University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The transference of continuous intergroup dialogue skills to the classroom by participating faculty: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

The transference of continuous intergroup dialogue skills to the classroom by participating faculty: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 1

THE TRANSFERENCE OF CONTINUOUS INTERGROUP DIALOGUE SKILLS TO THE
CLASSROOM BY PARTICIPATING FACULTY: AN EVALUATION STUDY

by

Sindy Lourdes Fleming

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Sindy Lourdes Fleming

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 2
DEDICATION
I would like to thank and dedicate this to those who are in my life and who have
contributed to my success in completing this dissertation. First and foremost, I am thankful to
God, who has been my foundation. My faith in Him has kept me moving forward and doing
what I can. My amazing husband, Justin who is my rock, my cheerleader, my coach, my
everything. He always supports my wildest ideas, such as pursuing my doctorate. My three
lovely children Adriana, Isabel and Cruz, who are my joy and fill my days with laughter and
memories. My family showed me a lot of patience and understanding as I worked on my
doctorate.
A mi mamá, Enma P. López (mi chula) y mi papá, Cesar H. López (mi viejo) quienes me
trajeron al mundo y a este país. Me enseñaron que con perseverancia y Dios uno puede seguir
sus sueños y que no hay que temer a los obstáculos. To my family and friends who listened to
my complaints, frustrations, and joyful moments, and who encouraged me along the way. To all
those who influenced my life and who have shaped who I am today. Last, but not least, to my
grandma, Mamá Chayo, who did not have the opportunity to see me reach this point in life, but
who guided me in life and taught me many life lessons.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge those who helped me along the way in various ways, so I
could complete my dissertation. I want to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Artineh
Samkian, Dr. Julie Slayton, and Dr. Rosalyn Eaton for their time, commitment, and guidance. I
am grateful for Dr. Samkian’s patience and advice through this process. Rhonda Fitzgerald, who
was instrumental in my research process as she was always available and willing to provide
information on dialogue. USC Cohort 5 some of the most competitive, supportive and amazing
people I have met. Their ongoing support and encouragement were instrumental to my sanity
these past years.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice 9
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Importance of Addressing the Problem 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions 15
Organizational Performance Goal 15
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal 16
Chapter Two: Review of Literature 18
Influence on the Problem of Practice 18
Continuous Intergroup Dialogue Tenets 18
Distinction Between Continuous Intergroup Dialogue and Intergroup Dialogue 19
Utility for Faculty Utilizing Continuous Intergroup Dialogue 19
Difficult Dialogue 20
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences 21
Knowledge and Skills 22
Motivation 28
Organizational Influences 33
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context 39
Revised Conceptual Framework Based on Findings 43
Chapter Three: Research Methods 46
Data Collection and Instrumentation 46
Participating Stakeholders 48
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale 48
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale 48
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 49
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale 50
Interviews 50
Observations 51
Data Analysis 53
Credibility and Trustworthiness 54
Ethics 55
Limitations and Delimitations 56
Chapter Four: Findings 58
Faculty Members’ Disposition 59
Overview of Findings 60
Faculty Utilized Planned Dialogue in the Classroom 61
Faculty Facilitated Unplanned Dialogue in the Classroom 73
Faculty’s Perception of Support Provided by the College and CID 82
Faculty’s Perceptions on the College’s Support for Dialogue Skills in Their Classroom 82
Faculty’s Perceptions on CID’s Support for Incorporating Dialogue Skills in Their
Classrooms 91
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 5
Conclusion 94
Chapter Five: Discussion 96
Implications for Practice 96
Faculty’s Value in Dialogue Skills 97
Faculty Need Time to Implement Dialogue Skills 97
Promote CID as Professional Development for Faculty 98
Need for CID to Provide Faculty with Opportunities to Practice 98
Recommendations for Practice 98
Increase Faculty’s Self-Efficacy 99
Increase Organizational Support for Professional Development 100
Provide High Quality PD and PD Cohort 101
Future Research 103
Conclusion 104
References 107
Appendix: Protocols 113

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 17
Table 2: Three Components of Dialogue 26
Table 3: Knowledge Influence, Types, and Knowledge Assessment for Knowledge
Gap Analysis 38

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A conceptual framework that encompasses two organizations (CID and the college)
in relation to the faculty achieving their stakeholder goal. 43
Figure 2: A modified conceptual framework that encompasses two organizations (CID and
the college) in relation to the faculty achieving their stakeholder goal based on the findings. 45

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 8
ABSTRACT
Racial tensions have been part of the landscape on college campuses since before the
Civil Rights Movement. Not only was racism experienced on college campuses, but spaces were
not created for conversations about these tensions. Dialogue in the classroom is needed,
especially with the increasing diversity of college students. Dialogue skills are essential for
faculty to have since a difficult dialogue can have several outcomes depending on the actions of
the faculty.
The purpose of this project was to examine the factors that contributed to or inhibited
Continuous Intergroup Dialogue’s (CID) ability to achieve its stakeholder goal of having all
faculty who participate in its program use CID skills in their classrooms by 2018. The analysis
focused on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving this goal.
The results revealed a difference between planned and unplanned dialogue in the classroom.
Planned dialogue was incorporated into the curriculum, allowing the faculty to provide
readings/content which proved to aid dialogue as faculty had set norms or ground rules. This
showed that faculty having conceptual knowledge of dialogue provided some guidance when
engaging in it. When facilitating unplanned dialogue, the topic was not known in advance, and,
in some cases, norms were not set prior, which led faculty to have low self-efficacy in facilitating
the dialogue Additionally, findings showed that, overall, participants did perceive being
supported by the college and CID, but they believed both can do better to support
implementation of dialogue in the classroom.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 9
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE
Racial tensions have been part of the landscape on college campuses since before the
Civil Rights Movement. Hurtado (1992) pointed out that, in the 1980s, colleges in the United
States reported a high number of racial/ethnic harassment, such that more than 100 cases were
reported in both 1988 and 1989. The U.S. Department of Education (2017) reported an increase
in hate crimes from 44 in 2005 to 1,300 in 2016. Not only was racism experienced on college
campuses, but spaces were not created for conversations about these tensions. As Harper and
Hurtado (2007) found in their study on race in predominately White institutions (PWIs), race and
racism were unspeakable topics among faculty, staff, and students, mainly to avoid making
others feel uncomfortable. Many colleges faced unrest and reported experiencing racial tensions,
so much so that, as of, December 2015, 80 campuses had presented demands to their leadership
(WeTheProtesters, 2015). The Higher Education Blog by the American Council for Education
analyzed the list of demands and identified seven major categories: revising college policies;
asking for leadership acknowledgement or action on issues of diversity and racism; increasing
resources; increasing faculty, staff, student diversity; providing diversity training for faculty,
staff, and students; changing or creating curriculum to include diverse perspectives and
pedagogy; and increased support services for marginalized student groups (Chessman & Way,
2016). Many institutions were forced to speak about race and racism when, within 9 days of the
2016 presidential election, 11 racial incidents were reported at 11 different institutions (Jaschik,
2016).
Of the many factors that may produce racial tensions on college campuses, Hurtado
(1992) explained that external factors and group relations as well as the institution’s structure
and ideology are among them. Group relationships, or lack thereof, were also identified as a
factor in a qualitative study conducted by Harper and Hurtado (2007) of racial climate at five
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 10
PWIs. The findings from this study highlighted the importance of having the skills to interact
with people outside of one’s race. The students believed they lacked the skills to interact with
those racially different from them and could have been alleviated by having a space where they
were guided in interaction and dialogue (Harper & Hurtado, 2007).
The college classroom is a logical place for such interaction and dialogue. It was
suggested by Sue, Torino, Capodilupo, Rivera, and Lin, (2009) that, instead of faculty feeling
limited, insecure, and lacking the skills needed, organizations need to encourage them to engage
students in dialogue. Dialogue in the classroom is needed, especially with the increasing
diversity of college students (Halm, 2016). Dialogue is important to have in the classroom for
students to be more willing to share openly with their classmates and gain a deeper
understanding of each other. The ability to engage in dialogue is an essential skill to have,
especially since difficult dialogues in the classroom can have several outcomes, depending on the
actions of the faculty (Sue et al., 2011). They can have fruitful dialogue wherein the students,
faculty, and staff involved learn from each other, or they can end in greater disagreement without
understanding the other person’s perspective. Due to the deep-seeded nature and sensitivity of
race/racism, dialogue may need to be sustained over a long period of time for students to
continue unpacking and learning from and about each other’s views and experiences.
To sustain a conducive dialogue over a longer period of time, faculty need to have
training, skills, and tools. Faculty’s fear and barriers to implementing dialogue in the classroom
could be overcome by professional development in conjunction with practice and reflection
(Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010). Opportunities where faculty learn the skills and develop the tools to
lead dialogue in the classroom are thought to help them understand how to create spaces for
students to interact across racial differences. It is important for faculty and staff to develop the
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 11
skills to create a space where students can engage in dialogue and transform differences into
strong relationships wherein they listen deeply enough to be changed by what they learn.
Organizational Context and Mission
A program used at several PWIs in the United States to help provide dialogue tools and
skills to faculty, staff, and students is provided by CID, which is an international organization
that helps people transform conflictual relationships and design change processes around the
world. Born from intense international conflict, the mission of CID is to develop leaders able to
transform differences into the strong relationships essential for effective decision-making,
democratic governance, and peace.
1
The organization is strong in its international efforts to
bring dialogue in difficult times and has continued its work for more than 50 years. While based
out of a large metropolitan city in the United States, its work began with leading dialogue
overseas and administering dialogue programs in three foreign countries. One context in which
CID works is in higher education institutions with faculty and staff. To date, CID has been
integrated into 62 higher education campuses across the nation to establish annual relationships
and provide dialogue skills and tools as well as support. The majority of the institutions that CID
works with are considered PWIs.
The organization is made up of five core staff and seven associates who support with
training, consulting, and logistics. To serve as a support and guide CID, the organization also
has an advisory board and a board of directors. The board of directors is made up of people who
have or had roles in higher education and are practitioners of dialogue in international contexts.
The advisory board is made up of people who have a passion for dialogue. Even though some of

1
Information from the site’s website. The URL is withheld to protect the identity of the
organization.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 12
the advisory board members do not work directly with CID, they are supportive of CID’s growth
throughout higher education.
A national version of CID was initiated by its founder. The founder perceived the
dialogue process as something that people do when they sit down to work on resolving conflicts,
which is why people tend to respond positively. Brought to college campuses in the late 1990s
by students to help address inequalities, CID began as an international process that was adapted
into colleges. It began with numerous students in one institution who wanted to do something
about poor race relations on their campus. The founder began working with the students to adapt
a CID process on their campus.
2
Four years later, the program was launched at another
institution. Though its focus was international, college students at the university that brought
CID into higher education saw its influence and ability to build strong relationships across
students from different backgrounds at their institution and create a healthier community. Thus,
CID’s organizational goal is to help participating faculty develop facilitation and conflict
resolution skills by 2020.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The transference of CID skills to the classroom by participating faculty was important to
address in this study because dialogue affects faculty, their students, and the college. For the
purposes of this study, both CID and St. Mary’s College, a PWI in the United States, served as
the organizations of focus because they partnered to fulfill the goals outlined by CID. In this
case, two organizations were needed for the analysis, as they needed to work together to meet the
goal. St. Mary’s was the case study site, which was the setting in which faculty worked and,
thus, provided the participants in this study. When CID was brought to St. Mary’s, the campus

2
Information from the founder’s book. The citation is withheld to protect the identity of the
organization.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 13
did not formally identify it as a professional development opportunity for faculty or staff;
however, it did see it as an opportunity to engage the faculty, staff, and students in dialogue
about difference to help address and improve campus racial tension. CID aided in facilitating
that process by helping its participants learn about each other’s perspectives, and experiences,
with the goal for people to transform conflictual relationships and design a change process
focused on transforming relationships.
The CID program’s structure was originally formed to serve as a co-curricular program
and not a curricular program. Therefore, the influence it had on the faculty who participated, and
their transference of skills, needed to be evaluated. Since CID was fairly new to St. Mary’s, a
study was beneficial to help identify how participating faculty transferred the skills they learned
into the classroom. In 2013, faculty received a survey with an item asking about understanding
people of other backgrounds such in terms of economics, race/ethnicity, politics, religion,
nationality, and other factors (Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, 2013
3
). The results
showed that 52% of faculty at St. Mary’s College reported they had structured course sections so
that students learn and develop such understanding “very little” or to “some” extent. Only 48%
of faculty reported structuring their courses in this way “quite a bit” and “very much.” These
numbers showed that there was still a need for faculty to structure their classrooms in a way that
allowed for dialogue about difference. This provided an opportunity for faculty to explore areas
of growth. It provided an opportunity for faculty who believed a barrier to dialogue was lack of
facilitation skills or lack of knowledge to address divisive topics in their classrooms (Diaz &
Gilchrist, 2010). The skills needed to engage in dialogue in and out of the classroom can help

