goal is not simply to make sense of the world they live in, but to change it. Professors need to be aware of this reality and find an effective balance between what they think is valuable learning and the intentions that students have for their education. 

— Radical Educators 

According to Ellsworth (1993), critical pedagogy emerged from the notion of the “radical” educator who helps students to identify and act against their own and others’ oppression. Since the goal of critical pedagogy is to promote a critical democracy, individual freedom, social justice, and social action, these radical professors are willing to transform their own beliefs in response to the understanding of their students. Darder (1996) asserts that political commitment to a liberatory vision is fundamental to creating the conditions for cultural democracy. She argues that a critical bicultural pedagogy can only develop within a social context where teachers are committed to both individual and social empowerment. Similarly, under the Afrocentric pedagogical model, students focus on critical thinking and on challenging the given and plausible alternatives to the established order of things. Most important, this model assumes an integral relationship between knowledge and reflective action (Karenga, 1995). Finally, equity pedagogy creates an environment in which students can acquire, interrogate, and produce knowledge and envision new possibilities (Banks & McGee, 1997). In essence, inclusive pedagogical models call for professors to teach in a manner that transforms consciousness and creates a climate of free expression that is the essence of a truly liberatory education (hooks, 1994). 

— Conscientization 

According to Freire and Macedo (1987), the more investigative and less certain your pedagogy, the more critical and radical it becomes. Central to Freirean pedagogy is the practice of conscientization: “that is, coming to a consciousness of oppression and a commitment to end that oppression. . . . The role of the teacher in this process is to instigate a dialogue between the teacher and student, based on their common ability to know the world and to act as subjects in the world” (Weiler, 1993, p. 454). According to Freire (1987), dialogue is central to the process of conscientization, in that it leads to the naming of the world, and naming the world empowers the oppressed to act to change it. Feminist pedagogy is similarly grounded in a vision of social change. As Weiler (1993) observes, “it rests solely on truth claims of the primacy of experience and consciousness that are grounded in historically situated social movements” (p. 456). According to Weiler, underlying both Freirean and feminist pedagogy is an assumption of common experience as the basis for political analysis and action. In summary, inclusive pedagogical models require professors to assume the role of transformative intellectuals by treating students as critical agents, questioning how knowledge is produced and distributed, utilizing dialogue, and making knowledge meaningful, critical, and ultimately emancipatory (Giroux & McLaren, 1996). 

While inclusive pedagogy has the potential to transform traditional classrooms, the students in them, and the worlds in which they live, its successful application depends on faculty and students’ acceptance and implementation of teaching strategies, and consequently has implications for teachers and learners working to change their classroom culture. In the next section, I explore several of these implications in an effort to help professors seeking to create hospitable learning environments in which all students — regardless of their racial background — have a chance to succeed.
 

INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY: CHALLENGES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING

Professors committed to engaging in an inclusive pedagogy face the challenge of designing a learning environment that is reflective of a multicultural society and of individual differences among our students. To successfully teach students to participate in a democratic and pluralistic society, educators must “respond to the needs of various groups within our classes as well as to individual students” (Knefelkamp, 1997, p. 11). According to Knefelkamp, the challenge of educating racially diverse students is no different from the very same challenges that an increasingly racially diverse society generates for this country. How can educators create classrooms in which all students, regardless of racial background, have a chance to succeed? If we can’t succeed in the classroom, what hope do we have for the larger society? Inclusive pedagogy offers professors some guidance as to how they might reconsider their teaching practices in light of these challenges. 

A Return to Excellent Teaching 

Effective teachers are those who involve all of their students in learning how to learn. (Anderson & Adams, 1992, p. 20) 