3
Information from the college’s website. The citation is withheld to protect the identity of the
organization.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 14
during times of tension by providing a space for students and faculty to listen deeply to one
another and navigate contentious classroom discussions.
According to Sue et al. (2009), if classrooms do not provide spaces for constructive
dialogue to occur and for students and faculty to understand each other, microaggressions can
increase. Microaggressions are often caused by White students and faculty who might mean well
but are not aware of the impact of their comments or actions. The benefits of addressing the
problem are countless. Those who have been a part of the dialogue process can use the skills to
transform conflict and, therefore, could generate new solutions to disagreements (Diaz &
Gilchrist, 2010). In addition, research suggests that a benefit for students is that interacting in this
type of active learning with other students increases retention and engagement (Kuh, 2001).
It was important to evaluate organizational performance toward the goal of faculty
transference of CID skills into their classrooms because such a study would enable an
examination of the factors that either supported or impeded faculty developing dialogue skills so
as to be able to implement them in their classrooms. Organizations invest a great amount on
training, yet many of those skills and capabilities reportedly fail to transfer into the workplace
(Grossman & Salas, 2011). It was important to conduct this study so CID would know the extent
to which their training and program has helped faculty with dialogue in their classrooms,
especially with facilitation and conflict resolution skills. As well, it was important for St. Mary’s
to know if the organization had a part to play in whether the CID training, in which resources
were invested, was successful.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 15
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine the factors that contributed to or inhibited
CID’s ability to achieve its stakeholder goal that, by 2018, 100% of faculty who have
participated in the program will have utilized CID skills in the classroom. The analysis focused
on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to achieving the stakeholder
goal. While a complete evaluation project would focus on all CID stakeholders, for practical
purposes, the stakeholder of focus in this analysis were faculty. Faculty were in a position to
make decisions by being part of the faculty governance body, voting on college matters, and
evaluating and creating curriculum. The faculty members’ position provided them with more
freedom to implement what they saw fit into their course curriculum and instruction. Therefore,
faculty were best positioned to implement CID skills in their classrooms. As such, the questions
that guided this study were the following:
1. How did faculty at St. Mary’s College who have participated in CID use dialogue in their
classrooms?
2. What were faculty members’ perceptions of how CID and St. Mary’s support or did not
support them in incorporating dialogue skills in their classrooms?
3. What were the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources?
Organizational Performance Goal
CID’s organizational goal is that, by 2020, its trainings will help participants develop
facilitation and conflict resolution skills throughout the organization. The organizational goal
stems from its mission, which states that CID will develop leaders able to transform differences
into strong relationships essential to effective decision-making, democratic governance, and
peace. The organizational goal was established by CID staff as an expectation that college
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 16
campuses should have when using CID. While CID is a national and international organization,
I addressed the transference of CID skills to the classroom by participating faculty at St. Mary’s,
a private liberal arts college and a PWI.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
A complete analysis of transference of skills learned in the training would have involved
all stakeholder groups (faculty and student affairs staff), but, for practical purposes and given the
scope of this study, the focus was on the faculty group. The reason for selecting faculty was that,
as Diaz and Gilchrist (2010) have noted, dialogue helps create spaces where people feel they can
be open to new perspectives and be self-reflective. Faculty make decisions regarding the
curriculum and their instruction and can thus implement dialogue in their classrooms. The
process of determining the stakeholder goal was to identify what CID wanted participating
faculty to walk away with in terms of experience and skills.
It is important for faculty to achieve the stakeholder goal to demonstrate that they are
able to utilize CID skills in their classrooms to increase the chances that dialogue will be
incorporated in the class. If the goal were not achieved, it would show that CID is not meeting
its goal of helping participants develop facilitation and conflict resolution skills. These two
skills are fundamental for dialogue, as they help create understanding during difficult dialogue,
whether planned or unplanned. To achieve the organizational performance goal, stakeholder
goals were identified in relation to the skills and tools that CID provided as professional
development for faculty to apply daily in the classroom. Table 1 shows the organizational
mission, organizational global goal and the stakeholder goal.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 17
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Continuous Intergroup Dialogue will develop leaders able to transform differences into the strong
relationships essential to effective decision-making, democratic governance, and peace.
Organizational Performance Goal
By 2020, Continuous Intergroup Dialogue will help participants develop facilitation and conflict
resolution skills.
Faculty Goal
By 2018, 100% of faculty who have participated in the program will utilize Continuous
Intergroup Dialogue skills in the classroom.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 18
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This section outlines the utilization of CID skills (facilitation and conflict resolution
skills) by faculty in their classroom. The review of literature provided context on CID. Next, it
reviews the following: CID influences that shape faculty’s use of CID in the classroom,
influences that facilitate CID integration into the classroom, and benefits outside the classroom
for both faculty and students. Then, I review the role of faculty followed by a review of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on faculty use of dialogue, which,
together, encompass the lens used in this study. Next, I conclude this section by presenting the
conceptual framework.
Influence on the Problem of Practice
Continuous Intergroup Dialogue Tenets
Continuous Intergroup Dialogue builds strong relationships through its tenets that bring
stakeholders together to embark on a five-stage process to achieve an action plan. The CID
Institute defines dialogue as listening deeply and being changed by what is heard from the
dialogue. The five-stage process focuses on deciding whom to engage in dialogue, what is
occurring, why it is occurring, how the issue or concern can be addressed, and what action can be
taken to make a change. This process differs from other change making processes through its
focus on understanding the nature of community relationships, which are often the root of the
problem. Individuals carry culture and stories that ultimately shape behavior or institutional
culture, and CID reaches beyond formal institutions to include relationship building and
understanding. According to its website, the method used by CID to change society is to focus
on the five elements of relationship: identity, interests, power, perceptions, and patterns. These
five elements are woven throughout CID’s training and five-stage process, as the concept of
relationship is the focus of continuous interactions that help characterize it (Nemeroff & Tukey,
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 19
2001). These five elements of relationship are key, as they are a point of entry to conflictual
relationships and can lead to understanding (Nemeroff & Tukey, 2001).
Distinction Between Continuous Intergroup Dialogue and Intergroup Dialogue
One of several similar change process programs, CID mainly functions as a co-curricular
program, unlike the intergroup dialogue program (IGD), which is a curricular program. As a co-
curricular program, CID is not connected formally to curriculum, and it often means
participation is voluntary. In intergroup dialogue, the participants are preassigned a different
topic each week to discuss, whereas, in CID, the participants continue the dialogue topic from
the end of the previous session; IGD is content-based, so it follows a syllabus (Parker, 2006).
Unlike CID, IGD was created by the University of Michigan for higher education institutions.
While both CID and IGD focus on dialogue and address intergroup relations, IGD lacks the
sustained and continuous dialogue piece, as it covers 10 pre-identified topics, one per week,
instead of allowing participants to identify the topics as they dialogue at their own pace.
Utility for Faculty Utilizing Continuous Intergroup Dialogue
Diaz and Gilchrist’s (2010) theoretical work included an overview of the educational
approaches and practices of dialogue at higher education institutions in the United States. The
authors identified that a tenet of the dialogue process is that it allows the participants to come
together and reflect on personal and culturally influenced assumptions, judgments, and thought
processes for improving race relations on college campuses (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010). Therefore,
dialogic interactions can drive disputes aside and allow shared understandings to emerge. By
using CID skills in the classroom and having their students participate in the process, faculty can
help create an inclusive environment by teaching listening to diverse perspectives and life
experiences, examining personal preferences, biases and assumptions, and helping to create a
shared and more multifaceted understanding of an issue. Diaz and Gilchrist (2010) theorized
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 20
that faculty can use dialogue as a resource to gain facilitation skills and argued that dialogue is
helpful in connecting curriculum to lived experiences. The participants of dialogue (or students)
need to feel welcome and part of the dialogue. One way to accomplish that is to give up the
control to the group/class as mentioned in a handbook written by Nemeroff and Tukey (2001)
that focuses on improving race relations on college campuses by using dialogue. For faculty,
losing control of their class can be frightening. What can be reassuring for faculty is that, as
Bohm (1996) states, dialogue has no rules and everyone who participates in it has something to
gain, even through committing mistakes.
Difficult Dialogue
As colleges and universities experience an increase in students with diverse backgrounds,
the need to dialogue about difference in the classroom will increase as well. A qualitative study
conducted by Sue et al. (2009) was based on eight White faculty at a private university, of whom
two were male and six were female. The focus of the study was to learn the characteristics of
racial dialogues that make it difficult for White faculty to engage in dialogue. They also asked
about the reactions experienced by faculty during these dialogues, how these affected the
interaction and about strategies proven to be successful and unsuccessful in facilitating difficult
dialogues on race. In a study, Sue et al., (2009) write about the skills faculty gain and their
motivation to implement difficult dialogue in the classroom to help address divisive topics. Sue
et al. (2009) also point out that, for faculty to engage in difficult dialogue, they must create a safe
space for dialogue, engage in dialogue and not ignore it, and acknowledge one’s fears, emotions,
and feelings. They also found that students determine a successful or failed dialogue on race
based on the faculty’s knowledge and skills in the matter.
Conversations about divisive topics will not decrease; on the contrary, they will increase
because, as Rankin and Reason (2005) noted, the population of students going to college
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 21
continues to diversify. Rankin and Reason conducted a study using a campus climate assessment
instrument that surveyed 7,347 students, staff, and faculty members from 10 campuses. The
focus of their study was to explore whether students from different racial groups experienced
their campus climates differently. In gathering data, Rankin and Reason used focus groups,
individual interviews, and document analyses, and sampling varied by institution. Their findings
revealed that students of color experienced harassment at higher rates than Caucasian students
and perceived the climate as more racist and less accepting than did White students, even though
White students recognized racial harassment at similar rates as students of color (Rankin &
Reason, 2005). They also added that, with the increasing number of students from diverse
backgrounds, positive cross-racial interactions can improve educational experiences for all the
students at the institution. Due to the increased diversity of the student population, college
campuses will face a higher challenge to create relationships between students who are from a
different background than their own (Rankin & Reason, 2005).
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
The stakeholder’s knowledge and motivation influences will be discussed as they relate
to the process of transferring the CID skills (facilitation and conflict resolution skills) into the
classroom. The following knowledge aspects that have an influence on faculty’s transference of
CID skills will be discussed: faculty need knowledge of dialogue skills, faculty need to know
how to construct and ask strong questions (as it is a part of facilitation), and faculty need to self-
evaluate their facilitation process. The stakeholder’s motivation will also be analyzed to help
identify factors that may affect faculty’s ability or desire to transfer the skills learned in CID to
their classroom. Motivation is key to someone wanting to learn and apply a concept, strategy,
and/or idea. Just as faculty need motivation to learn and utilize dialogue skills, they also need
mental effort in accomplishing their goal.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 22
Knowledge and Skills
Both theoretical works and empirical studies show that faculty hesitate to implement
dialogue in the classroom due to obstacles and the concern about loss of control (Diaz &
Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al., 2009). To analyze the knowledge influences that can affect the
achievement of the stakeholder goal, one may conduct a gap analysis. A gap analysis is the
study of the gap between the actual and desired goals of a person or organization to achieve the
stakeholder’s designated goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is important to examine knowledge and
skills in problem solving, as it is essential to know what people and organizations know and can
do (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Analyzing faculty knowledge and skills related to
transferring the CID skills into the classroom is beneficial if we wish to see successful dialogue,
particularly about sensitive topics in higher education classrooms (Sue et al., 2009). Being
aware of the faculty’s ability to transfer these skills is important for their professional
development.
Knowledge influences. To analyze the knowledge influences on faculty utilizing CID
skills in the classroom, relevant literature relating to the topic will be examined in this section.
There are four types of knowledge that can be seen as factors that influence faculty’s utilization
of dialogue skills in the classroom. Krathwohl (2002) presented a revised version of Bloom’s
taxonomy that incorporates four types of knowledge. The four types of knowledge are factual
(facts), conceptual (knowledge of categories, structures, and theories), procedural (knowledge of
knowing how to do something), and metacognitive (awareness and knowledge of one’s own
cognition; Krathwohl, 2002). While all four types of knowledge are important when analyzing
faculty’s utilization of dialogue skills in the classroom, only three will be explored in this study
because they are applicable to this study.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 23
The following knowledge types were relevant for this study. The first is conceptual
knowledge because faculty need knowledge of good dialogue components, which are generative
questions, encouraging personal and emotion sharing, the importance of self-awareness, and
setting norms. The second is procedural knowledge because faculty need to know how to
construct and ask strong questions. The third is metacognitive knowledge, as faculty need to self-
evaluate their facilitation process. These three knowledge types were used to analyze the
knowledge and skills that faculty need or have in order to utilize CID skills in classroom
dialogue. The inclusion of each in this study is supported by research reviewed below.
Faculty need knowledge of good dialogue components. The process taught by CID is
one where the moderator needs a set of skills to dialogue with a group of people. A theoretical
source by Maxwell, Nagda, and Thompson (2012) focuses on IGD and recognizes four dialogue
programs that are applicable to colleges, universities and communities. According to Maxwell et
al. (2012) moderators learn the importance of self-awareness of their personal identity,
encourage personal sharing, and learn how to ask generative questions. Self-awareness of the
faculty member’s or student’s personal identity is brought forth by participating in an activity
where they are asked for three words that describe their identity (Maxwell et al., 2012). A multi-
university mixed-methods study by Nagda, Gurin, Sorensen, and Zúñiga (2009) explored the
following questions: What are the primary effects of intergroup dialogue on the three major
categories of outcomes? Do both race/ethnicity and gender dialogues show these effects? Do the
effects of intergroup dialogue exceed those of content learning about race/ethnicity and gender?
(p. 3) While this study pertained to students, it is relevant to this study because it provides insight
about the reflection process. Their findings identified that participating students, in comparison
to students in the control groups, demonstrated a greater increase in awareness and understanding
of both racial and gender inequalities and their structural causes. Dialogue increased the
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 24
students’ positive intergroup relationships, and students showed a greater motivation to bridge
differences and a greater increase in empathy, among other outcomes. The self-awareness
process is instrumental for a faculty as facilitators to reflect on their own reactions during a
difficult dialogue (Nagda et al., 2009). According to Sue and Constantine (2007), specifically,
educators facilitating dialogue need to have self-awareness on understanding that they are racial-
cultural people, understanding worldview of other cultural groups, and developing classroom
facilitation skills as needed.
Sue and Constantine (2007) point out that, as a leader of dialogue, the moderator needs to
have the following facilitation skills: ability to share personal stories and emotions in order to
encourage an environment of trust, ability to identify common themes during the dialogue, and
ability to connect participants with one another’s contributions. In sharing personal experiences
and feelings, the discussion moves from an impersonal academic discussion to authentic
dialogue, which can act as a catalyst for relationship building and learning (Maxwell et al.,
2012). Through sharing feelings and emotions, the dialogue process addresses how and why one
reacts to strong emotions, which leads to greater understanding and collective meaning making
(Maxwell et al., 2012).
Faculty being open about their biases and limitations at the beginning of a dialogue
showed students that they, too, were vulnerable, which was seen positively (Sue, 2013; Sue et
al., 2011). Sue et al. (2011) conducted a qualitative study focused on eight faculty of color in
PWIs and their experience and facilitation of difficult dialogues on race in the classroom. Three
major areas emerged from their findings. First, difficult dialogue in the classroom began because
of microaggressions by students and/or faculty. Race dialogues were made more difficult with a
more diverse class because emotions rose, and there was a fear of self-disclosure, especially
when in disagreement. The second finding was that faculty struggled with managing their
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 25
personal beliefs and views with being objective during the dialogue. Third, faculty shared
successful and unsuccessful dialogue facilitation strategies. Sue’s (2013) theoretical work
addressed four studies that discuss Race Talk in detail and the psychology foundation of race
dialogues in the academia.
In addition to sharing personal stories and emotions, creation and use of generative
questions is a critical component of dialogue. An ethnographic study conducted by Parker
(2013) focused on issues-based discussion and activities in an elementary school in Canada. The
study’s participants were students whose family came from East Asia and South Asia. In
Parker’s study (2013) students were asked and encouraged by the teacher to share their personal
experiences. As a result of the openness of the dialogue, students expressed they felt free to
engage in a discussion about conflictual and sensitive issues.
Generative questions are open-ended, may be also labeled as objective, reflective,
interpretive, decisional (ORID) and are used to draw on personal experiences. Spee (2005)
refers to using ORID questions that stem from Kolb’s models of learning when leading
conversations about a specific occurrence. Spee (2005) provides the following overview of what
ORID questions are when used in a dialogue. An objective question focuses on gathering the
person’s recollection of what happened by providing facts. A reflective question focuses on a
person reflecting on his/her feelings and thoughts of an occurrence. An interpretive question is
asking how a particular incident impacted that person. Decisional questions are used in the later
stages, where the students are asked, what they could do. A class dialogue example of an
interpretive question is when a teacher in Parker’s (2013) study asked the students, during a
dialogue, how this affected them. This question led students to share their personal experiences
regarding the topic. In addition to reflecting on their experiences, students were able to reflect
on their feelings and thoughts about the situation. Being knowledgeable about forming
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 26
generative questions, personal sharing (emotions), and importance of self-awareness are essential
components when engaging in dialogue, as dialogue is known to be a means to mutual respect
and understanding among opposing views (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al., 2009). During the
dialogue process, faculty can practice asking reflective questions which are essential to building
trust and reflective practices (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Maxwell et al., 2012). Table 2 shows three
components of dialogue, that were discussed in this section.
Table 2
Three Components of Dialogue
Importance of self-awareness of one’s personal identity
Encourage personal sharing
Ask generative questions

Faculty need to know how to construct and ask strong questions. Once faculty have the
knowledge of good dialogue components, they need to know how to enact one of key
components of dialogue-constructing: strong questions while listening actively.
4
Having the
procedural knowledge of constructing good questions will help them better navigate dialogue in
the classroom, which, in return, will create a safe space (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al.,
2009). Strong open-ended questions focus on participants’ experiences and identity. One of
CID’s stages of dialogue is focused on asking questions that are conducive to story-telling and
building trust in the group (Maxwell et al., 2012). The following are some examples of strong
questions for dialogue and reflection suggested by Diaz and Gilchrist’s (2010) theoretical work:
How did you come to think this way? What are the social norms of my community and others’
community? What knowledge and experiences have you been exposed to? The skills to form
these transformative and reflective questions help build a sense of trust among students, faculty