According to Palmer (1993), excellent teaching comes from carefully woven connections among students, the subject, and the professor. Frederick (1995) believes that “good teaching for diverse classes, whether in biology, English, mathematics, or sociology, is good teaching, pure and simple, meaning classrooms with a degree of peer interactions, mutual respect, collaborative small groups, and other forms of active learning” (p. 84). hooks (1994) adds that it is especially important to acknowledge that the teaching approaches and styles (holistic, cooperative, connected, caring, interactive) that facilitate the learning of most students of color, women, and other non-mainstream students are also those that help all students learn.¹³ Anderson and Adams (1992) agree: “There is an emerging consensus that the repertoires of teaching strategies most effective and responsive in a socially and culturally diverse college classroom are the very same strategies that were identified at an earlier time as the characteristics of teaching excellence for traditional students” (p. 30). To these scholars, excellent teaching is commonly defined in a manner that mirrors inclusive pedagogy as described in this chapter.¹⁴ For example, being aware of multiple learning styles and taking into account what impact the institution and classroom climate have on the learning environment are common elements of inclusive pedagogy and effective teaching. Given the similarity between effective teaching and inclusive pedagogical practices, why hasn’t college teaching improved? 

In order for professors to place more importance on effective teaching, higher education institutions need to reexamine the ways teaching is valued in academe. Scapp (cited in hooks, 1994) declares that most professors are not inclined to see discussion of pedagogy as central to their academic work and intellectual growth, or the practice of teaching as work that enhances or enriches scholarship. Shulman (1992) insists on a strategy that makes teaching community — and therefore valued — property. He argues for reconnecting pedagogy to disciplines, because in the academy the communities that matter to faculty the most are strongly identified within the disciplines of scholarship: 

If pedagogy is to become an important part of scholarship, we have to provide it with this same kind of documentation and transformation. . . . If teaching is community property in the academy, we have an obligation to judge it. Peer reviews must be applied to teaching. (Shulman, 1993, p. 6) 

Shulman (1993) proposes to make the review, examination, and support of teaching part of the responsibility of the disciplinary community. Palmer (1993) concurs; he posits that “no surgeon can do her work without being observed by others who know what she is doing, without participating in grand-round discussions of the patients she and her colleagues are treating” (p. 8). The current academic culture is not one that places a great deal of emphasis on teaching. Though institutional missions may state eloquently that teaching is important, rarely is it assessed on the same level as research and scholarship. While faculty searches may seek scholars who are skilled at both research and teaching, how often are candidates required to address the design of their course and how their pedagogy affords students the opportunity to engage in the intellectual and moral work of the discipline (Shulman, 1993)? While some faculty searches require job talks, teaching remains a relatively private enterprise. Consequently, professors often fail to recognize the importance of linking teaching and learning to their institutional context. 

Understanding the Institution and Classroom Context 

To Burbules and Rice (1993), universities are no freer from social and political conflict and patterns of domination than are any other institutions. They argue that institutional factors, and the presumptions that students bring intro the classroom, provide a context that often limits the degree of understanding that can be achieved in the learning environment: 

We should try to consider the elements of difference that might affect the communicative possibilities in a particular encounter from the point of view of the parties involved. We should elicit and respect their self-identifications, and admit to ourselves the limits of our ability to identify with, or make inferences about, the subjectivity of others. (Burbules & Rice, 1993, pp. 15–16) 

Equity pedagogy recognizes that peer relationships are an important part of the social context of the classroom and should be an important instructional consideration (Banks & McGee, 1997). Furthermore, this premise requires the dismantling of school structures that foster inequality. Banks and McGee (1997) warn that “teachers who try to implement equity pedagogy without attending to factors such as the physical arrangement of space in the classroom and the control inherent in certain types of physical conditions will rarely experience success” (p. 82). Correspondingly, Ellsworth (1993) states that her class does not debate whether or not racist structures and practices are operating at the university; rather, it investigates how they operate and with what effects and contradictions, and where they are vulnerable to political opposition. She argues that a vital interruption of existing power relations within the university consists of disrupting the business as usual — that is, prevailing social relations — in a university classroom. Essentially, inclusive pedagogy will not be effective in a social and political context where professors do not challenge racism, sexism, and other inequalities (Banks & McGee, 1997). 

Confronting Racism When It Rears Its Ugly Head 

According to Darder (1996), regardless of how committed a professor is to the notion of cultural diversity, it is impossible to create an inclusive environment for students if he or she is not capable of challenging incidences of racism when they surface in the classroom. As she explains, “When educators fail to criticize discriminatory attitudes and behaviors, they permit bicultural students to suffer needless humiliation and psychological violence that negatively reinforce feelings of disentitlement and marginalization in society” (p. 116). Tatum (1992) acknowledges that it is difficult to have meaningful conversations in the classroom without also talking and learning about racism, classism, and sexism. She found that students often had powerful emotional responses to the introduction of issues of oppression, ranging from guilt and shame to anger and despair. To facilitate dialogue involving race-related material, Tatum gives her students guidelines that are intended to structure their participation in the learning environment. However, the use of any set of guidelines cannot guarantee that lessons will go according to the plan. 