4
Information from the site’s website. The URL is withheld to protect the identity of the
organization.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 27
and staff (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Halm, 2016). The sense of trust then helps with creating a
safe space conducive to dialogue.
Spee (2005) used ORID questions to help his students talk about their personal
experiences regarding 9/11 and the aftermath. A question he posed to the students was, related
to how they found themselves reacting to the reading. This led to students sharing their anger,
frustration, and disbelief. This question was conducive to sharing because it allowed the students
to draw from their own experiences and feelings. While some students may have had similar
reactions, they were unique. This provided a space for all to share and acknowledge that
everyone was impacted by the event. Having these skills to apply in the classroom is vital for
transforming difficult classroom dialogues into opportunities and to create better understanding
of one another (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al., 2009).
Faculty need to self-evaluate their facilitation process. The ability to self-evaluate one’s
dialogue facilitation process is a key component of one’s metacognition. The awareness of and
knowledge of one’s cognition is called metacognitive knowledge (Baker, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
The metacognitive knowledge is put to practice during the dialogue training. As one is
practicing moderating a group dialogue, one needs to be aware of one’s words, word choice,
structure, and non-verbal language. Baker (2006) points out that metacognition is an important
factor in information transfer because it aids one to readily apply the learned knowledge. Thus,
pertinent to this study, students can apply what they have learned because they have higher self-
awareness and can monitor and apply their resources where needed. Baker also mentions that
metacognition allows one to evaluate a situation and change tactics, if needed, in that specific
moment. By being metacognitive, faculty members would be able to self-evaluate their
facilitation process and make changes as needed.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 28
In the facilitation dialogue process, faculty first gain knowledge of good dialogue
components, then learn to create strong open-ended questions to focus on one’s identity, and
lastly, learn to self-evaluate their facilitation process. This process is essential, as CID is based
on the five elements of relationship: identity, interests, power, perceptions, and patterns. It is
important to be aware of one’s cognition during the dialogue process to decide what to do or say
next. For faculty, this is a crucial process to help increase or maintain a positive learning
classroom environment.
Motivation
This section identifies motivational factors that may influence faculty’s ability to transfer
the skills learned in CID to their classroom. Motivation is key in faculty’s desire to learn and use
dialogue skills, since motivation is a goal directed behavior or activity (Mayer, 2011; Rueda,
2011). Clark and Estes (2008) point out that there are three motivational indexes that impact
one’s motivational level: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. They identify active
choice as someone’s intention to pursue a goal, persistence as following through with the goal
despite distractions and challenges, and mental effort as putting forth effort and engaging
mentally with the goal. The motivational indexes in combination with faculty’s utility value and
self-efficacious feelings will help provide an understanding of the faculty’s ability to transfer
dialogue skills into the classroom. Expectancy value theory (utility value) and self-efficacy
theory were used to explore the motivational influences in faculty seeing a need to apply CID
skills and believing they are capable to do so effectively.
Expectancy value theory. There are two fundamental expectancy value theory
questions one must ask that can predict positive performance: Can I do the task? And do I want
to do the task? (Eccles, 2006). Expectancy is the expectations one has about succeeding and the
importance, or value, one puts on succeeding with the task. Utility value is one of four
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 29
constructs of expectancy value theory (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Utility value is the
importance one ascribes to a task based on possible future use (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles,
2006; Rueda, 2011). Eccles (2006) and Rueda (2011) call attention to three other constructs:
intrinsic interest, attainment value, and cost. They also define intrinsic value as one’s enjoyment
for doing a task, attainment as the importance of doing a task that represents who you are and
your values, and cost value as what it will cost to engage in the activity or task in terms of time,
money, and so on.
Faculty need utility value in applying dialogue skills. Research showed that it is
essential that faculty find utility value in transferring dialogue skills from the session or training
into their classrooms to help provide a space for all to dialogue about difficult issues (Meijer,
2013; Sue et al., 2009). Faculty tend to want to focus on teaching their content and are hesitant
to acknowledge discomfort in the classroom conversation either due to race or other difficult
topics (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al., 2009). Research shows that dialogue tools are
valuable to have in and out of the classroom (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Diaz & Perrault, 2010). A
qualitative study conducted by Diaz and Perrault (2010) of 24 individuals who had graduated
from college in the previous 3 to 4 years asked the following research question: How do recent
college graduates understand the influence of their college dialogue experience on their post-
graduate civic life? In the study, Diaz and Perrault (2010) identified that dialogue tools and
practices extended past the participants’ intended use and length of time, such as employment,
and the perceived change could penetrate the person as a whole, who he/she was and his/her
behavior.
Inside the classroom, faculty can use the dialogue skills to create a safe space where
students can share their perspectives, and feel they can engage in challenging dialogues, while
learning from each other (Delano-Oriaran & Parks, 2015; Diaz & Perrault, 2010). As Kiselica
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 30
(1999) highlighted, even though difficult dialogues can be challenging, they can also create
exciting learning opportunities for all involved, if facilitated adequately. In his book, Kiselica
(1999) reviewed various multicultural training program factors to assess how trainees accept,
process, and resist the multicultural foundation and practices. Practicing dialogue in the
classroom allows for emotions to be acknowledged, allows students to passively manage
dialogue, continues the dialogue to the next class session, and increases awareness of
microaggressions (Sue et al., 2009). Having the dialogue skills positions faculty to positively
answer the two expectancy value theory questions: Can I lead a dialogue in the classroom? And
do I want to lead a dialogue in the classroom?
Quaye (2012) conducted a study wherein 22 participants were purposefully and who
presented similar topics to Quaye’s study at the National Conference on Race and Ethnicity in
American Higher Education. From the list of potential participants, he selected those who taught
courses and worked with students in a co-curricular setting. In the study, faculty did not see
themselves as faculty, but, instead, as facilitators. Faculty provided the space for learning to be a
two-way process where teacher and students learned and taught during the process of engaging
and exchanging experiences and knowledge. The findings also highlighted how faculty found it
useful to focus on the students’ comfort level in class and to be aware of their influence, power,
and role during dialogue. Some faculty of color reported that increased awareness of biases,
empathy, the role of power and privilege were positive outcomes of having a successful dialogue
on race (Sue et al., 2011). The literature highlighted that having dialogue in the classroom helps
create better understanding of one another, and it helps transform difficult dialogues to learning
opportunities (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al., 2009).
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy theory is made up of two types of efficacy, self-
efficacy and collective efficacy. According to Rueda (2011) and Pajares (2006), self-efficacy is
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 31
the belief in one’s capabilities to accomplish something. Collective efficacy is communal and
focused on group feelings of efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). Efficacy is shaped by
culture because of how it is used, believed, and experienced (Bandura, 2000; Rueda, 2011).
Self-efficacy is formed by one’s experiences and how one interprets information. Some of the
factors that have an influence on self-efficacy are enactive attainment, vicarious experience,
verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Pajares, 2006). Interpretation of one’s situation can
impact one’s self-efficacy, either positively or negatively (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011). I
focused only on self-efficacy for the purpose of this study on faculty.
Faculty need self-efficacy in applying the dialogue skills effectively. Faculty’s interest
in CID often begins by hearing stories from other faculty who have participated. This leads them
to create a perceived efficacy that they can learn and apply what they have learned (Pajares,
2006). In this instance, faculty learn and apply the CID skills just as their colleagues because
they want to be capable of leading difficult dialogue in their classrooms. Once they have learned
more about what CID is, they fear that applying dialogue in their classroom will increase
uncertainty and that they may lose control of the class and dialogue (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Sue
et al., 2009), which can decrease their self-efficacy in applying dialogue in the class.
This sentiment and fear is shared in a qualitative study focusing on the perceptions and
reactions of White faculty about classroom dialogues on race (Sue et al., 2009). While all eight
participants showed a high interest in facilitating difficult dialogue, they were deterred by the
following as they did not believe they would be able to facilitate a difficult dialogue:
characteristics of a difficult dialogue (emotionally charged and loss of class control); reactions
(emotions, anger, and anxiety); training experience (lack of informal training and continuing
education); influence of professor’s race (White faculty’s experience, lack of experience with
racism, lack of identity with students of color); facilitation strategies (ineffective strategies,
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 32
ignore difficult dialogue, allow students to passively manage the dialogue); and failure to
recognize difficult dialogues (no experience with difficult dialogue or not competent in
recognizing microaggressions). Interviews with faculty revealed that they believed they did not
have experience with difficult dialogues, were not competent in recognizing racial
microaggressions, believed they lack experience with racism, and believed they lacked training
or education (Sue et al., 2009). The experienced (tenured) White professors’ lack of confidence
and high anxiety in leading race dialogues in the class affected their confidence and,
consequently, their ability to effectively facilitate difficult dialogues (Sue et al., 2009). This can
be a result of their prior experiences (Pajares, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
In order for people to believe they can apply a new skill effectively, they need to believe
in their abilities to do so (Pajares, 2006). For example, faculty need to believe they can apply
dialogue skills in order to be able to use them in practice. Faculty can learn to be efficacious by
going through the training process where they lead mock dialogue sessions (Maxwell et al.,
2012). According to Grossman and Salas (2011), authentic training is helpful to maximize
metacognition, in that the trained skills are most likely to transfer and to be used. Verbal
messages are given during the training that can increase their efficacy leading the dialogue
(Pajares, 2006). The feedback from the mock experience coupled with training gives faculty a
sense of high efficacy, which will create a sense of calm when working through difficult
situations or dialogue. Navigating through difficult dialogues and effectively applying skills in
the classroom creates an opportunity for learning, transformation, and reflection (Diaz &
Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al., 2009). This builds on faculty’s self-efficacy. According to Bandura
(2000), perceived self-efficacy is a key factor that affects one’s behavior. Faculty’s self-efficacy
is theorized to increase with the ability to apply the skills, which will then affect their thinking
process and actions, to their benefit (Bandura, 2000). By having a high level of confidence,
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 33
faculty can feel self-efficacious and comfortable leading the difficult dialogue in the classroom
which would motivate them to work with discomfort and, consequently, increase student
engagement in the classroom.
Expectancy value theory and self-efficacy were used to help identify and explore the
motivational factors that influence faculty transferring dialogue skills into the classroom. As
Eccles (2006) points out, two questions that can predict positive performance are “Can I do the
task?” And “Do I want to do the task?” Faculty need to feel that they can apply the skills and
that they also want to. Faculty need to see the utility in dialogue skills. The dialogue skills are
helpful in creating a safe space and engage students in difficult dialogues (Delano-Oriaran &
Parks, 2015; Diaz & Perrault, 2010). In addition to faculty seeing the value in transferring the
dialogue skills, they also need to be efficacious in doing so. Faculty’s self-efficacy can increase
or be initiated by being part of authentic training where they engage in the dialogue process
while receiving timely feedback. This would help faculty feel comfortable leading difficult
dialogues.
Organizational Influences
An organization’s culture consists of people’s beliefs, values, goals, emotions and the
process they have developed over time (Clark & Estes, 2008). Understanding organizational
culture is important because it shapes how we work with each other consciously and
subconsciously (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture exists in every organization, and it can be
analyzed through the cultural settings and cultural models that have been established in the
organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models are the shared mental schema or
shared assumptions and one’s interactions within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Schein, 2010). Cultural settings refer to the act of people coming together to complete a
task that are manifestations of cultural models (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). According to
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 34
Clark and Estes (2008), there are three common approaches to cultural organizations: culture in
the environment, culture in groups, and culture in individuals. They also provide ways to
address changes with the latter. Cultural environment can be changed through a change in the
organization culture, which then will help change performance. Changing culture in the
environment can help the organization change performance. To help address culture in groups
such as subgroups within an organization, Clark and Estes (2008) suggested changing the beliefs
and knowledge of the groups of people in the organization. To impact the culture in individuals,
the organization needs to change its work environment, knowledge and skills and its
motivational approach. Organizational barriers tend to be at the core of an organizational
problem (Clark & Estes, 2008). The top three categories of barriers are inadequate facilities,
missing tools, and faulty processes or procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Understanding the culture within an organization is essential because it may reflect
internal and external organizational functions. Understanding the underlying assumptions helps
one better interpret the artifacts of the organization properly (Schein, 2010). Artifacts are an
organization’s structures and process that one sees and feels as well as employees’ behavior
(Schein, 2010). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) found cultural models and settings help
identify factors that influence the stakeholders’ ability to meet their goal.
For this study, the provision of high quality professional development and a work
environment conducive to open dialogue in the classrooms served as the foci of the
organizational influences. While the provision of high quality professional development is
related to the work of CID, it is the college that needed to create a work environment for faculty
to use open dialogue in their classrooms, albeit with the support and experience of CID.
The need for authentic training. Though the CID was equipping faculty with the tools
and skills needed to have difficult dialogues, CID and the college need to assess whether there is
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 35
hesitation by faculty to use open dialogue in their classrooms. A possible explanation provided
by Diaz and Gilchrist (2010) and Sue et al. (2009) is that the lack of tools and training may lead
faculty to fear the loss of class control and to be unclear about student outcomes. For faculty to
maximize their belief in using CID in their classroom, their training needed to be authentic, as
argued by Grossman and Salas (2011). Authentic training is helpful to maximize metacognition
in that the trained skills are most likely to transfer and to be used. One way to ensure a training is
authentic is to have the training be at the location where the faculty work (Grossman & Salas,
2011). Additionally, authentic training or effective professional development engages the adult
learner with supportive activities, connects to their job, is focused on instruction, is collaborative,
and is continuous (Desimone, 2009; Hunzicker, 2011).
The college needs to provide a working environment that makes it conducive for
faculty to use dialogue in their classrooms. Senge (1990) suggests that learning organizations
begin with what he calls creative tension, which is the gap between the reality of where the
organization is and where the organization wants to be, its vision. One way to continue moving
forward to agreement and helping an organization grow during a creative tension period is to
meet in the middle by raising the current reality or lowering the vision to the current reality
(Senge, 1990). During that process, one can focus on developing the organization’s cultural
environment by changing the beliefs and knowledge of the groups of people within the
organization as Clark and Estes (2008) suggest. For example, this can be done by having the full
support and buy in of respected faculty (Burdick, Doherty, & Schoenfeld, 2015).
In preparation for evaluating an institutions’ faculty symposium, a review of literature
highlighted that, overall, institutions are being pressed to focus on research for prestige, but
current conditions are such that institutions focus on teaching and service (Pifer et al., 2014).
Faculty are expected to be involved in committees, conduct research and teach, committing the
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 36
majority of their time and limiting the time they can participate in semester-long professional
development programs (Burdick et al., 2015). This showed that people who are highly
motivated and well equipped with knowledge and skills may be prevented from achieving the
performance goals if they do not have the proper processes in place and materials needed (Clark
& Estes, 2008). In this case, faculty may be interested in participating in professional
development (PD) but may lack the time and process due to their curricular engagements and the
organization’s cultural models. As found by Burdick et al. (2015) from a quantitative analysis,
the two highest rated items in a 5-point Likert scale survey that consisted of a list of reasons the
participants attended the PD program was that their involvement in the PD would help them
grow as a teacher and that their participation fit easily into their schedule. A strong message is
that faculty highly value their personal relationships, which needs to be understood when
implementing programs (Burdick et al., 2015). Clark and Estes (2008) point out that
organizational culture affects any changes and organizational culture also needs to be considered
when implementing changes.
Continuous Intergroup Dialogue needs to provide high quality PD. To support
faculty and help them to ultimately transfer CID skills in their classrooms, it is important that the
PD provided to teachers is of high quality. Kennedy (2016) conducted an extensive review of
literature that focused on k-12 core subjects and contained experimental evidence. Kennedy’s
(2016) review of literature showed that PD tends to take place outside of the educators’
classrooms, instead of inside their classroom, and educators are expected to alter their teaching
behavior and techniques based on what they heard (Kennedy, 2016). This may create an issue
with the specific PD program’s goal, since PD tends to present a different way of doing
something rather than presenting something new (Kennedy, 2016). Kennedy (2016) pointed out
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 37
that educators have already formed a habit of how to respond in class, and the importance of PD
is not only to focus on adaptation, but also on how to let go of previous behavior.
Literature shows the importance of core characteristics of effective PD (Desimone, 2009;
Kennedy, 2016). The following are characteristics of effective PD, as advanced by Desimone’s
(2009) extensive review of literature: content focus, active learning, coherence, collective
participation and duration. The ideal learning conditions and methods for adult learners are that
their assertions need to be validated (Mezirow, 1991). Literature mentioned the most frequent
requirement for PD was a focus on content knowledge, though Kennedy’s (2016) findings
showed that content knowledge was a requirement, but it was embedded in a broader goal.
Another effective PD characteristic is active learning, in which educators have the
opportunity to observe and listen, then apply and receive feedback on the new concept(s) being
learned (Desimone, 2009; Trivette, Dunst, Hamby, & O’Herin, 2009). An effective practice of
active learning is when the educators used, processed, and evaluated their knowledge and skills
(Trivette et al., 2009; Webster-Wright, 2009). Coherence relates to the question of whether
teacher learning is related to teacher knowledge and beliefs (Desimone, 2009). It is important to
make connections between teachers’ existing knowledge and the importance of the PD
(Desimone, 2009; Kennedy, 2016).
Collective participation is another critical feature of high quality PD. One approach to
collective participation is professional learning communities (PLCs; Kennedy, 2016). PLCs can
vary because of the method in which they are applied. PLCs, or collective participation, are
encouraged because groups of educators come together, interact, and engage in discourse
(Desimone, 2009; Kennedy, 2016). A study conducted by Birman, Desimone, Porter, and Garet
(2000) that surveyed more than 1,000 teachers who participated in PD sponsored by Eisenhower
Processional Development Program spoke to the importance of the duration of PD. The study
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 38
focused on developing the knowledge and skills of teachers and showed that longer duration PD
programs allow for more active learning, a chance to connect with content and knowledge, and
more focus on particular content. The longer the PD opportunity and PD activities, the more
opportunities for active learning, modeling and observations (Birman et al., 2000; Desimone,
2009; Trivette et al., 2009). Desimone (2009) pointed out that research does not indicate an
exact time frame for a PD program, but it does provide support for a PD program of 20 or more
hours long, preferably spread over a semester or summer program.
While there are the core characteristics for effective PD as mentioned above, a research
synthesis, highlighted four adult learning methods that were associated with the acquisition and
mastery of new knowledge or practice (Trivette et al., 2009). These four adult learning methods
are accelerated learning, coaching, guided design, and just-in-time training (Trivette et al., 2009).
Trivette et al. (2009) came to the conclusion of the four adult learning methods by examining 79
studies that were based on adult learners and that had sufficient information to be coded. An
important PD feature is how teachers are able to translate the new ideas or techniques into their
systems of teaching (Kennedy, 2016).
Table 3 shows the knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that were
addressed in this literature review and that were proposed to be examined in this study.
Table 3
Knowledge Influence, Types, and Knowledge Assessment for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Assumed Knowledge Influences Knowledge Type
Faculty need knowledge of good dialogue components. Conceptual
Faculty need to know how to construct and ask strong questions. Procedural
Faculty need to self-evaluate their facilitation process. Metacognitive

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 39
Table 3, continued
Assumed Motivation Influences
Faculty need to see the value of applying the Continuous Intergroup
Dialogue skills in the classroom.
Utility Value
(Expectancy Value)
Faculty need to believe they are capable of effectively applying the
Continuous Intergroup Dialogue skills.
Self-Efficacy
Assumed Organizational Influences
The college needs to create a work environment (such as provide PD
opportunities and allow time and support for faculty to attend PD) for
Faculty to use open dialogue in their classrooms.
Cultural Model Influence
The Continuous Intergroup Dialogue needs to provide high quality PD. Cultural Setting Influence

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework includes the ideas and beliefs about one’s study (Maxwell,
2013). While a conceptual framework is as Maxwell described, it is also a self-constructed
theory that serves as a plan or map of what concepts will be studied and the relationship between
the components (Maxwell, 2013). In this study, the stakeholders’ knowledge and motivation
regarding their ability to transfer CID skills into the classroom as well as the organizational
elements intersect and interact at various points, even though they were not presented as such in
the literature review. For this study, an interactive conceptual framework was utilized to provide
a better understanding of the relationship and interactions between the organization and
stakeholder using a gap analysis framework.
The conceptual framework’s construction began with the organization rather than the
knowledge or motivation constructs, because the organization was the most crucial element in
this study. The organization provided the PD training and hosted the faculty. Organizations are
made of people, cultural models and cultural settings. Culture exists in every organization, and it
can be analyzed through the cultural settings and cultural models that have been established in
the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). This conceptual framework also consisted of
cultural models and cultural settings, which set the foundation for how, why, and when the
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 40
faculty achieves its goal. The conceptual framework also focused on the college and CID that
can help faculty to achieve the goal that, by 2018, all faculty who participated in the program
will have utilized CID skills in the classroom. Overall, the two organizations needed to provide
the PD, work environment and opportunities for the faculty to utilize dialogue in the classroom
properly. The CID provided the faculty with a PD opportunity to learn the tools and skills to
facilitate dialogue, while the college provided the opportunity for faculty to have this training as
well as a work environment in which faculty can use dialogue. In this, case the college and CID
had their own organizational goals to accomplish in order to assist the faculty in achieving the
stakeholder goal.
The faculty sit conceptually between the college and CID. They depended on the two
organizations to provide them with the skills, tools and environment to achieve the goal of
transferring the CID skills into their classrooms. Faculty were responsible for providing an
inclusive environment in their own classrooms. As the organization within which the faculty
were located, St. Mary’s, also shared the faculty’s responsibility and it was theorized that it must
be supportive of opportunities that encourage student and faculty engagement in difficult
dialogues. For this reason, it was important to have the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences (KMOs) on both the CID and the college as something that both
organizations needed to help faculty achieve. The KMOs are stacked in a way that represents the
need for faculty to achieve or have those skills to achieve their goal and, consequently, for the
organizational goal to be met as well.
As an ex-employee of the college, I saw areas where the college has shown signs of being
a learning organization. Senge (1990) defined a learning organization as one that gives up
believing that what occurs in the world is unrelated and is made of pieces. He adds that a
learning organization is one where its people are continuously learning how to learn together and
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 41
have a collective aspiration. The college can continue to create a learning organization by
having CID provide the PD opportunity for faculty to develop dialogue skills and learn how and
when to apply them. CID’s goal is to aid the college and stakeholders achieve the stakeholder
goal by providing high quality PD opportunities for faculty to address their needs. Together, they
can provide a strong foundation for faculty to begin on their path to achieve their stakeholder
goal. Nonetheless, asking faculty to embark in learning and application of dialogue is
challenging, since it has not been part of the organizational culture. Culture is hard to change
because people value stability and predictability (Schein, 2010). As seen in the conceptual
framework, CID is on the opposite end of the graphic where the college is placed. While CID
was implemented on campus, it was not considered as PD for faculty. The stacking of the
KMOs is also important, as Senge (1990) defined a learning organization as one that gives up
believing that what occurs in the world is unrelated and is made of pieces. The college and CID
need to see how both are part of a bigger picture and that their actions influence faculty’s ability
to achieve organizational goals.
Not only is culture a potential barrier to achieving the stakeholder goal, a lack of
motivation and knowledge play a big role. The concept of faculty utilizing CID skills in their
classroom often presents tension and fear among faculty who may not be well positioned to
facilitate this kind of dialogue. Faculty hesitate to implement dialogue in the classroom due to
obstacles and loss of classroom control (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al., 2009). Based on my
experience, for faculty to take part in something new that asks them to step out of their comfort
zone, full support and clear communication about CID from the organization will be needed
from the very beginning and should be consistent. The institution’s role is critical in faculty
attending and being motivated to apply the CID skills from the program. Faculty seeing that the
organization is motivated in providing this opportunity will, in turn, be motivated to be part of it,
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 42
learn about dialogue skills, form strong questions, and learn how to implement them. Most
importantly, faculty will have the knowledge and skill of applying CID skills and, through high
quality PD, will be self-efficacious and believe they are capable of applying CID skills. This
self-efficacy can be increased as a result of CID because they will have the opportunity to
practice their dialogue skills during CID sessions.
It is important for the organization to provide faculty with the opportunity to gain CID
skills, to be able to apply them, as well as allowing them time do so.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 43
Figure 1. A conceptual framework that encompasses two organizations (CID and the
college) in relation to the faculty achieving their stakeholder goal.
Revised Conceptual Framework Based on Findings
The above conceptual framework (Figure 1) was the initial framework that was modified
as shown below in Figure 2, as not all components were addressed. While I had hope of
gathering robust data on the faculty members’ conceptual knowledge, I was not able to due to the
gap of time between when the last CID session was offered and when the interviews and
observations were conducted. I gathered some data, but these were not substantial for a proper
analysis. Outlined in red are organization and faculty members’ self-efficacy influences that
were explored and were presented in the findings section below. Those influences outlined in
red were that faculty need to believe they are capable of effectively applying the CID skills and
that the organization needs to create a work environment for faculty to use open dialogue in their
classroom. The following two influences were concepts that were not as strongly represented in
the findings; however, there was sufficient data for them to be analyzed and mentioned in the
findings. Those influences are highlighted in yellow below and are that the CID needs to
provide high quality PD and that faculty need to know how to construct and ask strong questions.
Faculty mentioned the need for PD opportunities in general as they related to dialogue and
mentioned CID’s training program.
The three blue rectangles with no yellow or red around them are concepts that were not
addressed by the study. They are as follows: faculty need to self-evaluate their facilitation
process, faculty need to have knowledge of dialogue skills, and faculty need to see the value in
applying the CID skills in the classroom. The concept of faculty self-evaluating their process
was raised in the interview once by each participant. Professor Wayne shared that he was just
processing and reflecting as the interview was being conducted. Professor Kyle shared that she
was too old to be doing that and that she was not going to change. Professor Prince commented
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 44
that there was no need to reflect since she has been teaching for a long time. Even though I did
gather a quote from each participant on self-evaluation, it is a datum and not substantial for
analysis. The concept that faculty need to have knowledge of dialogue skills was not present as
much as it was expected. The dialogue skill that was the most apparent was setting norms or
ground rules. Otherwise, other concepts were mentioned but were not considerable. While some
data did arise on faculty needing to see the value in applying the CID skills in the classroom,
they were not in depth enough to consider it as one of the concepts that were addressed in the
study.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 45
Figure 2. A modified conceptual framework that encompasses two organizations (CID
and the college) in relation to the faculty achieving their stakeholder goal based on the
findings.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 46
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
The purpose of this project was to examine the factors that contributed to or inhibited
CID’s ability to achieve its stakeholder goal that, by 2018, 100% of faculty who have
participated in the program will have utilized CID skills in the classroom. This chapter will
discuss the approach to conducting the study and data collection method. The study was guided
by the following questions:
1. How did faculty at St. Mary’s College who have participated in CID use dialogue in their
classrooms?
2. What were faculty members’ perceptions of how CID and St. Mary’s support or did not
support them in incorporating dialogue skills in their classrooms?
3. What were the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources?
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study used a qualitative approach. McEwan and McEwan (2003) pointed out that
qualitative research produces the written interpretation of an individual’s observations of a
particular culture during a long period of time. They also mentioned that qualitative research is
naturalistic, descriptive, and focused on meaning and explanation in its approach This approach
was pertinent to this study as it was focused on observing and interviewing faculty on how
participating faculty used dialogue skills in their classroom. It was important to collect the
faculty’s perceptions on how they used dialogue skills and also to compare that with
observations made of them in the classroom.
In the attempt to increase credibility, the following data collection methods were used
during the study: interviews and observations. Documents were gathered concurrently as
observations and interviews were being conducted and served more as context to gain a better
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 47
understanding of the topic than as data that were analyzed and used to answer the research
questions.
The data gathered from interviews and observations were instrumental to the study. To
begin the data collection process, interviews were conducted to learn about the participants’ CID
knowledge and motivation. Following the interviews were the classroom observations that
helped identify how faculty were or were not implementing CID skills in the classroom and thus
focusing on their procedural knowledge. Since observations have a potential for
misinterpretation and confusion, a post-interview was helpful to clarify questions or observations
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003) and also to address questions related to the organizational
influences in the conceptual framework. As there can be a potential for gaps in information
gathering, McEwan and McEwan (2003) pointed out that document collection and analysis
cannot only help fill those gaps, but can also help raise questions regarding the accuracy and
authenticity about the sources. In this study, I gathered and examined syllabi, assignments
descriptions, and materials and resources shared by faculty to help in identifying the extent to
which, if at all, faculty were using CID content as represented in these documents. While the
documents were collected and examined, they were used more to gain a better understanding
rather than as data that served to answer the research questions. As such, the documents are not
represented explicitly in the findings section below. The objective of this study was to identify
how faculty utilized CID skills in the classroom and to shed light on what the knowledge,
motivational and organizational influences were that shaped this utilization or lack thereof.
Since CID was a method of building relationships through sharing one’s experiences as stated in
the organization’s website
5
, a qualitative approach provided the opportunity to watch faculty