In the spring of 1988, Ellsworth taught a class at a midwestern university, titled “Media and Anti-Racist Pedagogies.” At the end of the semester, students acknowledged that commitment to rational discussion about racism in a classroom setting was not enough to make that setting a safe space for speaking out and talking back. They concluded that “a safe space required high levels of trust and personal commitment to individuals in the class, gained in part through social interaction outside of the class — potlucks, field trips, participation in rallies, and other gatherings” (Ellsworth, 1993, p. 60). Ellsworth learned that voices within the classroom do not and can not carry equal legitimacy, safety, and power in dialogue at any historical moment, and that there are times when the inequalities must be named and addressed by constructing alternative ground rules for communication. 

Inevitably, inclusive pedagogical practices that explore experiences of privilege and oppression are risky and filled with pain (Weiler, 1993). However, Tatum (1992) found that when students were given the opportunity to explore race-related material in a classroom where both their affective and intellectual responses were acknowledged and addressed, their level of understanding was greatly enhanced. She identified the development of a safe classroom atmosphere as one strategy for facilitating student development. A safe classroom atmosphere is one in which students’ ideas are respected and confidentiality is maintained. Finally, Tatum warns that if professors do not address these reactions, students will develop a resistance to oppression-related content areas. This resistance can ultimately interfere with the cognitive understanding and mastery of the subject matter. 

Challenging Students’ Resistance 

hooks (1994) encountered many students who did not want to learn new pedagogical processes or be in a classroom that differed in anyway from the norm.¹⁵ She attempted to redirect students’ attention away from her voice to the voices of other students in the class. This strategy was most effective when students shared experiences in conjunction with academic subject matter. Tatum (1992) identified several sources of student resistance. First, her students typically considered race a taboo topic of discussion, especially in racially mixed settings. Second, many students, regardless of racial-group membership, have been socialized to think of the United States as a just society. She found that many students, particularly White students, initially deny any personal prejudice, recognizing the impact of racism on other people’s lives but failing to acknowledge its impact on their own: 

One common result is that some white students, once perhaps active participants in class discussions, now hesitate to continue their participation for fear that their newly recognized racism will be revealed to others. . . . This withdrawal on the part of white students is often paralleled by an increase in participation by students of color who are seeking an outlet for what are often feelings of anger. (Tatum, 1992, p. 156) 

Tatum (1992) notes that, when previously vocal White students withdraw from the classroom exchange, students of color often interpret this retrenchment as indifference and experience anger and frustration as their own oppression is heightened. She addresses students’ resistance by familiarizing them with racial identity development theory, which attempts to explain how students of different racial backgrounds respond to exploring race-related issues in the classroom (Cross, 1991; Helms, 1990). Additionally, Tatum (1992), Adams (1992), and Frederick (1995) provide a set of strategies that seek to make the learning environment more conducive to student participation. However, even with the aid of instructional strategies, teaching in an inclusive manner is difficult. 

Finding the Courage to Teach 

In inclusive pedagogy, faculty members have the responsibility to adopt pedagogical approaches that help students learn how to engage in open, intercultural discussions about the multicultural nation and the world in which we live — first by supporting each other in dealing with their own fears (Frederick, 1995). Recognizing that teaching in an inclusive manner is hard work and risky, Darder (1996) argues that educators who strive for culturally democratic environments will need to call on their own courage and inner strength to challenge the tension and discomfort they experience when confronting issues of discrimination in the classroom. She observed that professors of color are generally more able to use their own learning experiences and cultural values to develop effective curricula that engage issues related to cultural diversity. In addition, through their awareness of community, these teachers find ways to integrate the students’ multiple experiences into the learning process. They are also genuinely able to value and nurture the development of the bicultural voice, given their ability to engage with the lived conditions of cultural domination and resistance. 

Finally, Weiler (1993) warns that attempting to engage in inclusive pedagogical practices without recognizing the conflict — not only of divided consciousness (what Audre Lorde calls “the oppressor” within us) but also among teachers and students attempting to work together to name and struggle against oppression — “can lead to anger, frustration, and a retreat to safer more traditional approaches” (p. 451). Professors must stay the course with the realization that some moments will be more successful than others. In that sense, engaging in inclusive pedagogy will require that professors find the courage to teach without falling back on the familiar and safe when lessons do not go as planned. In order to be successful, professors must envision themselves differently in the classroom. Inclusive pedagogy requires professors to step outside of their traditional roles and become more human in the classroom. As hooks (1994) might insist, the days of separating the mind, body, and spirit have outgrown their usefulness in extremely diverse classrooms.
 

CONCLUSION 

The academy is not paradise. But learning is a place where paradise can be created. The classroom, with all its limitations, remains a location of possibility. In that field of possibility we have the opportunity to labor for freedom, to demand of ourselves and our comrades, an openness of mind and heart that allows us to face reality even as we collectively imagine ways to move beyond boundaries, to transgress. This is education as the practice of freedom. (hooks, 1994, p. 207) 

The characteristics of an inclusive pedagogy include but are not limited to faculty-student relationship issues such as sharing power, dialogical professor-student interaction, activation of student voices, and utilization of personal narratives. In theory, faculty members using inclusive pedagogical practices seek to achieve an optimal learning environment by ensuring that there is dialogical professor-student participation — both the professor and students engage in dialogue that affirms their presence and acknowledges their right to speak in multiple ways on diverse subject matter (Tuitt, 2000). In this kind of learning environment, students are encouraged to personalize subject matter with examples from their own history so that there is a connection between ideas learned in the classroom and those learned through life experiences. Classes are taught in a way that is neither teacher centered nor student centered but learning centered, where both professor and students are responsible for constructing knowledge. 

Characteristics of inclusive pedagogy related to instructional design are the utilization of theoretical frameworks to inform all aspects of the course, awareness of different learning styles, and fluid and flexible classroom instruction. Professors in search of specific instructional design strategies that will fit a broad range of cultural characteristics may use a range of pedagogical practices that connect variability of individual learning styles to flexibility in the learning environment (Anderson & Adams, 1992). For example, Nelson (1996) identified small-group discussion and flexibility with deadlines as pedagogical practices that professors have successfully implemented for a diverse group of students within the college classroom. Additionally, Baker (1998) found that students favored group discussion over the lecture format because it allowed them to process the information with their peers and ask questions in a more comfortable setting. The students in her study expressed a need to have more interactive or pragmatic experience. Specifically, students identified instructional materials that provided visual examples, did not eliminate faculty interaction, and were accurate in relation to cultural content as most effective (Baker, 1998). 

Finally, characteristics of inclusive pedagogy pertaining to perceptual barriers include a reexamination of beliefs and value systems, transparent and self-actualized professors, clarity in theoretical objectives of the course, and transformative intellectuals. To compensate for potential perceptual barriers, inclusive pedagogies dictate that faculty members examine basic issues and often deep and unconsciously held beliefs (Tuitt, 2000). According to Prince and Igbineweka (1995), “if faculty are to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, they must examine their own views and emotional roots” (p. 22). Another way that inclusive pedagogical models seek to alleviate the problems of perceptual barriers is by asking professors to give students a sense of who they are as individuals and what beliefs inform their practice when they enter the classroom. To reduce confusion, professors should be clear about the theory and pedagogy that informs their teaching. Steele (1999) discovered that when professors make explicit their expectations and standards, students trust and respond to the feedback they receive. This transparency can increase students’ trust, comfort, and safety in a particular environment and lead to higher levels of class participation. 

Overall, inclusive pedagogy requires professors to strive for excellence in their teaching, confront racism when it surfaces, challenge student resistance, and find the courage to teach. In order for traditionally White institutions to experience campuswide cultural transformation in the classroom that enables all students to engage the learning process, colleges and universities must make teaching as much — if not more — of a priority as academic scholarship. Unless higher education institutions meet this challenge, there will be no incentives for today’s professors to acquire and implement a broad range of teaching skills that would allow them to create the little pockets of hope so many students are desperately seeking.
 