5
Information from the site’s website. The URL is withheld to protect the identity of the
organization.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 48
implement the skills as well as for faculty to share their personal experiences utilizing CID skills
(facilitation and conflict resolution skills).
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus was the faculty at one higher education PWI.
Specifically, the study focused on faculty who were part of the CID program. Three faculty
members were identified out of the 24 who were enrolled and completed the program. The three
faculty members were purposefully selected to represent different disciplines in social sciences
and humanities including English, religion, sociology/anthropology, social work, or psychology,
since that is where dialogue was most likely to take place. This group of stakeholders were
important to incorporate into the study because they experienced being in the CID program and
could have helped me answer the identified research questions because they were best positioned
to transfer the skills from the training to their classrooms.
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The observations were of the instruction of faculty who participated in the
CID. To examine how faculty were transferring the CID skills to their classrooms, specifically
developing and asking high quality questions and facilitating discussions with their students,
these observations were critical.
Criterion 2. A class that was conducive to discussion was the most appropriate setting to
identify whether and how faculty were transferring CID skills into their classroom/teaching.
Observing the faculty during their instructional time provided the opportunity to observe the use
(or lack thereof) of CID skills, but, to maximize the possibility of observing the skills, I
purposefully selected a class and topic that was conducive to discussion.
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 49
To access the classrooms for observations, I first sent requests to faculty in the social
sciences who participated in CID via a letter to their college mailboxes and an email to their
work email address. I obtained their email address by searching on the college’s website. I then
followed up with a couple of emails, when needed, until I had three committed to participating in
the study. Once they agreed, I asked their permission via email to attend and observe six of their
one-hour class sessions and worked with them to ensure that the suggested class and sessions fit
the criteria set forth above. Since I did not note students’ names, I did not need site permission
to observe the class from other gatekeepers in the organization.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
I used three criteria for selecting the participants for this study:
Criterion 1. Faculty at the institution. They had an appointment at the institution and
were positioned to be decision-makers in the organization.
Criterion 2. Faculty who completed the CID program and self-identified as using CID
skills. This ensured that they were exposed to the CID setting and skills, which was the focus of
this study.
Criterion 3. Faculty who represented different disciplinary backgrounds and were part
of different departments. The sample for this study included faculty from various academic
departments, which provided a variety of perspectives and different ways in which the CID skills
were transferred into instruction.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 50
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The interview sampling strategy for this study was purposeful. The purposeful sampling
yielded a sample from which the most was learned as well as provided an opportunity for better
understanding and discovery (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To be able to find trends and patterns, I
used maximum variation sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) by finding three different faculty
members from three different departments/disciplines. Since the CID program had only been
implemented for the past 3 years, the number of participating faculty members was small. For
this reason, the study consisted of interviewing the same three faculty members whose classes I
observed. To gather participants’ thoughts, knowledge, reasoning, and motivations for
transferring or not transferring CID skills into the classroom, qualitative interviews were
conducted and were most appropriate for this study.
Interviews
Qualitative data were gathered through an initial interview followed by class observations
and a 30-minute follow-up interview. The first form of data gathered was an initial hour-long
one-on-one interview with the three faculty participants. The initial interview was semi-
structured and consisted of general topics pertaining to CID with a focus on faculty’s knowledge
and motivation to transfer those skills into their classes as well as how they perceived CID and
the college either supporting or impeding their ability to do so (see Appendix). Each participant
was interviewed either at his/her office or at a quiet place of their preference. The semi-
structured protocol allowed for specific questions to be asked regarding CID while also allowing
for probes. An interview guide consisted of a list of questions or issues that needed to be
explored in the interview (Patton, 2002). Thus, the interviews, with the support of an interview
guide, were conducive to participants freely sharing their experiences with CID while making
sure the concepts of interest in this study were addressed. The questions ranged from gathering
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 51
knowledge of CID to in-depth questions that draw into the participants’ experiences, feelings,
and opinions, and allowed me to gather more information about the participants’ experiences and
motivation to use CID.
The interview questions were open-ended, neutral, clear and singular to allow for clear
understanding of what was being asked, as Patton (2002) suggests. A good question, as Weiss
(1994) stated, is one that is short and leads the participant to a detailed response. The questions
drew upon self-evaluation, motivation, self-efficacy, and knowledge, which were connected to
the conceptual framework. They also included how the college and CID both needed to provide
the support, space, time, and training for the stakeholders to achieve their goal. The initial
interview was an hour long with each faculty member, totaling 3 hours of interview data for the
initial interview. A second in-person 30-minute interview was conducted after the initial
interview and class observations, as explained below, totaling one and a half hours of interview
data. That interview contained questions on the organization/s and the participants’ perceived
support or lack thereof. During the interview, I had the opportunity to ask follow-up questions
based on my observation and to get clarification on what was observed. Both interviews were
recorded via a recorder. During the interviews, I took notes to help identify main points and
were also used to write points that I needed to follow up on during the interview. Promptly,
following my interviews I took 10 minutes to note observer comments. Overall, the interview
portion of the data collection was 4.5 hours.
Observations
The second source of data were class observations. This was helpful with identifying how
and to what extent faculty were utilizing CID skills and tools in their classroom instruction. In
addition to field notes, I used an observational guide (see Appendix) to identify the skills and
tools used by faculty. The observational guide listed key components of CID. Observations were
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 52
conducted after the initial interview to gain an understanding of the participants’ knowledge and
to hint at self-efficacy by examining how they reacted to interactions. The observations took
place after the initial hour-long interview. The class observations consisted of following an
observational guide that included the following areas based on the literature review: basic
dialogue skills (setting/following norms, sharing personal experiences) and constructing and
asking strong questions (open-ended questions, non-leading, and questions that allow students to
connect to personal experiences instead of generalizing). The observations also consisted of
thorough notes that helped form meaning and gain a better understanding of the people in the
classroom and their interactions.
I conducted individual observations of the same three faculty members whom I
interviewed. The observations were during their instruction time in the classroom. While I
planned to observe each participants six times for one hour, instead, I observed each between 3
and 5 hours because the college was nearing the end of the school session and were preparing for
finals. Overall, I conducted 13 hours of class observations, instead of 18 hours as originally
planned. The first participant was observed for 3 hours, the second for 5 hours, and the third for
4 hours. On the day of the observations, I arrived 10 minutes early to observe and to take
pictures of the classroom space and to get settled. During the observations, I took note of
posters, lesson materials such as PowerPoint presentations that were shown, writing on the board
and additional information in the classroom. I took descriptive notes of the classroom
environment, the students, the faculty, and, most importantly, their interactions. Descriptive
notes allow the researcher to objectively record what they see in the environment (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007). I held the role of a complete observer. A complete observer, as Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) pointed out, is someone whose main role is to observe. My observation was
guided by an observational guide (see Appendix) that consisted of reminders to look for certain
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 53
components during the observation. The items on the observational guide ranged from
classroom set up, location of faculty during the class, students’ seating location in relation to the
faculty and each other. It also included whether the class used dialogue norms, evidence of
interactions in the class and directing what is being shared to personal experience. These
observations were instrumental in supporting the study by allowing me to answer my research
questions related to participants’ procedural and conceptual knowledge. They showed how
faculty used CID, if at all. They also allowed exploration of participants’ knowledge of CID
through examination of their enactment of practices consistent with CID teachings.
During the observations, I sat in a place in the classroom where I was unobtrusive and
could not have an impact on what was being observed in the classroom, as suggested by Johnson
and Christensen (2015). Observations were the most direct approach of identifying if and to
what extent faculty were applying the CID skills in the classroom. Observations were also
helpful to compare with interview responses. As Johnson and Christensen (2015) stated, people
say they do something, but may act differently from what they say.
Data Analysis
The interviews for this study were recorded and transcribed. I used a transcription
service for all the interviews. I used Atlas.ti, the qualitative coding software, to help with
applying codes to responses which connect to each section of the conceptual framework and
research questions. Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) method was used in breaking information down
into smaller units, so that they could be compared with other units of information from other
interviews, which reflected the focus of the research. The data were analyzed as they were being
collected, given that qualitative data analysis is a simultaneous process (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). To help with the analysis of the interviews, I used open coding and axial coding. In
addition to analyzing the interviews, I analyzed my field notes from observations. For the
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 54
process of analyzing my field notes, I reviewed my observer notes and my observation memos
by searching for possible connections in themes, research questions and the conceptual
framework. Through this process, I corroborated a few of the influences by reviewing the
research questions, influences, and the conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated, the trustworthiness of the study is directly tied to
the trustworthiness of those who conduct it. One way that I maximized credibility and
trustworthiness was to triangulate my methods of collecting data. Triangulation can be done by
using multiple forms of data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, triangulation
was accomplished by collecting observational and interview data. Documents were not used as
sources of data but, instead, were used as context to gain a better understanding. To further
strengthen the triangulation method, I ensured to ask questions during the post-observation
interview that addressed points observed during initial interview. As an interviewer, I served as
a data collector, and it was important to remember not to judge, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016)
highlighted.
An important ethical disclosure was that I used to be employed at the institution in which
this study was conducted. While there, I had a dual role at the institution, as I was an
administrator and coordinator of the CID program for the campus, which served faculty, staff
and students. As a researcher who identifies as a person of color and who has experienced the
lack of dialogue on race, I had great interest in seeing positive outcomes from the CID program.
I was aware that I am also biased in favor of CID since I was the person who initiated the
program at the institution and coordinated the sessions. Another factor is that I, as a person of
color, served as a director in an office where the students served were from marginalized
backgrounds.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 55
Ethics
As a researcher, I conducted qualitative research to gain an understanding of how people
make sense of their lives. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) pointed out that understanding peoples’
sense making is qualitative research’s purpose. This was also important to my study because
how faculty make sense of CID skills shaped how they transferred the skills to their classrooms.
To initiate the trust of the participants and achieve the greatest access to their experiences, it was
important to obtain informed consent. Informed consent ensured that participants were aware
that their participation was voluntary, pointed out any possible way that their lives could have
been impacted by the research, and that at any point they could have chosen to stop participating
in the study (Glesne, 2011). During the interviews, participants shared their experiences and in
return I conducted the interview and ensured the process was done in an ethical manner.
To ensure an ethical research process for participants, I submitted an application to and
followed the established guidelines by the institutional research board (IRB) at the University of
Southern California. In following the IRB’s guidelines, I provided all the participants with an
information sheet detailing the study’s purpose and their rights. The information sheet clarified
that, at any point of the process, the participant could withdraw from the process without penalty
(Glesne, 2011). Because the interviews were conversational and candid, I assured the
participants that their responses were confidential. Their identities were kept confidential by
creating a pseudonym and not identifying the college in which they work. Along with the
information sheet, I asked participants if I could record our interviews. I reassured them that the
data were kept in a private, password protected Dropbox folder and that the information did not
have identifying information on it. Information on how data were stored was provided to the
participants along with the consent form.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 56
The results of the research helped identify the factors of the CID program, as a PD
program, that influenced the faculty. It also helped discover how CID influences the faculty in
their classroom environment. I did foresee there being some hesitations on the part of the faculty
as to why the research was being conducted when I am no longer working at the institution. I
informed them that I was interested in gathering information and sharing it with the college to
inform them for future PD opportunities for faculty, but also as a resource when looking into the
advantages and disadvantages for incorporating dialogue in the classroom. Faculty may have
perceived me as trying to justify why CID should continue on campus. On my initial contact
letter and throughout the research process, I made clear my purpose and intentions for
conducting the study and sharing the findings.
Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation of the study was that I had a small sample to conduct the research. While
CID took place in the college for 2 years, the college did not conduct CID training nor dialogue
groups for the following year for unknown reasons. This could have influenced how participants
responded to questions and how they had or not had used dialogue in the classroom. The quality
of the training was a limitation to consider, as I was not able to observe the training or session
which the participating faculty attended. Another limitation was the use of qualitative interview
techniques which relied on self-reported data. While the participants responded based on their
experiences, the assumption I am making is that the participants were honest and truthful in the
responses. The use of observations (i.e., triangulation) helped to alleviate this limitation, but it is
still important to note that a significant portion of the data involved self-reports as observations
were limited in scope given the timeline for this study.
The delimitations of this study were that it focused on two organizations (St. Mary’s
college and the CID) and used the KMO framework as a lens through which everything was
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 57
viewed. I have focused on using St. Mary’s because it is the institution where I worked and also
served as the coordinator for CID. It provided an opportunity to conduct research in a small PWI
using faculty as a focus. I used CID as a second organization to include in this study, for there is
minimal research on faculty’s involvement with CID at any level; therefore, I saw this as an
opportunity to inform CID of how faculty can utilize CID as a PD. Bounding the study with
these two organizations means that there might have been particularities in these contexts that
would not transfer to other institutions or other training program. Additionally, having a KMO
framework and focusing on only one stakeholder group in the study, limited my lens and
prevented me from conducting a comprehensive gap analysis.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 58
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
In this chapter, the findings are presented. The following three questions were used to
guide this study and to help with analysis.
1. How do faculty at St. Mary’s College who have participated in CID use dialogue in their
classrooms?
2. What are faculty members’ perceptions of how CID and St. Mary’s supports or does not
support them in incorporating dialogue skills in their classrooms?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources?
This chapter will present data that addresses the first two project questions, which were the
research questions that guided data collection and analysis. First, I provide a summary of each of
the three faculty member’s teaching styles and dispositions because it helps to provide the
context for how they implemented CID in their classrooms. Then, I present each of the themes.
The findings that emerged from the study were formed into four themes that addressed the
research questions. They are as follow: participants utilized planned dialogue in the classroom,
they facilitated unplanned dialogue in the classroom, their perceptions of the college’s
supporting them in implementing dialogue skills in their classroom, and their perceptions of CID
supporting them in incorporating dialogue skills in their classrooms.
The study revealed a difference between planned and unplanned dialogue in the
classroom. Planned dialogue was incorporated into the curriculum allowing the faculty to
provide readings/content so the students had “common understanding of the terms used in the
dialogue,” according to Professor Prince, which proved to aid dialogue as faculty had set some
form of norms or ground rules. This showed that faculty having conceptual knowledge of
dialogue provided some guidance when engaging in dialogue. When facilitating unplanned
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 59
dialogue, the topic was not known in advance and, in some cases, norms were not set prior,
which led to faculty to have low self-efficacy in facilitating the dialogue Additionally, findings
showed that, overall, faculty do perceive being supported from the college and CID but believed
both can do better to support implementation of dialogue in the classrooms.
Faculty Members’ Disposition
Additional information, such as years of teaching experience and teaching style, was
needed to provide a better understanding of the participating faculty members’ teaching
dispositions. This contextual information helps to inform how each faculty member navigated
classroom discourse. It also serves to demonstrate the ways in which CID is limited insofar as it
is unable to transform how teachers teach.
Professor Wayne identifies as a White male. He has taught for 10 years and currently
teaches philosophy. Professor Wayne was the least student-centered of all three faculty
members. He provided content for the students to discuss. During class discussions Professor
Wayne was in front of the class either standing/walking or sitting. He seemed to have a teacher-
centered approach when engaging in discussion. An example is when Professor Wayne asked
the class to discuss a reading assignment and posed the question, “what is the meaning of
nominalism?” A student answered, and so Professor Wayne continued writing on the board. He
checked for understanding and students responded with a nod and no verbal response.
Professor Kyle identifies as a White woman. She has taught overall for 29 years and
currently teaches in the areas of social work and family studies. Based on observations, Professor
Kyle seemed to have a teacher-centered approach. In relation to her classroom approach, she
engaged students in discussion; however, she did so by first sharing content, then proceeding to
ask students their thoughts and opinions. During a class observation, Professor Kyle shared a
video of an attack on a social worker and proceeded to ask why a student should not ask on the
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 60
first day, “what about safety for me?” A student responded, and so Professor Kyle continued
with her PowerPoint and videos. During the observations, Professor Kyle maintained her
position in front of the class either sitting or standing, which had her as the focus point in the
classroom.
Professor Prince has taught overall for 44 years. She has taught in various areas, and
currently teaches English courses. Professor Prince identifies as African-American. Unlike
Professor Wayne and Professor Kyle faculty, Professor Prince seemed to have a student-centered
approach. While standing in front of the class, she gave students instructions on what to discuss,
and, then, she moved around the room. She sat with a group for 5 minutes to listen to their
discussion, probe with questions, and move on the next group. Professor Prince was able to
connect students with one another’s contributions, as she shared her story growing up during the
Civil Rights Movement. Then, she proceeded by asking students to share their personal stories
regarding one of their identities. During the class discussion, she was able to connect their
stories to each other and to their class readings. Also, Professor López, Professor Prince’s guest
faculty member, led the class discussion by making connections among the student, the material,
and their life experiences.
Overview of Findings
Between the three faculty, their dispositions can be seen on a continuum in regard to their
teaching style. Their teaching style varied from non-student-centered to student-centered.

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 61
Faculty Utilized Planned Dialogue in the Classroom
Professor Kyle and Professor Prince were two out of the three participants who were
interviewed and participated in CID who claimed that they had used dialogue in their classroom
curriculum. They communicated having included dialogue in their curriculum prior to the start
of the semester or planned it a couple of sessions ahead. The third faculty member, Professor
Wayne, did not use planned dialogue in his classroom. Those who incorporated dialogue into
the curriculum saw the utility of having it be part of the class experience, which relates to the
assumed motivational influence in the conceptual framework. In the process of using planned
dialogue in the classroom, the faculty shared their experience with norm setting and its influence
on the dialogue. During the faculty’s process of implementing planned dialogue, they faced
challenges, some that were overcome with a positive outcome and others that needed further
adjustment. The faculty’s actions of incorporating dialogue into their classroom showed their
varying levels of self-efficacy given the way they handled interactions in their respective
classrooms.
Norm setting for engaging in dialogue. The three faculty members in this study referred
to norms as guidelines, procedures, and ground rules. Prior to engaging the class in dialogue
Professor Kyle and Professor Prince set norms for their students to use as guides. Norm setting
is one of CID’s tenets for engaging in dialogue. Professor Prince stated, “some of our most
difficult conversations happened at the beginning.” She continued by saying,
I think people get used to…and I think that people can get used to difficult conversations
after you’ve laid the ground work. That’s why it was very important to get understood
terms and identities and procedural kinds of things.
In this statement, Professor Prince highlighted the importance of making the practice a normal
part of classroom interaction. By laying “the ground work,” she believed that her students would
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 62
“get used to difficult conversations.” She communicated that the norms are a prerequisite for
engaging in difficult conversations.
Professor Prince’s efforts to lay “the ground work” was evident during an English level
one class observation during the last two weeks of the semester. Her students were in groups
discussing essay prompts based on the readings. In group one, students immediately began to
share their thoughts and experiences. This shows the students’ comfort level in sharing personal
experiences and reflects that the ground work had been set already. One student said, “I like
prompt two because it asks us about identity, and I can talk about being Asian.” The other
student in the same group stated, “I like prompt one because it asks about our culture and
ethnicity, I can talk about being Mexican-American.” Group two shared their personal
experiences and how the environment aids in forgetting their native language and who they are.
During their dialogue, students were asking each other questions about their experiences. The
fact that the students began to share their experiences immediately after receiving the prompts
indicates they were socialized into doing so and the ground work Professor Prince spoke about
had been set.
While the two professors said they used norms in their classrooms, the norms were
discussed and set differently from each other and varied from the courses they taught. For
example, Professor Prince indicated having “understood terms and identities and procedural
kinds of things” while Professor Kyle said she did not have clear set norms for her higher-level
courses and stated,
I still think this skill of recognizing who is in the classroom and articulating that through
examples or through the ground rules for the class early on to say, ‘we have a really
mixed class in here.’ I look around and I don’t know all of you, but I have a sense,
because I know, [Cardinals], I know where people come from, that there will be times
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 63
that we are touching on some real truths for your lives, or the lives of others. And it’s
sitting next to you or in your small group.
While Professor Kyle considered the statement above as ground rules for her class, it was not a
set of agreed rules or norms for students to follow when engaging in dialogue. CID asks the
group engaging in dialogue, in this case the students and professor, to come up with rules or
norms they can agree on to create a learning space in which they can ask each other anything
(CID Training Manual
6
). As demonstrated by Professor Kyle’s comment above, this shared, co-
constructed rule setting was not done in her higher-level courses. In her mind, the explanation for
this was that there was an “understood” set of norms given their more senior status.
In contrast to her upper level courses, Professor Kyle pointed out the need for clearly
stated norms in her entry level courses. She stated,
When I get back to teaching some lower level courses, bigger classes with more diversity,
I will have clear ground rules that I put up about waiting for somebody else to finish, not
interrupting. If you’re an extrovert and talk first, listen first. If you’re an introvert and
listen first, talk first…that it’s my job to make space for that to happen, that if anybody
feels threatened or, I don’t like the word unsafe, but in any way, silenced, that I expect
that person to talk with me outside of class and I will do something about it, and that kind
of stuff. It’s going to go on all my syllabi now.
In the case of entry level courses, Professor Kyle set some rules for the class to follow during
their time together. Even still, she said she has “clear ground rules that I put up,” which shows
she created them on her own rather than asking the class to co-construct the class rules.
Additionally, by saying that “it’s going to go on all my syllabi now,” she was making clear that