NOTES 

1.  For example, two national organizations, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), have been concerned with teaching and learning in diverse classroom. Specifically, AAC&U created a multiproject initiative, American Commitments: Diversity, Democracy and Liberal Learning, to address fundamental questions about higher education in a diverse democracy (see http://www.aacu-edu.org/amcommit/index.cfm). AAHE sponsors similar initiatives that focus on inclusive teaching and learning and the importance of diversity issues in different disciplines (see http://www.aahe.org/diversityprogram.htm). 

2.  In this chapter, “traditional” refers to a style of teaching that has minimal professor-student interaction. In traditional teaching, only the professor is responsible for the learning that is to occur (Zimmerman, 1991). Traditional teaching requires that students be unemotional, detached, and apolitical (Adams, 1992).  

3.  In theory, when professors embrace students in the classroom as complete individuals with a range of personal, political, and intellectual experiences, the entire educational process is enriched because students are not forced to exclude central components of their identity. 

4.  Steele (1999) defines stereotype threat as “the threat of being viewed through the lens of a negative stereotype, or the fear of doing something that would inadvertently confirm that stereotype” (p. 46). 

5.  Equity pedagogy is a dynamic instructional process that focuses not only on the identification and use of effective instructional techniques and methods, but also on the context in which they are used (Banks & McGee, 1997). 

6.  Howe (1982) notes that women’s studies aims “to develop a body of scholarship and a new curriculum about women and the issue of gender [and] to use this knowledge to transform mainstream curriculum” (Cited in Sullivan, 1995, p. 5). 

7.  Burbules and Rice (1993) assert “that there are three prospective kinds of benefits that can be derived from dialogue across differences: those related to the construction of identity along lines that are more flexible without becoming arbitrary; those related to broadening our understanding of ourselves; and those related to fostering more reasonable and sustainable communicative practices” (p. 12). 

8.  hooks (1994) argues that educators must enter the classroom with the assumption that they must build community in order to create a climate of openness and intellectual rigor. Rather than focusing on issues of safety, she believes that the feeling of community creates a sense that there is a shared commitment and a common good that binds students. 

9.  hooks (1994) asserts that exposing certain truths and biases in the classroom often creates chaos and confusion. The idea that the classroom should be a safe, harmonious place is challenged. Consequently, it is hard for individuals to fully grasp the idea that recognizing difference might also require a willingness to see the classroom change, to allow for shifts in relations between students. 

10.  Whipple (1987) writes: “Collaboration in undergraduate education is a pedagogical style that emphasizes cooperative efforts among students, faculty, and administrators. Rooted in the belief that learning is inherently social in nature, it stresses common inquiry as the basic learning process. Although academically and culturally challenging, it benefits participants by making them more active as learners, more interactive as teachers, more balanced as researchers, more effective as leaders, and more humane as individuals” (p. 3). 

11.  “Prior experiences may have created feelings of intimidation, resentment, and hurt; an imposition of silence, or the self-imposed habit of silence, may be ingrained in some of the participants. . . . One starting point in overcoming such barriers is eliciting and honoring the self-expressions of previously silenced partners” (Burbules & Rice, 1993, pp. 18–19). 

12.  In 1995, 73 percent of all faculty members were White (Wilds & Wilson, 1998, p. 15). 

13.  “This generative process of learning is most effective when instructors 1) affirm the presence and validity of diverse learning styles and 2) maximize the climate or conditions for learning in the classroom through the deliberate use of instructional design principles that take account of learning differences and increase the possibilities of success for all students” (Anderson & Adams, 1992, p. 20). 

14.  According to Anderson and Adams (1992), professors engage in excellent teaching if “They assess their own strengths and weaknesses. They tend to be student-centered. They posses a repertoire of alternate teaching strategies. They provide perspectives that reflect a respect for diverse views. They are well prepared and organized. They use techniques that encourage independent and critical thinking. They develop and utilize interpersonal skills that motivate students and facilitate learning” (p. 31). 