6
Information from the organization’s training manual. The citation is withheld to protect the
identity of the organization.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 64
she would be developing them in advance of the class. While clearly laying out the norms in a
shared document is not a bad idea, the pre-planning and giving of the norms to the class is not
consistent with CID’s recommendations.
Norm setting can vary by professor, class topic and class size. As part of their training,
CID believes that having norms or guidelines to refer to when engaging with each other can help
create a learning environment. The use of norms is not only seen as useful for all level courses
that are anticipated to engage in dialogue, but also, as Professor Kyle suggested, “more and
more, students need over-skilled training in that and modeling of it and seeing it in writing.” In
this statement, Professor Kyle was pointing to an increased need for norms.
Norm setting is one of CID’s tenets as it helps create a learning environment for those
present. The fact that the faculty mentioned using norms in their classroom and mentioned their
purpose as setting the ground work for later dialogue shows that they had the knowledge of what
norms are and that they should be used when engaging in dialogue. It is uncertain how and if at
all the norms/rules are co-constructed as a class. Two of the three professors saw the value in
utilizing norms in their classrooms when engaging in dialogue, especially difficult dialogue,
however, the way they used them varied, sometimes in ways that are not ideal for dialogue to
take place.
Planned dialogue. Planned dialogue has been used as part of the curriculum as a form to
address campus issues in class, such as sexual assault, racial tensions and protests. How the
dialogue was implemented and how it ended varied based on the professor’s comfort, actions and
class dynamic. One professor was able to engage the class for a longer period of time and had
class participation while the other professor was challenged by the class dynamic when the topic
related to campus climate. The third professor did not use planned dialogue in his class due to
reasons such as limited class time, a perception that it was not congruent with his curriculum and
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 65
lacking the facilitation skills. The following section, thus, only focuses on the two faculty
members who did, in fact, plan the dialogue in their classes.
Planned dialogue based on campus climate. Professor Kyle believe to have applied
dialogue in both the curriculum and in addressing campus racial tensions in the class. She
planned to use dialogue in addressing campus tensions that occurred the previous semester. She
began by assigning students a reading on race. She recalled saying to her class,
“I really want to hear where you are as you’re getting ready to graduate having seen what
you’ve seen in the last four years at St. Mary’s College with race and with sexual assault
and stuff.”
In her interview she explained this as follows:
So, I just said, “Can you talk with me about where you’re at around race and sexual
assault, and how this college is addressing it, or isn’t, what your friends are saying and
how it’s affected you?” I was aware that they’re at very different places. Some of them
are still really fearful to talk about race. Some are so sick of it, and most are somewhere
in the middle.
While Professor Kyle demonstrated the understanding of using questions to draw out personal
experiences, she did not ask the questions according to CID’s training. In other words, the way
she posed questions wasn’t in line with dialogue facilitation tenets. Based on CID training the
facilitator should pose one question at a time, unlike Professor Kyle’s approach of asking multi-
layered questions. In her questions she asked the students “where you’re at,” “how this college
is addressing,” “what your friends are saying,” and “how it’s affected you.” This is asking about
several perspectives, instead of only focusing on the student’s experience, which was one of her
questions: “how it’s affected you.” CID questions can be generative, focusing on reflection, such
that it draws out personal experiences. And while Professor Kyle’s questioning included this
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 66
generative, reflective type of questioning, they were buried under a set of other questions, thus
potentially hampering the discussion. Also, in this situation, a couple of CID’s elements of
relationship, such as interest and perceptions, influenced the interaction, as it was her interest to
discuss the campus climate and her perception that it needed to be discussed.
Professor Kyle’s reflection below on the class dialogue shows how she was feeling about
the topic and facilitation. It also explains why she asked layered questions during the class
dialogue. She stated,
So…probably I did like I just did now, here, which to say if I’m nervous I stack questions,
three or four or five different questions…So that wasn’t a helpful dialogue technique. We
had a…I would say, a B-minus discussion that day. It was good, but it wasn’t great. I left
thinking that most of that was my responsibility that I didn’t engage the way I wanted to,
that really enabled them to feel ready.
She admitted that the way she posed the questions was not in line with what CID would consider
effective facilitation of dialogue, which shows that Professor Kyle was developing a conceptual
understanding of dialogue. However, according to her, she did not yet have the procedural
knowledge to execute what she knew is a better way to facilitate difficult conversations,
especially when she’s nervous. Professor Kyle’s ability to facilitate dialogue that day was
influenced by her level of nervousness because of the students she knew were in the room. She
said “some…were among the big leaders [in the campus protest] and most, not at all,” and she
could not read their level of engagement. Therefore, she was not able to navigate the dialogue.
She perceived herself to be optimistic, thinking that the students wanted to engage and reflect,
but, after some reflection, she concluded that the students were not ready and could not make
them be there with her modeling curiosity and vulnerability. Based on the observation data,
there was hardly any student to student interaction. It was mainly the professor presenting
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 67
information and asking questions. However, given that there were not many hours of observation
in the classrooms, this assertion should be read with caution.
Planned dialogue in the curriculum. Based on the work of Rueda (2011) and Pajares
(2006), someone’s interpretation of one’s situation can impact one’s self-efficacy, either
positively or negatively. In Professor Kyle’s experience in facilitating dialogue, even though it
did not turn out as she had planned, the professor’s interpretation of the class dialogue impacted
her self-efficacy positively because she wanted to try again. Perhaps because she was not
pleased with the results from the previous class dialogue, she shared that facilitated another
dialogue three weeks later. That dialogue still focused on race, but, this time, the focus was on a
reading from the New York Times on Black boys and how racism affects them at a young age
instead of tensions on campus. Professor Kyle also thought it would be helpful to invite an
African-American female colleague to the dialogue. She shared,
That day, or maybe three days before the New York Times came out with a huge article
about this massive study that was just released on, all other things being equal, Black
boys are just screwed in our society…So, I invited an African-American colleague to
come to class with me while we talked about that. And so, what made it better, I think,
was having the two of us in there. So, I set it up and talked about why and invited this
other person in, because this person has a perspective I don’t have, and that was
important. So, I think that’s, in a way, modeling the reality of when students see people
reflected in professorate who look like them, different learning and conversation can
happen.
Professor Kyle’s perceived ability to facilitate the dialogue was influenced by the assigned
reading and by having her African-American female colleague and a mother of two Black boys
present and serving as a co-facilitator. She believed that this dialogue was more successful than
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 68
the last because of her colleague’s presence, identities, and knowledge. She also recognized “the
reality of when students see people reflected in professorate who look like them, different
learning and conversation can happen.”
Even though Professor Kyle is their professor, she believed that students listen more to
her colleague who is African-American than they do to her, a White female. She believed that
her colleague’s experiences and identities gave a sense of permission in this classroom dialogue
than it would have with her. As she explained,
I think students…you know, when this colleague speaks as an African-American person,
people listen. And, without identifying her, although it’d be easy to identify her, she’s a
parent of Black boys. So, she could articulate another lens on that study that I just can’t
articulate because I’m not Black and I don’t have Black boys I’m parenting. I think her
capacity to engage the academic data and information with her lens of reality, just…plus
the students know her pretty well, I think just gave a different kind of permission in the
classroom than I can’t do. I think that’s really important.
Even though Professor Kyle planned another dialogue about race in class, she felt that her
African-American colleague brought a different perspective in the classroom than she did as a
White female, even as they both worked in the field of social work and Professor Kyle has more
years of teaching experience than her colleague. According to CID training, anyone who goes
through their training should be able to facilitate dialogue with the skills provided, but Professor
Kyle still felt she was less equipped to navigate the dialogue. Based on the interviews, her
perceived challenge in leading a race dialogue was not the dialogue itself, but the content, which
is why she invited her African-American colleague. However, Professor Kyle felt self-
efficacious in leading difficult conversations due to her professional experience as she shared,
“without tooting my horn … I was a social worker before I became a teacher, and so difficult
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 69
conversations, I’ve had with patients, clients, families forever.” According to her comments,
Professor Kyle showed she was self-efficacious when it came to difficult conversations
generally, but, given her White identity, felt less self-efficacious when faced with the content of
race and racism and, therefore, sought the help of an African-American colleague to lead the
dialogue on race.
Similarly, Professor Prince based her class dialogue around the class readings to help
dive into the current and past societal concepts. She perceived that her English course focused
on race, and they “went through all of that business of looking at this difficult history in order to
understand that racism is a thing. It’s a phenomenon that is painful.” Dr. Prince perceived
herself to have encouraged and used questions as a form of initiating and maintaining class
dialogue. One example was when the class began reading Between The World And Me by
Coates. She explained,
In the beginning, when, for example, we were talking about race as one of the categories
for identity, and they were defining what race and racism is, and people were asking
questions about it, and some of the questions…and particularly when we started to
connect with our first text, Between The World And Me by Coates, and people began to
ask questions about whether there was reverse racism, and how did that work, and
sometimes they didn’t ask. They were pretty assertive. A lot of Whites who, for example,
think of some terms as interchangeable, not understanding yet that racism is systemic,
intersectional. It has deep history, and a lot of complicated factors involved in making it
systemic, and lots of it has to do with violence and loss and injustice and all of those
things, but some people thought of race as only verbal hate speech as it were.
Based on Professor Prince’s reflection, she perceived herself to have provided the students with
the context and terms to engage in dialogue about race by assigning the Coates’s book. The
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 70
book along with the “laying of the ground work,” as she stated earlier, was essential in engaging
in dialogue about race and racism. Not only did they have norms, but according to Professor
Prince, “they also had a common understanding of the terms used in the dialogue.” Having
planned dialogue in the curriculum provided the class with a common understanding of the
concepts learned through the class readings. This created a learning space where students were
“assertive” and asked questions.
Literature shows that, when engaging in dialogue, a dialogue leader must practice the
following facilitation skill: ability to share personal stories and emotions in order to encourage an
environment of trust (Sue & Constantine, 2007). During a class observation, Professor Prince
did just that while introducing an assignment and sharing with the class her personal story of
growing up as an African-American woman in a period of racial segregation and the challenges
she and her family faced. At the end of her story, she asked the class if they had questions or
comments. Allowing space for students to ask questions provided the students the opportunity to
ask questions and make comments.
Professor Prince also used questions as a way to open up the classroom for dialogue.
Students engaged in dialogue with minimal guidance from Professor Prince. An example is
when a White female student commented on an excerpt from the Coates book and drew a female
student of color into the dialogue. Professor Princes’ recollection of the dialogue relating to the
class reading was as follows:
A young White woman, who is very articulate and very much present, but doesn’t have
that experience, said, “Oh, yeah, that’s the same thing that happens to women.” [Then]
another woman…said “no, it’s not the same thing. [The other woman continued by saying]
what you’re saying about women and White women and what you know about feminism is
not the same thing as what we have been unpacking about race.” [The first speaker] said,
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 71
“well, how not?” She said, “you’re not talking about being profiled and being told to hand
your license and reaching for it and getting shot and killed.” It was an honest exchange. So,
that was a very difficult moment, because I had to intervene, but after they had an honest
exchange.
Professor Prince allowed the dialogue to continue to the point where she had to intervene, but
she perceived the students as having had an honest exchange. She felt efficacious in her ability
to facilitate dialogue as she shared that she had “done a pretty good job.” This shows that
Professor Prince perceived herself to have led a productive dialogue where opposing sides were
able to continue the dialogue despite their initial disagreement. Professor Prince explained that,
during the dialogue, she intervened to help explain that both students had a point. One of CID’s
components is having the moderator pose questions throughout the dialogue to engage all
participants. Professor Prince waiting to intervene until she felt she “had to intervene” because it
“became a difficult moment” versus posing questions throughout the dialogue showed that she
had not used this CID tenet from the beginning. Professor Prince saw this as an important
exchange, “an honest exchange.” She also thought she had “done a pretty good job” because
“we went on to talk and to exchange, and people were careful about each other’s judgments.”
Even though Professor Prince perceived it as a “very difficult moment,” she valued the
implementation of CID in the classroom. She stated, “I think that’s a very valuable thing
[CID].” However, it would have been important for her to have been a more active moderator of
the discussion and not to let the discussion go too far, as it seems to have gone.
Even though a dialogue has been planned for a class session, there is no guarantee that it
will go as intended. This is what Professor Prince perceived she had experienced during her
planned dialogue. Professor Prince shared that she thought she had done a good job, everyone
was talking and exchanging, when, “the [White] woman who started the conversation started to
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 72
cry, and she started to cry for a number of reasons.” After class, Professor Prince addressed the
situation in private with the student. She recounted,
What I stressed with her was that just all of it was understandably upsetting, but we were
all in this learning game together, and that she was honest and open and courageous, and
that she should continue to let herself be that because that is where precisely it occurs, in
those difficult moments. So, she has been there. She has been very vocal. She has been a
real contributor to knowledge in the classroom. I thank people like her and appreciate her
contributions. So, it was a good kind of leap that happened. We got some junk out of the
way.
Professor Prince perceived herself to have facilitated the dialogue as needed and stepped in to
make clarifications. She also found it important to privately address the student who cried as a
result of the dialogue and pointed out the student’s growth areas. This dialogue appeared to have
had positive outcomes, so much so that the White student who made the initial comment
continued to contribute to class dialogue as well as the African-American student. During
training, CID emphasized the importance of sharing personal experiences and active listening.
That space was conducive for the student to take that risk and be “honest, open, and courageous”
as Professor Prince allowed her space to share her personal experiences while being an active
listener. This shows that Professor Prince utilized two CID skills in her classroom: personal
sharing and active listening.
The two faculty members who were interviewed and participated in CID claimed that
they had used dialogue in their classroom as part of the curriculum or to address the campus
climate, both in a planned way. While, through interviews and observations they showed a basic
knowledge of dialogue skills, one showed a gap in procedural knowledge or proper application,
particularly when she was nervous. They both saw the value in applying CID skills in the
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 73
classroom and were able to experience its benefits. Additionally, they both were efficacious in
their ability to apply CID skills in the classroom, recognizing their strengths but planning to
work on weaknesses.
Faculty Facilitated Unplanned Dialogue in the Classroom
Difficult dialogues can have several outcomes, depending on the actions of the faculty
(Sue et al., 2009). This means that, when an unplanned dialogue or difficult dialogue arises, the
faculty need to be equipped with the skills needed to facilitate the dialogue, so it can be a fruitful
learning experience for those in the classroom. The disadvantages of facilitating an unplanned
dialogue are not knowing the topic of the dialogue, not having background information on the
topic as a student and faculty, and not having previously identified the learning outcomes.
Faculty react differently when facilitating unplanned dialogues, as shown by Professor Wayne
and Professor Prince. For faculty to facilitate an unplanned dialogue, they need to believe they
are capable of effectively applying CID skills. They need to feel efficacious with the skills
provided. Hence faculty also needed to know components of good dialogue.
In addition to dialogue that was planned, the professors discussed situations in which they
engaged in difficult conversations with students that were unplanned, sometimes anticipated and,
at other times, unanticipated. In their classrooms, two of the three faculty members shared
experiencing a form of unplanned dialogue during the academic year. The unplanned dialogues
occurred in their classrooms due to campus racial tensions and students disagreeing with each
other. All three faculty had an inkling that racial tensions and campus climate would need to be
discussed in classes. However, only two of the three shared facilitating a dialogue on the latter.
One of two faculty members experienced two forms of unplanned dialogue, one based on
campus climate and second was unexpected based on the curriculum. The other faculty member
engaged with his students in unplanned dialogue based on the curriculum and class dynamics.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 74
Professor Wayne shared two unplanned dialogue experiences that occurred in his
classroom. The first one occurred during the same semester as the campus protest. Professor
Wayne described how he addressed the dialogue on race and campus protest by stating,
We paused a couple of days to talk about stuff that was happening on campus. It just
took sort of time out from accessing class material…we spent some time talking about
that sort of thing and those were occasions where people were saying, “well, here’s how”
[referring to feelings]. I felt like it created a kind of a good will or it sort of allowed us
all to sort of feel like we had accomplished something.
By saying “we paused.. to talk about stuff,” Professor Wayne showed that his motivation for
facilitating the dialogue during class was due to the campus climate and events that transpired,
and not because it was part of his curriculum. While the dialogue took time away from the
planned learning objectives and instruction, it also provided a feeling of accomplishment because
“it created a kind of a good will” between Professor Wayne and his students. Professor Wayne
expressed a sense of accomplishment regarding the class dialogue. He also reflected on his
assessment of the experience, saying “it’s not like I felt like, nailed it, but I just felt like…here’s
the thing I have learned in a couple of occasions.” So, while he did not think the discussion was
the best it could have been, he expressed having learned from the unplanned dialogue on what to
do and not do to.
The unplanned nature of this situation and a lack of norms for the dialogue on race were
both factors that made it a challenging experience for Professor Wayne, even though he felt
efficacious. He stated,
There again, it was like explicitly trying to shift to a different mode of conversation, but
we didn’t have ground rules or an established dynamic for that…contentious issues, don’t
arise like that very often in my courses. That means when they do arrive, we don’t have
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 75
ground rules or a kind of rapport a dynamic for sort of handling this. You’ve gotta be
willing to invest a lot in…devoting time and space in the classroom to build up a kind of
rapport, ground rules, and some practice.
Professor Wayne found facilitating a dialogue on race challenging because of the lack of ground
rules (norms) in his class. The lack of norms in his class was because he believed that, since
contentious issues do not arise often in his courses, that norms would not be needed. So, he had
not expended the effort to establish them. In addition, he shared that building that rapport takes
time and class space. Though Professor Wayne shared that ground rule setting must be done at
the start of the semester, he did not set time for class to set these ground rules and “devoting time
and space.” In his comment, he argued that norms would have been helpful as they would have
served as interacting guidelines during these unplanned and tense dialogues and may have even
allowed him to “nail it.” Professor Wayne’s conceptual knowledge that norms need to be set at
the beginning of dialogue (class/group) aligns with CID’s training. As explained in a section
above, CID considers norm setting a component of a good dialogue. Even though Professor
Wayne felt efficacious in facilitating dialogue, his value in setting norms was lacking as he did
not have class norms and commented that one needed to invest a lot, required time and class
space, which he had not yet done.
Unlike Professor Wayne, Professor Prince had set norms for her classes and was able to
use them during an unplanned dialogue. She shared that there were two White male students
who always made negative comments and other students tried to get them to understand, until on
one occasion, the rest of the class engaged them in dialogue. She stated,
I let it go on. I just stood back and let the whole class handle the judgment…I let that
person talk, and that person triggered some feedback from another, and from another, and
another, and I let it go on…When it got quiet, and it was quiet for a bit, these people had
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 76
said what they needed to say, I just wrote an expression on the board: Post hoc ergo
propter hoc. Everybody’s looking, “What’s that?”
In this exchange, Professor Prince stood back and used active listening skills while her students
engaged in dialogue. She said a couple of times, “I let it go on” which demonstrates her keeping
the space open for the students to discuss. Instead of taking control of the dialogue, she let the
students dialogue with each other back and forth, following “the ground work” Professor Prince
had set. Only when she noticed the dialogue was coming to an end did she take the lead to help
the class come to a common understanding. Professor Prince shared the Latin phrase as
reflection on how the two White students were jumping to conclusions in the dialogue without
thinking about or seeing the impact of their statements. She facilitated a dialogue on what “Post
hoc ergo propter hoc” meant which is “after this; therefore, because of this,” a logical fallacy
where assumptions are made based on the order of events without taking other factors into
consideration. She discussed how their statements affected the class and people’s behavior in and
out of the class.
Professor Prince shared that, after the class dialogue, the two White male students “saw
that all they brought to class were conclusions, and all of them were negative. They stopped
doing it.” Professor Prince valued dialogue in the classroom because she believed that “the best
learning happens when people have a contribution to make, to their own learning and their own
discovery…” Part of CID training is that people need to listen deeply enough to be changed by
what they learn. What is unclear from this interaction is how the two White students felt about
their interaction and what their takeaways were, even though Professor Prince perceived the
students to have fully understood their class behavior after the dialogue was over. The class
dialogue experience Professor Prince facilitated shows a value for dialogue because she created a
space where students listened to each other, engaged in dialogue and transformed differences
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 77
into common understanding. It would have been more impactful if the two White students had
been addressed at the beginning of class versus waiting until the rest of the class addressed it.
Class observations supported Professor Prince’s efforts in “laying the ground work”
[class guidelines] as mentioned in the above section. Even though she was not leading the class
on the day of this observation, she communicated and planned the class, including the ground
rules, with her colleague who led the class that day. Since this was a new addition to this class,
she wanted to ensure that ground rules were set in case an unplanned dialogue emerged because
of the topic and type of activities the students were going to engage in. The following is an
excerpt from observational fieldnotes:
As part of a class assignment, students were asked to write a play that connected to the
class reading related to violence against women. The class discussion or experience
based on the book was led by a Professor López, guest faculty whose message was that
“plays are emotional action and reactions.” Through the class session students embodied
their play and learned that every action and reaction have an emotional connection, which
affects those around them. In order to facilitate the lesson, Professor López set norms as
requested by Professor Prince. Professor López stated, “it is important to maintain a safe
space, be uncomfortable, but not to the point of shutting down.” The class norms were
useful for students to know how to interact with each other as they were communicating
via body movements and body language. For 20 minutes, before the class activities
Professor López and the students co-constructed ground rules to use during the
interactive activities. Some of the ground rules set were: only touch each other’s limbs,
ask for permission before touching each other’s limbs, acknowledge everyone in the
room, maintain a safe space, and be uncomfortable. Some of the class interactive
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 78
activities entailed acknowledging each other through body language, eye contact, and
group gestures that provoked a response or reaction from the other person or group.
Professor Prince found value in setting norms for her class, as seen in the session with
Professor López. She had already established ground rules for her class, but also found it useful
to include them for this interactive session. The class focused on building relationships,
connections, and the consequences of reactions; for example, when she nodded to a student, the
student nodded back. She explained that, “the nod is a cultural context [and] it is [used] to
acknowledge someone.” The foundation for the class that day were norms and how people
interact. Professor Prince joined the students during some of the activities. This showed the
students that she was part of this process and that she valued their experience. This interactive
class showed Professor Prince’s value for providing ground rules for interacting with each other,
whether it was verbally or physically, and that she was willing to include an unplanned setting of
norms, despite already having established them before. This demonstrated that she understood
the importance of dialogue as a relationship builder through personal experiences.
A month before the end of the semester, Professor Wayne experienced another unplanned
dialogue in his philosophy class. This time, it was not about race, but about bias toward women
in biology. The class disagreement was unexpected, quick and based on abstract principles. As
Professor Wayne recounted,
People there were not necessarily listening as it were to appreciate where other people
were coming from. They were coming to defense of their idea…we weren’t seeing
ourselves, I hadn’t said it, I hadn’t sort of somehow didn’t structure it or guide the
conversation, so we could sort of say, “Well, let’s all understand where. Let’s make our
job to try and understand where other people are coming from.” Partly that has to do
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 79
with the fact that the way that conversation started and the things we talked about were
these kinds of abstract, ‘has this happened in science or hasn’t it,’ or something like that.
Professor Wayne believed that the class interaction and content were not in a format that allowed
for students to have appreciated where others were coming from or conducive to dialogue. Since
the class was based on “abstract principles” and because of how the class began, he did not guide
the conversation towards understanding each other. Furthermore, he found it difficult to do so
midstream. Professor Wayne was challenged by this dialogue, as it was unplanned, and he had
not set the ground rules for students to interact. He explained that, partly, it is because of the
class content being abstract. This point of view can be limiting for Professor Wayne as he
considers applying CID skills in his classroom, as he teaches philosophy, believes philosophy is
“abstract principles,” and he “does not know how to facilitate that dynamic between the abstract
principles that are being articulated and…the sort of personal angle. How [they] feel about that
or something about [their] experience.” CID skills have been used in higher education as part of
the curriculum and as part of student organization, but, most importantly, CID began at the
international level with countries engaging in difficult dialoguing about religion, politics, and
society. As such, Professor Wayne’s assertion that CID skills cannot be used in philosophy is
not consistent with CID’s beliefs that they can, in fact, be used with any content and any field.
For him, philosophy was not something that could easily be translated to personal
experience. In one instance, Professor Wayne reflected on his efforts in facilitating another
unplanned dialogue in class stemming from an assigned reading. He recollected,
You know, you try to make room for people to express their thoughts, but here again, it
was not exactly…I have to say, for most of these people, it was not about their [personal]
experience. It was stuff they’ve encountered [in class such as readings]. This sort of all
erupted like halfway through class. We didn’t dwell on it for a long time. I tried to make
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 80
room for everybody to weigh in and I tried to, in sort of a lame way, just to sort of give
some mild…To sort of say that it was something reasonable people were saying without
taking sides.
He stated trying to make space for students to express their thoughts, yet, in this circumstance, he
admitted that he did not allow the class to “dwell on it for a long time.” It is clear from his
statement that not much time was spent discussing the topic. Professor Wayne did not seem self-
efficacious in facilitating the dialogue as he twice said, “I tried” and criticized his efforts by
saying “in sort of lame way” when referring to his facilitation ability. Here, too, the fact that this
dialogue came about in an unplanned way, having “erupted” midway in the class, seemed to
explain Professor Wayne’s recognition that it was not a successful interaction.
Another way in which this dialogue ended without a positive outcome was the forced
move away from the dialogue. Professor Wayne shared his thoughts on the outcome of the (bias
in biology) unplanned dialogue by saying,
It was something quite different. It didn’t have anything to do with this discussion. [I
said to the class] sorry to cut this [discussion] off, but there’s one more point I wanted to
get out in the last five minutes and…move it back to the comfortable academic zone
when we’re all just sort of absorbing one general thesis.
This situation put Professor Wayne out of his comfort zone because it was “quite different.” In
this statement, he showed a level of discomfort and admitted to refocusing the class to the
“comfortable academic zone” by drawing everyone’s attention to a general topic, which in this
case was the next reading assignment. By saying “absorbing one general thesis,” he also
revealed his discomfort with having differing opinions being discussed. He noted it “was also a
day the students themselves thought, that got kind of uncomfortable” because there was
disagreement in the room.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 81
His discomfort with difficult dialogue was evident during a classroom observation.
Below is an excerpt from the field notes from that day:
Professor Wayne asked the students questions, several times throughout the class periods,
and in three out of four times he did not pause for students to answer. For instance,
Professor Wayne posed the question, “does Hacking seem more like a grounded
philosopher than Kuhn?” A student raised her hand, but Professor Wayne continued
speaking. In one instance, a student answered with a question and Professor Wayne
continued with his point. Closer to the end of the class, Professor Wayne asked the
students to “get away from emotionally driven debates and focus on nominalism.”
While Professor Wayne reported having had an effective dialogue experience previously, he
seemed less comfortable with engaging in dialogue, based on his actions. When engaging in
dialogue and questions are asked, it is good practice to provide space and allow for silence for
people to think and process, as suggested by CID training. In these observations, there seemed
less time for students to think, respond and engage, even on a topic that was the content of his
expertise. The professor’s comment on getting away from emotionally driven debates was a
clear statement that dialogue would not be occurring, since dialogue is based on people’s
experiences, which tend to be personal and often emotionally driven. Professor Wayne sent the
message that authentic dialogue had little space in his classroom, where academic concepts like
nominalism were more of a priority.
The two professors who shared having had unplanned dialogue take place in the
classroom experienced different reactions from their students. The occurrence of the unplanned
dialogue was influenced by the campus climate, student reaction to a reading, and class
dynamics. The outcome of the unplanned dialogue was based on the faculty member’s
facilitation knowledge, value for dialogue, and self-efficacy. Based on the professors’
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 82
experiences and reflection on having ground rules, “laying the ground work” at the beginning
helps when engaging in dialogue. While both Professor Wayne and Professor Prince both
experienced unplanned dialogue, Professor Prince was able to better facilitate the dialogue. And,
while they both saw a value in dialogue in the classroom, Professor Wayne identified it as not
being as relevant to his class content. Professor Wayne demonstrated some conceptual
knowledge of a good dialogue but seemed to lack self-efficacy in implementing it in the
classroom in ways that would also move his instruction forward.
Faculty’s Perception of Support Provided by the College and CID
Faculty’s perception regarding support received from the college and CID is discussed in
the next section. In general, participants perceive being supported by the college and CID in
implementing dialogue in to the classroom but believed the college and CID could do better. It
was important to analyze the faculty members’ perception of support from both the college and
CID because the college sponsored CID, and CID provided the training. Participants’ perception
of both the college’s and CID’s support for dialogue skills in the classroom will be analyzed in
the following section.
Faculty’s Perceptions on the College’s Support for Dialogue Skills in Their Classroom
While the faculty engaged in planned or unplanned dialogue in their classroom,
sometimes with success and other times with room to grow, they believed the college and CID
could do more to support them. In terms of support from the college, two of the three faculty
members perceived that the college provided them with support in incorporating dialogue skills
in their classrooms but could do better by allocating time for participation in CID and increased
promotion of CID to the community. The two faculty members shared two ways in which the
college has supported them, namely the teaching and learning center and a grant. The third
faculty member perceived the college as not supporting faculty in incorporating dialogue skills in
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 83
their classrooms and attributed the lack of support to the college’s reaction to campus climate
focused on racial issues.
The two participants who perceived being supported by the college in incorporating
dialogue skills into their classroom said the college provided PD opportunities such as
workshops and conversations. Professor Wayne stated,
Since I’ve been with the college, there have been a number of [Teaching & Learning
Center (TLC) sessions] and associated things that may have had, regularly, every
semester, there have been conversations about [TLC] events, about leading difficult
conversations.
Professor Wayne believed the college supported his implementation of dialogue skills into the
classroom because it provided several related PD opportunities through the TLC, which was
established in 2000. According to the college’s website, the TLC seeks to provide space and
time for faculty to engage in collaboration and conversations about scholarship, learning, and
teaching. The TLC website showed that, in the 2017-2018 academic term, it offered 3 out of 17
Faculty Conversations Sessions that focused on difficult dialogues. In the 2016-2017 term, it
offered 3 out of 15, and during the 2015-2016 term, it offered 1 out of 15. Despite the generally
positive sentiments from the participants, the TLC’s work is limited due to the sessions being
1hour long instead of being offered over an extended period of time. This is not aligned with the
literature, which states that, the longer the PD opportunity and PD activities, the more
opportunities people have for active learning, modeling and observations (Birman et al., 2000;
Trivette et al., 2009; Desimone, 2009).
Professor Kyle supported Professor Wayne’s statement that the college does support
them in incorporating dialogue skills in their classroom as she stated,
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 84
Our teaching and learning center has had a couple workshops this Spring. I only went to
one, but, in that, we had some very specific scenarios that we talked about in our small
group: how to work with a hot topic in the classroom.
In this statement, Professor Kyle shared that the session she attended gave “specific scenarios”
and provided an opportunity to discuss in small groups how to work with “hot topics.” She did
not specify whether they were given tools or techniques to address the issues, nor did she
mention if dialogue was suggested as a tool. She shared that there were a couple of workshops
offered this past Spring for faculty through the TLC. Based on the TLC website, only one
Faculty Conversation was offered in the Spring that addressed how to manage microaggressions
in the classroom. Professor Kyle did not specify whether the Faculty Conversation was helpful
or useful. The Faculty Conversation topic was relevant to navigating difficult dialogue in the
classroom; however, it is uncertain if the time span that it was offered in was conducive for
information retention, since literature supports PD to be spread over a semester/summer about 20
hours long (Desimone, 2009). The specific TLC that Professor Kyle referred to is a discussion
format instead of application, as she said, “we had some very specific scenarios that we talked
about in our small group.”
In addition to the TLC, two faculty members, Professor Wayne and Professor Kyle,
mentioned a new year-old college initiative made available by a grant that focused on providing
equitable and accessible education to all students and which started by providing faculty
pedagogical PD opportunities. Professor Kyle is a part of the committee overseeing the
implementation of the Inclusive Education grant and proceeded to explain:
People [staff and faculty at the college are] really trying to prepare better for the diverse
classrooms we have now in the last 10 years. Efforts were going on across the college in
small pockets for many years, many years. I credit primarily the provost [for receiving
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 85
the Inclusive Education grant]. The Inclusive Education grant will have, as one of our
priorities, helping faculty develop specific skills about active listening, about
paraphrasing, about using eye language, about not getting defensive, so they can role
model it in the classroom.
Professor Kyle’s statement further explained the college support by the grant they received to
develop faculty pedagogy to include a specific set of skills. She mentioned how several offices
across campus were working to provide these opportunities, and that the provost took notice and
said, “we really need an infusion of money directly for this to make things really happen in a big
way, so we don’t just do all these little pieces quietly.” This shows how the college saw a need a
couple years ago and took initiative in providing resources for faculty. The skills she mentioned
that the grant focused on providing were comparable to CID dialogue skills, such as active
listening, paraphrasing, and not getting defensive.
Professor Wayne as a faculty who has benefited from the grant, saw it as an opportunity
for the college to provide more workshops for faculty. Professor Wayne stated,
Regular workshops under [the grant had] somebody who’s just sort of a national
consultant about…I guess it was a conversation about microaggressions. How do you
navigate this as a faculty member if in the middle of something somebody says
something sort of that counters, microaggression or otherwise insensitive? How do you
navigate that?
Dr. Wayne saw the grant as an additional PD opportunity where he and other faculty could gain
tools and skills in navigating difficult classroom situations and discussions. Professor Wayne
shared, “it was a conversation about microaggressions.” The session he referred to is the Faculty
Conversation that was offered by TLC, that was an hour-long discussion based and hands-on
workshop, as it was verified based on the TLC website and the grant website.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 86
Unlike Professor Wayne and Professor Kyle, Professor Prince did not believe the college
was supporting her in incorporating dialogue skills in her classroom, as she explained,
I’d say not… I don’t think [dialogue in the classroom is]…well supported yet. I think the
support [for CID] has diminished, become uncertain…part of it has been sheer resistance.
Well, our administration is simply resisting the recommendations of the [student] protest.
[Recommendations to have CID be mandatory training for everyone] shows up in the
collective report. They recommend it. We recommended it in the task force report that we
produced in response to the student protest…report.
Dr. Prince perceived the college as not being supportive in incorporating dialogue skills in her
classroom due to administration’s “resistance” to a student protest and task force request. She
attributed the lack of college support for CID to the student protest requests in Spring 2017. She
believed that the support had diminished and become uncertain because protesting students asked
that CID be a mandatory program for all staff, faculty, and students to participate, which, at the
time of the study, had not been met.
This section showed that, at least generally speaking, two of the three faculty members
perceived the college to be supporting them in implementing dialogue skills in their classroom.
While they did not make mention of direct ways of supporting the faculty in attaining CID skills,
they spoke about three PD opportunities per year that provided space for conversations that
addressed some of the CID skills. However, one faculty shared that the college was not
supporting her in implementing dialogue skills in her classroom as she was referring to CID, and
believed that the campus climate influenced the college’s decisions.
Ways the college can better support faculty. Despite some differing perspectives on
the college’s support, the three faculty members agreed that the college could do better in
supporting their use of dialogue skills in the classroom by allowing faculty time to participate in
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 87
lengthier PD opportunities such as CID. The faculty also believed the college could promote the
benefits of participating in CID and encourage faculty to participate.
Time was a factor that faculty considered when deciding to participate in a PD
opportunity. Professor Wayne shared,
It’s the usual. The usual thought that if the college wants to support this [CID], they gotta
find some way to somehow, I don’t know, reduce busyness as a general concern that
comes up every time there’s academic team discussions about things we ought to be
doing.
Professor Wayne shared that time is a contributing factor for faculty when deciding to take part
in a PD opportunity, and that it is not only his concern but a “general concern” within his
department. He clarified that, for the college to support CID as a PD opportunity, time needed to
be allocated for faculty to participate to help with the concern of busyness, a feeling that one is
overbooked or too busy with other responsibilities. His concern was supported in Burdick et
al.’s (2015) quantitative analysis of why participants would attend PD. One of the highest rated
reasons from the study was that the PD opportunity must fit easily into their schedule. By
providing time to attend PD, the college would show their support for the faculty.
Reducing a sense of busyness is not the only factor to consider, but also how it affects
faculty’s work/life balance. As Professor Wayne stated,
There’s a quite justified sense that we don’t see enough of our families as it is, and so, it’s
not a matter of thinking, this is nothing we care about, but, it does mean one more hour to
something else every week. Means, in the end something like one more hour not with
your family or something like that.
Professor Wayne’s concern about PD taking time from his family is something that was not
mentioned in the literature nor was it mentioned by the other two faculty who participated in the
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 88
study. However, it was an important factor he needed to consider as he debated his participation
in CID, which is sustained, and long-term as compared to the TLC PD opportunities he reported
finding helpful. He shared, “I actually had this conversation with my wife because I was
considering participating [in CID]. She already thinks of me as over booked.” The sense that
faculty are already “over booked” makes something like a sustained PD opportunity like CID as
yet another thing to add to an already full plate. It is not that Professor Wayne did not “care
about” the issues, but according to him, finding time to participate while not sacrificing his time
with his family was an important consideration.
Professor Kyle also agreed that participating in CID was a time commitment as skill
building usually is. She stated,
Yeah, so it takes time, and time is priceless. It’s precious around here, around any
college, I think. We’re not unusual that way. I thought it was doable to do an hour a
week. So, I do see [CID] as a very time-consuming way to get at skill building, but guess
what? Building skills is time-consuming, because it takes teaching, modeling practice,
reflecting. Teaching, modeling, practice, reflecting. Try again.
Even though Professor Kyle saw participating in CID as time-consuming and mentioned “time is
priceless,” she also believed it to be an important aspect of skill building. Skill building, as she
referred to it, takes time to acquire the information, model it, and put it into practice. The skill
building commitment as Professor Kyle mentioned aligns with Desimone’s (2009) extensive
review of literature that addressed characteristics of effective PD such as content focus, active
learning, coherence, collective participation and duration. Ensuring that the PD is sustained is
one aspect that the college can improve to better support faculty based on the current PD
opportunities offered through the TLC and grant, while also considering the time as an important
factor.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 89
Promoting CID among the faculty as a formal PD opportunity. Two of the three
faculty members believed that CID needed to be promoted in status more in order to get more
faculty involvement and to use the dialogue skills. The third faculty thought that upper
administrators should also participate in CID to gain dialogue skills. All the participants
suggested three forms to promote CID as a PD to faculty: (a) increase CID’s visibility among the
faculty, (b) Past faculty participants encourage faculty to participate, and (c) Help faculty find
the personal connection to CID and point out the personal and community benefits of their
participation.
First, it was thought that CID was not as visible as it could be among faculty. Promoting
CID through other forms other than email would be beneficial and would attract faculty.
Professor Wayne stated,
[CID] it’s not that visible. I think some people know about it. It’s mentioned a couple
times a year [in emails], I think. The big thing I know about is the faculty are like,
“Whoa, one more time commitment? Yeah, no thank you.” I do think finding ways to
promote it regularly, I think it can make a big difference if, say, faculty get up and speak
to it personally…I think it’s one of these things that faculty need to hear about from other
faculty.
Professor Wayne suggested that other forms of promoting CID would be beneficial as faculty
may react negatively to an email due to time commitments. He believed that more frequent
promotion would be helpful, and not just promotion from the CID coordinator (at the college)
but also hearing from their peers who could speak to the issues of time in more relatable ways.
The belief that faculty need to hear and be encouraged by other faculty to participate in PD
opportunities is consistent with research. Faculty are more likely to attend a PD opportunity if
someone they know, or respect, is also attending (Burdick et al., 2015).
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 90
The same message was echoed by Professor Kyle regarding the need for the college to
better promote CID. Unlike Professor Wayne, though, Professor Kyle stated that students could
be the voice of support:
I think if more faculty, in particular, heard from more students how it was useful for
them, and there was a bigger stage for that to happen at the college, some more people
heard about it. …I just feel like CID has been too quiet. It may be that we only had
money for a certain number of facilitators and a certain number of groups to be meeting
and all, but I don’t think there’s enough cheerleading about it and attention brought to it
Professor Kyle shared that CID had been “too quiet,” meaning that there had not been enough
communication to the faculty about CID and its usefulness. Professor Kyle believed that
students voicing CID’s usefulness to faculty would increase faculty’s interest in participating.
She shared that there was not enough encouragement or support to participate in CID. Two of
the three professors mentioned the need to increase CID’s promotion in order to increase
participation.
The third professor did not specifically suggest more faculty participation; instead, she
suggested having more involvement from administrative staff. Three of the four classrooms in
which I observed had CID posters that provided norms for engaging in dialogue. One professor
used two classrooms during the observations which allowed him to break into smaller groups
versus one large rectangular table. The posters also had CID’s dialogue message and contact
information. This shows that there was some passive advertisement inside classrooms, which is
more focused on the faculty and students instead of administrative staff, since administrators are
unlikely to enter into the classroom spaces.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 91
And finally, it was suggested by participants that it would be important to promote CID
to faculty as a PD opportunity that is not just for personal gain, but also as a form to influence
the campus climate. Professor Wayne stated,
It needs to be described as a professional development opportunity, as an opportunity to
contribute in a positive way to campus climate by helping students and faculty to engage
with each other more. That has to come from faculty and actually come from a place of
personal engagement with programs, people have done it.
Professor Wayne believed that CID can be a “personal gain” and also can be seen as professional
opportunity to contribute positively to campus climate. He also suggested that CID needed to be
seen as a PD opportunity and this message needs “to come from faculty” in order for them to
engage with the program, since currently CID is seen as a co-curricular program (a non-
academic, no credit program) and not a curricular, faculty focused program. His suggestion
aligns with Burdick et al.’s (2015) qualitative study that found faculty select to participate in a
PD because their involvement would help them grow as a teacher and if it advanced the common
good on campus.
Thus, the two faculty members believed that it needs to be connected to the person and
show how their participation and learning experience can contribute to the community and their
classrooms. They also shared the need for CID to be promoted regularly and for faculty to share
with other faculty about their experiences in participating in CID.
Faculty’s Perceptions on CID’s Support for Incorporating Dialogue Skills in Their
Classrooms
Participants had similar perceptions about CID as they did about the college’s support in
incorporating dialogue skills in the classroom. Two of the three faculty members believed that,
while CID did provide them with skills and space to practice dialogue skills through CID
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 92
participation, it could do more to address the challenges they faced in the classroom. The faculty
faced challenges in implementing CID skills into their classroom because of the following
factors: they believed there was not enough classroom time to implement CID skills, skill
learning takes time and practice, CID does not align with class content and structure, and they
lacked the ability to implement dialogue in the classroom.
While Professor Wayne found CID skills valuable, he also found them challenging to
incorporate into his classroom because he believed they did not relate to his class curriculum and
content. He stated,
I think that’s the hard thing, you gotta find some way to convince yourself as a professor.
Say, here’s something you’re not very good at, you don’t have a lot of experience. It sort
of relates occasionally, at moments to the subject matter you wanna teach, but it sort of
would require a lot of up-front investment and you would have to start your class off by
saying, “We’re gonna do some stuff in these first couple weeks that’s sort of out of my
comfort zone and my area of expertise.”
Professor Wayne saw the value in implementing CID skills but was hesitant because of the
amount of time it would take him to set the class up for dialogue, such as norm setting. In his
statement, he showed that he was not confident in his ability to apply CID skills in his classroom
as he made the following statements: “find some way to convince yourself,” “here’s something
you’re not very good,” “you don’t have a lot of experience,” “sort of out of my comfort zone and
my area of expertise.” Even though he had implemented dialogue in his classroom, he was
lacking the confidence to believe he was capable of doing it well. He later suggested that CID
could help address his concerns by having “a follow-up thing that [they] would…or a
primer…that would allow you [the participating faculty] after you’d been in it to sort of re-
review the core principles. Maybe faculty conversations about how to implement aspects of it
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 93
into a classroom.” This opportunity would have allowed the faculty to practice the skills and
have a discussion.
For Professor Kyle implementation time was also a factor to consider when implementing
the CID skills. She shared that faculty in general would need practice in facilitating dialogue.
She stated,
Again, I’m a social work professor, so I know what it takes to teach skills. I think faculty
need to have role modeling, right in front of them. That literally means role playing, and
then they need to practice. They need to practice having dialogue with somebody else
who’s different from them. Well, it takes practice, practice, practice, practice, so time is
a limitation. And people don’t think they need to learn it, that can limit the program.
Professor Kyle believed CID skills take time to learn and that time can be an obstacle for faculty.
Either faculty do not have the time to practice and or they do not believe they need to learn the
skills. For CID to better support faculty, they would need to address Professor Kyle’s concerns
so that faculty can practice implementation and see the utility of CID skills.
While CID provided an opportunity for participating faculty to use dialogue skills, it can
improve on helping faculty see how they can incorporate the skills in their specific contexts and
build their self-efficacy in implementing those skills. As Professor Wayne stated,
How do you make this useful to teaching your subject matter? If the day-to-day subject
that you’re teaching…or if the day-to-day mode of your classroom doesn’t fit with kind
of dialogue, it’s the primary mode, how could you weave it in in a way that it wouldn’t
seem totally stilted. I think there are things that are powerful about it, but I don’t
necessarily feel empowered to put it to practice in my classroom. And partly that’s me
feeling like I still don’t know how to do it and partly it’s that it seems at odds with the
mode of teaching I usually have.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 94
Professor Wayne believed that there were components of CID that were “powerful” but was
challenged as to how to incorporate it into his day-to-day class structure and content as he
shared, “I still don’t know how to do it.” Professor Wayne shared that “it really would be helpful
if somebody, whether a colleague on campus or somebody else, who would be talking about how
to incorporate dialogue into a class that is not first and foremost about dialogue.” According to
Professor Wayne’s statement, as a faculty member, he needs to hear from other faculty about
their experiences in implementing dialogue in a class that does not fit their “mode of teaching.”
This demonstrates that, while CID did provide dialogue skills, it also needs to provide more
opportunities for faculty to learn from CID and peer faculty on how it is applicable in various
teaching areas. He continued by suggesting that “some attempt to, for maybe by some faculty
who have found ways to weave in this stuff to explain how they do it, and frank conversations.”
Professor Wayne seemed to be suggesting here that CID can make more of an effort to clarify
connections for faculty who are curious about how to incorporate the skills into their specific
contexts.
Conclusion
This section has highlighted the faculty’s perceptions on the support they received to
implement dialogue in their classes. Two of the three participants believed the college was
supporting them in implementing dialogue skills, either through CID, TLC faculty conversations,
or grant initiatives. They believed the same about CID; they were supported but shared that CID
could do better such as providing them with opportunities to continue to practice the skills and to
converse with each about their implementation experiences. The college brought CID to campus
and provided an opportunity for their community to engage in building dialogue skills through
CID’s program and training. As Professor Wayne shared, his experience and belief about
participating in CID what that, “even if it’s not part of your daily classroom routine. I think you
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 95
are a better teacher if you can do it. It’s gonna come up and you’re either gonna manage it well
or poorly.” The college and CID have formed a partnership that can provide faculty with PD
opportunities to expand on the dialogue facilitation skills that can be beneficial to faculty and
students, especially since difficult dialogue is unavoidable in learning situations, “it’s gonna
come up.”