15.  hooks (1994)states that “there can be and usually is, some degree of pain involved in giving up old ways of thinking and knowing and learning new approaches. . . . They may recognize non-progressive thinking, racism, and so on, and it may hurt them that new ways of knowing may create estrangement where there was none” (p. 41).
 

REFERENCES 

Adams, M. (1992). Cultural inclusion in the American college classroom. In N. V. N. Chism & L. L. B. Border (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: Teaching for diversity (vol. 49, pp. 5–17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Allen, W. (1988). The education of Black students on White college campuses: What quality the experience? In M. Nettles (Ed.), Toward Black undergraduate student equality in American higher education (pp. 57–86). New York: Greenwood Press. 

Anderson, J., & Adams, M. (1992). Acknowledging the learning styles of diverse student populations: Implications for instructional design. In N. V. N. Chism & L. L. B. Border (Eds.), New directions for teaching and learning: Teaching for diversity (vol. 49, pp. 19–35). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Baker, P. (1998). Students’ perception of classroom factors that impact success for African-American students in higher education settings. Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1998. DAI-A, 59, p. 1434. 

Banks, J. (1991). Multicultural literacy and curriculum reform. Education Horizons Quarterly, 69, 135–140. 

Banks, J., & McGee, C. M. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. New York: Teachers College Press. 

Bell, Y. (1994). A culturally sensitive analysis of Black learning styles: Research and teaching implications. Journal of Black Psychology, 20(1), 47–61. 

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College English, 46, 635–640. 

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Burbules, N., & Rice, S. (1993). Dialogue across difference: Continuing the conversation. In K. Geismar & G. Nicoleau (Eds.), Teaching for change: Addressing issues of difference in the college classroom (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. 

Courts, P. L., & McInerney, K. H. (1993). Assessment in higher education: Politics, pedagogy, and portfolios. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Cross, W. E., Jr., (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American identity.  Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

Darder, A. (1996). Creating the condition for cultural democracy in the classroom. In C. Turner, M. Garcia, A. Nora, & L. I. Rendon (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (pp. 134–149). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster. 

de los Reyes, E., Smith, H., Yazzie, T., Hussein, Y., & Tuitt, F. (2001). A democratic pedagogy for a democratic society: Education for social and political chance. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard Graduate School of Education. 

Dlamini, S. N. (2002). From the other side of the desk: Notes on teaching about race when racialized. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 5(1), 51–66. 

Dorsey, M., & Jackson, A. (1995). Afro-American students’ perception of factors affecting academic performance at a predominantly White school. Western Journal of Black Studies, 19(8), 189–214. 

Ellsworth, E. (1993). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. In K. Geismar & G. Nicoleau (Eds.), Teaching for change: Addressing issues of difference in the college classroom (pp. 43–70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. 

Feagin, J., & Imani, N. (1993). Black in a White world. In J. R. Feagin & M. P. Sikes, Living with racism: The Black middle-class experience. Boston: Beacon Press. 

Frederick, P. (1995). Walking on eggs: Mastering the dreaded diversity discussions. College Teaching, 43(3), 83–92. 

Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seaview. 

Freire, P. (1987). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. 

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Teaching the word and the world. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. 

Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially speaking. New York: Routledge. 

Gándara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (1999). Priming the pump: Strategies for increasing the achievement of underrepresented minority undergraduates. New York: College Board. 

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Gilligan, C., Lyons, N., & Hanmer, T. (1990). Making connections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (Eds.). (1996). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling. In P. Leistyna, A. Woodrum, & S. Sherblom (Eds.), Breaking free: The transformative power of critical pedagogy (pp. 301–332). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. 

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Postmodernism and the discourse of educational criticism. Journal of Education, 170(3), 5–30. 

Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge. 

Giroux, H. A., & Simon, R. (1988). Schooling, popular culture, and the pedagogy of possibility. Journal of Education, 170(1), 9–26. 

Helms, J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Black and White racial identity; Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. 

Henry, A. (1992). African, Canadian women teachers’ activism: Recreating communities of caring and resistance. Journal of Negro Education, 61, 392–404. 

Hill-Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and pedagogy. Boston: Unwin Hyman. 

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. 

Howe, K. G. (1985). Psychological impact of a woman’s studies. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 13, 23–24. 