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 96
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine the factors that contributed to or inhibited
CID’s ability to support faculty to achieve their stakeholder goal that, by 2018, 100% of faculty
who have participated in the program will utilize CID skills in the classroom. The following
questions were used to guide this study:
1. How do faculty at St. Mary’s College who have participated in CID use dialogue in their
classrooms?
2. What are faculty members’ perceptions of how CID and St. Mary’s supports or does not
support them in incorporating dialogue skills in their classrooms?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation and organizational resources?
The findings sections above addressed the first two project questions. The remaining sections
include implications for practice, recommendations for practice (addressing the last project
question), future research, and a conclusion.
Implications for Practice
As shown in this study, all three of the participants at a PWI engaged in difficult
dialogues in their classroom, whether it was planned or unplanned. However, they varied in their
beliefs about the utility of implementing CID in their specific contexts and in their self-efficacy
in facilitating such dialogue. They also each provided insight into what could have helped them
be better positioned to implement CID in their classrooms successfully. Dialogue in the
classroom is needed, especially with the increasing diversity of college students (Halm, 2016).
Based on the study’s findings, there were five implications for practice; three pertained to
faculty, and the other two pertained to the college and CID. The following implications for
practice emerged from the study and their relevance will be discussed further. Faculty need to
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 97
see the value in utilizing dialogue skills in their classroom. They also need time to implement
dialogue skills. They need to not only have basic knowledge of dialogue skills, but to be more
comfortable facilitating it. The college should promote CID as a PD opportunity for faculty, and
CID needs to provide faculty with practice post-participation.
Faculty’s Value in Dialogue Skills
As the population of students going to college continues to diversify (Rankin & Reason,
2005), there is a need for faculty to have facilitation skills. It is important for faculty to see the
value in dialogue skills either as planned in their curriculum or in their toolbox for when it is
needed spontaneously. While all three faculty placed value on the CID, having been engaged in
this PD opportunity, some felt it more relevant than others. Lacking the value on dialogue skills
can lead to a faculty member not being prepared when an unexpected difficult dialogue arises,
such as having created norms for classroom discourse. Difficult dialogue can arise due to
campus climate, curriculum content, and or student dynamics. Dialogue in the classroom helps
transform difficult dialogues to learning opportunities (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Sue et al., 2009).
Those moments of crisis are opportunities for educators to use them and help students navigate
the crisis and learn how to work through them productively (Kumashiro, 2003).
Faculty Need Time to Implement Dialogue Skills
Faculty need to be intentional about setting time aside for implementing dialogue skills
into the classroom, particularly as it relates to planning for and setting norms. In order for
faculty to engage in difficult dialogue, they must create a safe space for dialogue, engage in
dialogue and not ignore it, and acknowledge one’s fears, emotions, and feelings (Sue et al.,
2009). However, setting up the classroom for dialogue takes time, which faculty can view as
time taken from their curriculum, core content and lead to discomfort. In this study, too, not all
faculty had spent time creating or developing norms for discussion, which shaped how dialogue
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 98
was experienced. When norms were not set, faculty perceived these dialogues as being less
effective and more contentious. In one case, norms were not developed because the faculty
member did not perceive dialogue as important for his discipline. Instead, dialogue should be
viewed as a resource to gain facilitation skills and helpful in connecting curriculum to life
experiences (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010). Implementing dialogue skills would be part of the
curriculum and everyday class. While implementation of dialogue skills can be time-consuming
at first as faculty are setting the ground work, it can be beneficial throughout the semester.
Promote CID as Professional Development for Faculty
The study revealed that the college needs to promote CID as a PD opportunity for faculty.
The college recognizing CID as PD would attract more faculty to participate, and it would gain
greater support from more faculty as it is a semester-long commitment, and it would strengthen
its commitment. Faculty participating in this study admitted that time was a limiting factor,
especially when the PD was not incentivized by the college. The college could promote CID as
an ongoing skill building for (planned and/or unplanned) facilitating dialogue.
Need for CID to Provide Faculty with Opportunities to Practice
The study demonstrated faculty needing and requesting ongoing practice for dialogue
implementation. Faculty who have participated in CID would benefit from ongoing facilitation
practice in a cohort model with the support of their colleagues or more knowledgeable peers.
While the ongoing practice would take more time, college leaders would need to think about how
to best fit the ongoing PD for faculty so that they do not see time as an obstacle to their
participation.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the findings of the study and the review of literature, the following
recommendations are advanced in this section. The first recommendation is related to the need
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 99
for faculty to be self-efficacious about their ability to facilitate both planned and unplanned
dialogue. As such, it is recommended that St. Mary’s (or CID) increase faculty members’ self-
efficacy by incorporating more opportunities for practice and feedback so that faculty are
confident in their ability to facilitate dialogue. Second, it is recommended that the college
increase support for faculty participating in CID and for CID as a PD opportunity that can benefit
the faculty and campus community. To accomplish this, the college could incentivize such PD
opportunities by including it in faculty members’ contracts. Without the structural support, it is
unlikely that all faculty members will be motivated enough to invest the time it takes to
participate and then implement the skills learned in PD. The third recommendation is for CID to
provide high quality PD for faculty that would include their current training but extended to
provide further opportunities to practice and receive feedback. To accomplish this, there is a
need for CID and the college to provide a semester-long faculty PD cohort that would allow
faculty to continue to practice facilitation skills and converse with each other about their efforts.
These three recommendations will be discussed further below.
Increase Faculty’s Self-Efficacy
A finding from the study was that, while all the participating faculty members saw the
value in dialogue skills in their classroom, some still lacked self-efficacy when application of the
skills was needed. Some of this was likely due to each faculty member’s disposition when it
came to their teaching style. This was evident when Professor Kyle attempted to facilitate a
planned dialogue on campus climate and questioned her facilitation skills as she did not achieve
the desired outcome. Also, Professor Wayne demonstrated low self-efficacy as he criticized his
efforts in facilitating a difficult dialogue. In order for faculty to be most likely to use dialogue
skills, they need to have had experienced some of the conditions that Pajares (2006) found
influence self-efficacy, such as enactive attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 100
physiological states. Further, Pajares (2006) discussed high self-efficacy’s positive influence on
motivation. In order for faculty to apply desired skills appropriately, they need to first believe
they are capable of doing so. Thus, the recommendation is for CID trainers to model, guide, and
provide feedback to faculty during the training. Also, to help with increasing self-efficacy in
faculty, it is recommended that participating faculty attend a semester-long PD opportunity
where they can practice facilitation skills and converse with each other about dialogue
implementation. To increase self-efficacy, they need more practice. Professional development
needs to focus on helping faculty be more student-centered versus faculty-centered before
expecting them to engage in planned or unplanned difficult dialogue. By teaching faculty how to
first be student-centered, faculty will be able to practice the use of questioning, which will allow
discussions to come more easily. More practice with questioning and allowing students to own
the course discussions and content increases familiarity, which then serves as a great tactic for
facilitation difficult conversation.
Grossman and Salas (2011) found that authentic training in which verbal messages are
given during training can increase their efficacy in being able to facilitate a dialogue (Pajares,
2006). The ideal learning conditions and methods for adult learners are that their assertions need
to be validated (Mezirow, 1991). Therefore, it is recommended that, during training, faculty
practice what they have learned and receive feedback as well as engage in a longer-term training
so that it has a higher likelihood of transferring the skills learned. These two strategies will help
increase the faculty members’ confidence level in applying what they have learned therefore
increasing their self-efficacy.
Increase Organizational Support for Professional Development
The study indicated that all participating faculty believed more support was needed from
the college for them to implement dialogue skills in to the classroom. Professor Kyle highlighted
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 101
that skill building takes time, and that time will be a factor faculty consider when deciding to
participate in any PD and learning endeavor. Corroborated by the literature, time was one of the
highest rated reasons from Burdick et al.’s (2015) quantitative analysis of why participants
would attend PD. Therefore, the college needs to create a work environment for faculty to use
open dialogue in their classroom, by providing sustained, long-term PD opportunities and allow
time and support for faculty to take advantage of these opportunities.
All faculty stated that CID needed to be promoted as a PD opportunity for faculty and
needed more support from the college. While the college provided PD opportunities for faculty
throughout the year either from the TLC or the Inclusive Education grant, it was not sustained
PD like CID. There may be some structural impediments to such support, and the college needs
to show the faculty the level of commitment toward their professional growth and to the whole
campus by lifting some of these structural barriers. In doing so, the college needs to
communicate to the faculty the importance of their participation in CID and ways that the college
will support them, such as provide a stipend, be considered as a committee commitment, be
recognized as a component for promotion, and/or a class release. Also, the college can help
faculty identify personal and community benefits for participating in CID. To address the lack of
time issue faculty raised, the college needs to include incentives in the faculty members’
contracts and expectations so that this type of professional learning is not seen as one more
commitment that goes unrecognized. Additionally, by providing contractual incentives to
faculty, the college will demonstrate the value of the dialogue skills/tools in the classroom and
the community.
Provide High Quality PD and PD Cohort
The findings also suggested that faculty needed additional ongoing CID practice and
support, including practice to facilitate dialogue skills, learning how dialogue skills could be
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 102
implemented in all academic subjects, and a need for space to converse with other faculty about
experiences with facilitating dialogue in the class. One professor mentioned the importance of
time and practice needed to build dialogue skills. Another faculty shared the need to know how
dialogue skills can be implemented in all classes, even those that do not seem to be conducive to
discussions. It is recommended that CID provide high quality PD through extended time to
observe model behavior, practice, and receive feedback as well as provide a semester-long PD
cohort for faculty to practice the skills learned, explore how dialogue skills can be implemented
in all subject areas, and provide opportunities to converse with other faculty about their
facilitation experiences.
For CID to provide high quality PD, it will need to address factors that make a high
quality PD program. Desimone’s (2009) extensive review of literature identified the following
as characteristics of effective PD: content focus, active learning, coherence, collective
participation and duration. Desimone (2009) suggested that faculty also benefit from strategies
modeled behavior, practice dialogue skills, receiving feedback, and practicing facilitating
dialogue a second time. While some of these are characteristics of CID’s training, the study
revealed that additional practice was needed as some faculty lacked the self-efficacy when
facilitating dialogue in their classrooms, something that is also clear when contextualizing
faculty members’ practice with their dispositions and teaching styles. The semester-long PD
cohort would provide faculty with an opportunity to practice their facilitation skills with various
topics and in collaboration with their peers, thus supporting their journey to being more student-
centered before being able to implement the skills taught in CID. The faculty could also engage
in conversations about their facilitation experiences and learn from each other. Therefore, it is
recommended that CID implements high quality PD in addition to a semester-long PD cohort for
faculty to be able to attain, practice, and transfer dialogue skills to the classroom.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 103
Future Research
The process and findings of this study have shown additional areas that should be
considered for future research. One recommendation is to conduct a study with a larger sample.
A larger sample would be needed to gather a broader understanding of the varied ways in which
faculty who have participated in the program utilize CID skills in the classroom. This sample
could include faculty from various departments and with various years of teaching experience.
This study used a small sample of three faculty members whose experiences might be quite
different from those of others, especially given the varied dispositions of the faculty along the
continuum of student-centeredness. Also, longer class observations would be needed to have a
better understanding of the faculty members’ use of dialogue skills in their classroom. Long-
term observations would reveal more of the faculty members’ teaching style and the ways in
which CID is implemented in the context of this teaching style. Also, it would be beneficial to
conduct observations prior to the last two weeks of class as faculty are preparing for finals,
which would also include more detailed observational notes with quotes.
Also, long-term studies on transference of CID skills would be informative. Since there
was a year-long gap when CID training was not provided, it would be beneficial to research
whether attenuation was a factor in faculty’s transference of dialogue skills into their classroom.
It is recommended that research be conducted with universities that are currently using CID in
their institutions to see if the use of dialogue is more pronounced in faculty members’ classrooms
during or soon after learning the skillset. Additionally, a longitudinal study would also enable the
exploration of how practice over time might influence faculty members’ knowledge and self-
efficacy to facilitate dialogue in the classroom.
While the faculty members in this study spoke about the CID trainings in passing, it
would be helpful to have deeper insight into the actual PD practices. This study was limited in
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 104
that CID has not been implemented at the sampled college for a year, so it was not possible to
observe the PD sessions. The year gap also likely influenced the lack of detail provided by the
faculty members about the specific practices the CID training employed when they participated
in the sessions. As such future research examining the quality of CID’s training and how faculty
are engaging in it would be instructive.
Conclusion
The focus of this study was the transference of CID skills to the classroom by
participating faculty. Since CID was fairly new to St. Mary’s, and the program’s structure was
originally formed to serve as a co-curricular program and not a curricular program, a study was
beneficial to examine how participating faculty of CID transferred the skills they learned into the
classroom.
While a complete analysis would have included all stakeholders at the college, for this
study, the focus was on faculty. The reason for selecting faculty was, as Diaz and Gilchrist
(2010) have noted, that dialogue helps create spaces where people feel they can be open to new
perspectives and be self-reflective. Faculty were in a position to create their curriculum and
decide what would and would not be included in their class teachings and discussions. The
classroom is, thus, a logical place to expect dialogue to occur and faculty are positioned to be
facilitators.
A gap analysis framework by Clark and Estes (2008) was used to analyze the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences that could have affected the achievement of the
stakeholder goal. Analyzing faculty knowledge and skills related to transferring the CID skills
into the classroom is beneficial if we wish to see successful dialogue of difficult topics in higher
education classrooms (Sue et al., 2009). Being aware of the faculty’s ability to transfer these
skills is important to further shape future faculty PD. Faculty’s motivation is important to
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 105
acknowledge as it can influence whether they apply dialogue skills after they have attained the
skills. Organizational influence is crucial to the gap analysis as it affects the stakeholder
attaining and having the opportunity to apply the skills.
The findings of the study showed some faculty have transferred dialogue skills into the
classroom in various forms both in planned and unplanned ways. While faculty members were
aware of the basic dialogue skills, all lacked the procedural knowledge to implement the skills on
their own. They either lacked self-efficacy and/or did not see the value given their specific
context/content. Overall, the faculty perceived the college and CID supporting them in
implementing dialogue skills in the classroom, pointing mostly to single instances of PD on the
topic. However, all faculty in the study advocated for better support from the college for CID as
a PD opportunity for all faculty. More support is needed by allocating time for participation,
encouraged by the college for faculty to attend. And, while faculty perceived CID as supporting
them in implementing dialogue skills in the classroom by providing the training/program, they
believed CID can provide ongoing facilitation practice with peer support after completion of
program. The results also showed that faculty needed to see how CID skills can be transferred to
all contents/courses.
The recommendations are to aid faculty to be self-efficacious about their ability to
facilitate both planned and unplanned dialogue by providing them the PD opportunities needed
to gain the knowledge and skills to do so. Additionally, it was recommended that the college
support faculty participating in CID as well as CID as a PD opportunity that can benefit the
faculty and campus community. The last recommendation is for CID to provide high quality PD
for faculty that would include extending their current training. Additionally, as part of the third
recommendation, CID and the college need to provide a semester-long faculty PD cohort that
would allow faculty to continue to practice facilitation skills and converse with each other.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 106
As the college student population continues to change and becomes more diverse, so will
the classrooms. Colleges can decide whether they will use students’ diverse backgrounds to
enrich the learning experience or try to ignore it. As it is already, according to a study by Harper
and Hurtado (2007), students believed they lacked the skills to interact with those whose race is
different from their own. Their study also showed that this difficulty could have been alleviated
by having a space where they were guided in interaction and dialogue (Harper & Hurtado, 2007).
This is why it is important for faculty to value, gain knowledge, and practice dialogue facilitation
skills. Higher education classrooms can be a space for students and faculty to engage in dialogue
and to learn from each other. It is important for students and faculty to engage in these
interactions, so they learn how to address discomfort and disagreement in a productive manner
where learning occurs.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 107
REFERENCES
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. New York, NY: Pearson.
Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203180
372
Burdick, D., Doherty, T., & Schoenfeld, N. (2015). Encouraging faculty attendance at
professional development events. To Improve the Academy, 34(1-2), 367-405.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20019
Chessman, H., & Wayt, L. (2016). What are students demanding? Retrieved from
https://www.higheredtoday.org/2016/01/13/what-are-students-demanding/
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Delano-Oriaran, O., & Parks, M. W. (2015). One black, one white: Power, white privilege, &
creating safe spaces. Multicultural Education, 22, 15–19.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–
199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 108
Diaz, A., & Gilchrist, S. (2010). Dialogue on campus: An overview of promising practices.
Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(1), 1–15.
Diaz, A., & Perrault, R. (2010). Sustained dialogue and civic life: Post-College impacts.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 17(1), 32–43.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2011.00373.x
Halm, D. S. (2016). Building consensus: Bakhtinian dialogue in the college classroom.
International Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Science, 1(3), 1–14.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.254
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional
Development in Education, 37(2), 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2010.
523955
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1992.11778388
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 109
Jaschik, S. (2016, November 11). The incidents since election day. Inside Higher Education.
Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/11/11/students-many-
colleges-reporting-ethnic-or-racial-harassment-election-day
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of
Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Kiselica, M. S. (Ed.). (1999). Confronting prejudice and racism during multicultural training.
Annapolis Junction, MD: American Counseling Association.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuh, G. D. (2001). National survey of student engagement: The college student report (NSSE
Technical and Norms Report). Bloomington: Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research and Planning.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2003). Against repetition: Addressing resistance to anti-oppressive change in
the practices of learning, teaching, supervising, and researching. In A. Howell & F. Tuitt
(Eds.), Race and higher education: Rethinking pedagogy in diverse college classrooms
(pp. 45–67). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.
Maxwell, K. E., Nagda, B. R., & Thompson, M. C. (2012). Facilitating intergroup dialogues:
Bridging differences, catalyzing change. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 110
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research what’s good, what’s not,
and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.
4135/9781483328591
Meijer, A. (2013). Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration
Review, 73(3), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12032
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Nagda, B. A., Gurin, P., Sorensen, N., & Zúñiga, X. (2009). Evaluating intergroup dialogue:
Engaging diversity for personal and social responsibility. Diversity & democracy, 12(1),
4–6.
Nemeroff, T., & Tukey, D. (2001). Diving in: A handbook for improving race relations on
college campuses through the process of sustained dialogue. Dayton, OH: Kettering
Foundation.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/
article/self-efficacy-theory/
Parker, C. (2013). Peacebuilding education: Using conflict for democratic and inclusive learning
opportunities for diverse students. International Journal of Peace Studies, 18(2), 5–27.
Parker, P. (2006). Sustained dialogue: How students are changing their own racial climate. About
Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 11(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.
1002/abc.156
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 111
Pifer, M., Reisboard, D., Staulters, M., Li, X., Gozza-Cohen, M., McHenry, N., . . . Gilio, B.
(2014). Finding the motivation: The evolution of a faculty scholarship symposium.
Journal of Faculty Development, 28(1), 9–18.
Quaye, S. (2012). Think before you teach: Preparing for dialogues about racial realities. Journal
of College Student Development, 53(4), 542–562. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0056
Rankin, S., & Reason, R. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and White
students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2005.0008
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–23.
Spee, J. C. (2005). Using focused conversation in the classroom. Journal of Management
Education, 29(6), 833–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905277969
Sue, D. W. (2013). Race talk: The psychology of racial dialogues. The American Psychologist,
68(8), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033681
Sue, D. W., & Constantine, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions as instigators of difficult
dialogues on race: Implications for student affairs educators and students. The College
Student Affairs Journal, 26(2), 136–143.
Sue, D. W., Rivera, D., Watkins, N., Kim, R., Kim, S., & Williams, C. (2011). Racial dialogues:
Challenges faculty of color face in the classroom. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 17(3), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024190
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 112
Sue, D. W., Torino, G. C., Capodilupo, C. M., Rivera, D. P., & Lin, A. I. (2009). How White
faculty perceive and react to difficult dialogues on race: Implications for education and
training. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(8), 1090–1115.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000009340443
Sustained Dialogue Institute. (n.d.). What is sustained dialogue? Retrieved from
http://sustaineddialogue.org/
Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & O’Herin, C. E. (2009). Characteristics and
consequences of adult learning methods and strategies (Winterberry Research Syntheses,
Vol. 2, No. 2). Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reported hate crimes campus safety and security.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://ope.ed.gov/campussafety/Trend/public/#/answer/2/201/trend/-1/-1/-1/-1
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330970
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
WeTheProtesters. (2015). The demands. Retrieved from http://www.thedemands.org