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. (2000). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. Washington, DC: George Washington University Press. 

Irvine, J., & York, D. (1995). Learning styles and culturally diverse students: A literature review. In C. Banks & J. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 484–497). New York: Macmillian. 

Karenga, M. (1995). Afrocentricity and multicultural education: Concept, challenge, and contribution. In B. P. Bowser, T. Jones, & G. A. Young (Eds.), Toward the multicultural university (pp. 41–61). Westport, CT: Praeger. 

King, W. M. (1995). The triumphs of tribalism: The modern American university as reflection of Eurocentric culture. In B. P. Bowser, T. Jones, & G. A. Young (Eds.), Toward the multicultural university (pp. 41–61). Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Knefelkamp, L. (1997). Effective teaching for the multicultural. Diversity Digest, 2(1), 11–12.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491. 

Lynn, M. (1999). Toward a critical race pedagogy: A research note. Urban Education, 33, 606–626. 

Macedo, D., & Freire, P. (Eds.). (1996). A dialogue: culture, language, and race. In P. Leistnya, A. Woodrum, & S. Sherblom (Eds.), Breaking free: The transformative power of critical pedagogy (pp. 199–228). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. 

Moos, R. H. (1979). Evaluating educational environments: Procedures, measures, findings, and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Murrel, P. C. (2002) African-centered pedagogy: Developing schools of achievement for African American children. Albany: State University of New York Press. 

Nelson, C. (1996). Student diversity requires different approaches to college teaching, even in math and science. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 165–175. 

Obiakor, F. E. (1994). Multiculturalism in the university curriculum: Infusion for what? Paper presented at the Regents Conference on Diversity and Multiculturalism in the University, Manhattan, Kansas. 

Obidah, J. (2000). Mediating boundaries of race, class and professorial authority as a critical multiculturalist. Teachers College Record, 102, 1035–1061. 

Omolade, B. (1987). A Black feminist pedagogy. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 15(3/4), 32–40. 

Palmer, P. J. (1993). Good talk about good teaching: Improving conversation through community. Change, 25(6), 8–13. 

Prince, C. D. W., & Igbineweka, A. O. (1995). The social and political dimensions of achieving a multicultural college curriculum. Paper presented at the 25th Silver Anniversary Celebration of the Pennsylvania Black Conference on Higher Education, Philadelphia. 

Severance, T. N. (1993). Student and faculty perceptions of higher education: The ethos of culturally diverse learning environments (student perceptions). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 

Shade, B. (1984). Afro-American patterns of cognition: A review of research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. 

Shaw, C. C.. (1996). Instructural pluralism: A means to realizing the dream of multicultural, social reconstructionist education. In C. Grant & M. Gomez (Eds.), Making schooling multicultural: Campus and classroom (pp. 55–76). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. 

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Shulman, L. S. (1993). Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude. Change, 25(6), 8–9. 

Sorlorzano, D., & Yosso, T. (1997). Toward a critical race theory of Chicana and Chicano education. In C. Tejada, C. Martinez, Z. Leonardo, & P. McLaren (Eds.), Demarcating the border of Chicana(o)/Latina(o) education (pp. 35–65). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 

Steele, C. (1977). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. 

Steele, C. M. (1999, August). Thin ice: “Stereotype threat” and Black college students. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 44–54. 

Sullivan, A. V. S. (1995). Realizing the vision: Transforming the curriculum through women’s studies. Journal of General Education, 44(1), 45–57. 

Tatum, B. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 1–24. 

Tuitt, F. A. (2000). Towards a more inclusive pedagogy: Rethinking how we teach racially diverse college classrooms. Unpublished qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA. 

Weiler, K. (1993). Freire and a feminist pedagogy of difference. Harvard Educational Review, 61, 449–474. 

Whipple, W. R. (1987). Collaborative learning: Recognizing it when you see it. AAHE Bulletin, 40(2), 3–7. 

Wilds, D., & Wilson, R. (1998). Minorities in higher education, 15th Annual Status Report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. 

Young, I. M. (1996). Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In S. Benhabig (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp.120–136). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Zimmerman, M. H. (1991). Perspectives on the interpersonal relationships of learners in college learning communities. Seattle: Seattle University Press.