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 113
APPENDIX
PROTOCOLS
Observational Protocol (Guide)
1. Evidence that they construct and ask strong questions. (Knowledge/Procedural)
2. The physical position/s of the faculty in the classroom. The faculty’s physical position in
the classroom during dialogue matters, because it can state authority or one with the
group. Sitting in a circle is conducive for dialogue and it is part of CID protocol.
(Knowledge/Motivation/Procedural)
3. The seating arrangements for students during class. The students’ seating arrangement
matters as sitting in a circle in part of CID protocol. (Knowledge/Conceptual)
4. The faculty’s ability to redirect/reword questions to draw out personal experiences.
(Knowledge/Procedural)
5. Evidence that faculty used self-evaluation process during a dialogue. (Motivation/Self-
efficacy)
6. Observe the interaction between the faculty and students. Knowledge/Metacognitive
7. Observe the student to student interaction. Knowledge/Metacognitive

DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 114

Interview Protocol
Thank you for meeting with me and agreeing to participate in my research. As a faculty
member who has been a part of Continuous Intergroup Dialogue and have had first-hand
experience, your experience is valuable. Your contribution will help identify how you use
Continuous Intergroup Dialogue skills in the classroom.
I will use a recording devise to record today’s one-hour interview if that is OK with
you. This recording will not be shared with anyone outside the research team and is intended
to capture your thoughts accurately and allow me to focus on our conversation. I will also take
notes during the interview to prompt me what topics to come back to etc. Once I have
concluded the research, I can share my findings with you, if you are interested. I will also
store the gathered data in a password protected cloud storage account, such as Dropbox. The
information gathered today will be destroyed three years after my Doctorate degree has been
granted, with exception of the recording, which will be destroyed as soon as the interview has
been transcribed. Your participation in this study is voluntary, at any moment you can decide
not to continue your participation without any penalty. Do you have any questions about the
study? Are you ready to begin the interview? If so, I will go ahead and start the recorder.
I would like to start by asking general questions about your teaching experience, then talk
about classroom dialogue and your involvement in the Continuous Intergroup Dialogue
professional development.

1. How many years have you taught?
2. What subject do you teach?
3. When did you participate in CID?
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 115
4. What are some key characteristics of good dialogue in the classroom?
(Organization/Cultural Setting/Professional Development) (probe for each component)
5. If I was to see good dialogue happening in the classroom, what would it look like? What
would it sound like?
6. Can you share your experience in engaging in difficult dialogue as a faculty having been
involved in Continuous Intergroup Dialogue (CID)?
7. Can you tell me about the skills you learned in CID? (Knowledge/Conceptual)
a. Can you provide a specific example of a time when you used this/these skills in
your classroom? What happened? Who was involved? How did it go? Etc.
8. What is your opinion on how CID should be applied in the classroom? (Motivation/Self-
Efficacy)
9. If a fellow faculty member was to ask you what strong questions sound like, what would
you say? How should he or she construct strong questions? (Knowledge/Procedural)
10. Tell me about a time when you felt like you constructed a strong question to facilitate
classroom dialogue.
11. Tell me about a time when you felt like you asked a question that wasn’t strong. What
was the question? What happened with the classroom dialogue?
12. Can you tell me about a time when you applied another Continuous Intergroup Dialogue
skill (besides questioning) in your classroom, if at all? (Motivation/Self-Efficacy)
a. If not, what factors inhibited you from applying the skills you learned in your
classroom? (Motivation/Self-Efficacy)
13. Before you participated in the CID, can you tell me of a time when you facilitated a
difficult conversation in your classroom? (Knowledge/Conceptual)
a. What led you to facilitate a dialogue during class?
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 116
14. After you participated in CID, can you tell me of a time when you facilitated a difficult
conversation in your classroom? (Motivation/Self-Efficacy)
a. What led you to facilitate a dialogue during class? (Motivation/Self-Efficacy)
15. Can you please take a moment to think back to your participation in CID, what skills, if
any, have you implemented in your class, that you learned from participating in CID?
(Knowledge/Conceptual)
16. How, if at all, have you changed how you facilitate dialogue given your experiences in
the CID program? (Organization/Cultural Setting)
17. What are some obstacles you faced when applying CID in the class? Please provide a
specific example of two. (Organization/Cultural Setting/Professional Development)
18. What are some opportunities you faced when applying CID in the class? Please provide a
specific example or two. (Motivation/Self-efficacy)
19. Tell me about a time when, after you facilitated dialogue in the classroom, you thought to
yourself “I can do this!” (Motivation/Self-efficacy)
20. Tell me about a time when, after you facilitated dialogue in the classroom, you thought
to yourself “That did not go well. I don’t know how to do this!” (Motivation/Self-
efficacy)
21. How do you reflect on your teaching, especially when you facilitate dialogue in the class?
(Knowledge/Metacognitive)
I’d like to now turn to what motivated you to participate in CID.
22. What factors shaped your decision to participate in CID? (Motivation/Utility Value)
23. Some people say that it’s not important for faculty to know how to facilitate dialogue in
the classroom. That’s not our job. What do you think? (Motivation/Utility Value)
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 117
24. What would you say are the benefits of learning how to facilitate and engage in good
dialogue in the classroom? (Motivation/Utility Value)
25. What would you say are the limitations of learning how to facilitate and engage in
dialogue in the classroom? (Motivation/Self-efficacy)
26. Suppose a faculty was interested in participating in Continuous Intergroup Dialogue,
what would you tell this faculty member are the benefits to participating in the program?
(Motivation/Utility Value)
a. On the flip side of that… what would you say are the challenges?
Now, I’d like to ask you about the CID professional development itself.
27. Can you share with me your overall experience in participating in CID?
(Organization/Cultural Setting/Professional Development)
28. What were some strong qualities of the CID PD? (self-awareness, ask strong questions,
personal sharing) (probe for the effective PD factors)
a. How did the PD (CID) actively engage you?
29. If you could make a suggestion or two about how to improve the CID PD, what would
you say?
I would like to end by talking about how the Continuous Intergroup Dialogue trainings
function in a higher education setting.
30. If another institution’s leadership team was interested in implementing Continuous
Intergroup Dialogue in their institution, what would you share with the leadership team?
(Organization/Cultural Model)
31. How is faculty learning about dialogue facilitation encouraged by the College, if at all?
32. How does your job responsibilities affect your implementation of CID in your classroom,
if at all? (Organization/Cultural Model)
DIALOGUE: SKILL TRANSFERENCE TO THE CLASSROOM 118
33. In the past 3 years, 24 faculty at your institution out of 200 have participated in CID
What are your thoughts about the participation rates? (Organization/Cultural Model)
a. What might get faculty more interested in CID? (Organization/Cultural Setting)
34. Is there anything that you would change about how Continuous Intergroup Dialogue is
utilized on campus? (Organization/Cultural Model)
35. This concludes the questions I had. Is there anything you would like to add, that I did not
ask?
Thank you for your participating in the study. As I mentioned at the beginning of the
interview, once I have concluded the research, I can share my findings with you, if you are
interested. If needed, I will follow up by requesting a 30-minute informal interview. If you
have questions regarding the study, please contact me.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college

PDF

Classroom environment for Common Core

PDF

Developing physician trainees leadership skills: an innovation study

PDF

Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study

PDF

Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition

PDF

The “lost boys” of higher education: African American males from basic skills through university transfer

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

PDF

Implementing problem-based learning to develop student supply chain skills

PDF

STEM industries apprenticeships: organization influences, skill gaps, and challenges facing the 21st-century workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

The racially responsive facilitator: an evaluation study

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Fleming, Sindy Lourdes (author)

Core Title The transference of continuous intergroup dialogue skills to the classroom by participating faculty: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 01/11/2019

Defense Date 10/24/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag classroom,college,Dialogue,education,faculty,Higher education,intergroup,Knowledge,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization,predominantly White institution,program,Race,skills,Training,transference,University

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Eaton, Rosalyn (committee member), Slayton, Julie (committee member)

Creator Email sindyfleming@gmail.com,slflemin@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-113227

Unique identifier UC11675658

Identifier etd-FlemingSin-7021.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-113227 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FlemingSin-7021.pdf

Dmrecord 113227

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Fleming, Sindy Lourdes

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA