Tidal Wave: A University’s Response to Transformational Learning Objectives

Abstract

A textbook activity on symbols was intended as thought provoking but instead elicited a confrontational reaction by one student which left Dr. Jackson and the university searching for a response. When the topic spread through the channels within the university, matters got worse. This disguised case examines the lesson, conflict, and aftermath following a sensitive classroom activity intended to promote transformational learning around the concept of the strength of organizational symbols. Authors suggest organizational theory, power and politics, transformational learning, and cultural competence as possible lenses in which educational leaders can examine this case.

Keywords

leadership transformational learning organizational symbols organizational structures power cultural competence

The following disguised case examines a lesson used in an undergraduate classroom that included transformational learning objectives, the ensuing conflict triggered by the lesson, and the aftermath that followed for the course instructor, the university, and the community. The authors discuss theories concerning organizational symbols, transformational learning, power and politics, and cultural competence as possible lenses readers can use to analyze the case. The case opens with a brief introduction to the context of the case. Following the case context, a detailed narrative of the case is presented which is followed by a brief discussion of four theoretical lenses—Transformational Learning, Organizational Hierarchies and Symbols, Power and Politics, and Cultural Competence. We close the chapter with suggested teaching notes and classroom activities that can be used with this case study.

Context

The case is situated at a research-oriented public institution serving a diverse community throughout multiple locations in a mid-western state. Established in early 1900s, official marketing material promotes Central University (CU) as a diverse campus with innovative teaching and research. CU serves a student population of 35,000 at a flagship campus. CU’s diverse student population comprise of 5% Asian, 20% Black or African American, 24% Hispanic, 3% international, and 48% White students. However, faculty demographics do not reflect the same student diversity. The majority of faculty members at CU are White (84%), whereas Black faculty comprise 8%, and only 6% of faculty are Hispanic. The University is unionized and utilizes a tenure track as well as non-tenure track for its professors and instructors, respectively.

Case Narrative

Dr. Jackson is an African American in his mid-30s, a non-tenured instructor on a renewable 1-year contract in the College of Liberal Arts. He has been employed by CU for 4 years. His online biographical page showcases noteworthy degrees and civic accomplishments. Dr. Jackson is active at the University teaching multiple classes and involved with organizing community events, in addition he promotes political engagement. He encourages students, in his courses to enhance their world view and understand differing perspectives.

Dr. Jackson teaches the multi-cultural and communication course each semester and many of the students who take the class are communication majors who are required to take the course for degree fulfillment. Others choose it as an elective and often come from majors outside of the College of Liberal Arts. Approximately 20 undergraduate students typically attend Dr. Jackson’s weekly evening course for 3 hr.

Randy, a 21-year-old White male in his second year as a business major, regularly attends Dr. Jackson’s evening classes. Randy works off campus, and although an evening class makes for a long day, he regularly participates in classroom discussions and enjoys visiting with his friend Terry during class. He has come to be recognized in class as a vocal participant who often catalyzes lively classroom discussion. Sometimes, however, expressing disagreement and providing personal views that are although unpopular, do align with educational objectives of the course. Key learning objectives include students engaging in experiential learning activities designed to encourage them to step outside of their comfort zones; which, according to many adult learning theorists can foster transformational learning.

One evening, during Fall semester, Dr. Jackson presented a class activity that sought to challenge students thinking about the power of representational symbols. Dr. Jackson selected a classroom activity from a course text he had used previously. A supplemental instructor guide included a warning to the instructor regarding the sensitive nature of this particular activity. The instructor warning suggested that while the activity was intended to demonstrate how symbols are actually arbitrary, some take on very powerful meanings linked to deeply entrenched belief systems of the people who hold those symbols dear. However, Dr. Jackson had done the activity every semester prior and had never had any adverse reactions from the students.

So, as in the past, Dr. Jackson began the activity but did keep the guidebook close at hand. Following the instructions in the instructor’s guide book, Dr. Jackson asked all of the students in the class to draw the U.S. flag on a piece of paper. After all of the students finished drawing the U.S. flag, Dr. Jackson asked the students to place their pictures of the U.S. flag on the ground in front of them and then to stand up. His next direction to the students was to now step on the flag they had just drawn. The instructor guidebook warns the professor that at this point in the activity, students might refuse to step on the flag. The guide suggests that instructors should provide students an opportunity to express why they will or will not step on the paper and how they were feeling. This part of the activity was intended to help students process various viewpoints and concerns as the students engaged in discussion with one another while attempting to make the decision “to step or not to step” on the flag.

However, at this moment, Randy objected immediately and said loudly, “No way, Brother! I’m not doing that!”

Dr. Jackson replied swiftly and somewhat sternly, “I am not your brother. It is Dr. Jackson or Professor Jackson.”

“I don’t care about that, but how dare you disrespect the American flag,” Randy stated and sat down.

“You do not have to step on the paper if you choose not to,” Dr. Jackson explained to the class, “it is your choice to step on or not step on the paper.” Pausing as the other students deliberated with their own conscious as to whether to step on the paper or not, Dr. Jackson noticed that some students did not step on the paper while others had. Although Dr. Jackson wanted to hear input from other students as the instructor’s guide directed, he was cognizant that the initial exchange with Randy might have left many students feeling guarded as a number of students were reluctant to share after Randy’s outburst. The few bits of conversation and discussion that did occur were similar to those that had occurred among students in earlier semesters. Some simply viewed it as a piece of paper with a drawing on it. Many others responded they could not step on it because it had patriotic significance. However, after Randy’s initial outburst, the discussion was much more limited and the strained class discussion winded down much faster than it had in past semesters, At that point, Dr. Jackson resigned himself to reminding students what was due for class the following week and then dismissed class. Students gathered their belongings and left, but Randy and his friend, Terry lingered behind.

Rather abruptly, Randy approached Dr. Jackson’s desk. Clenching his fist and smacking it into the palm of his hand he angrily said to Dr. Jackson, “I wanted to punch you in your face for that!” Then raising his voice he added, “Don’t you ever do that again, you hear me!”

Dr. Jackson responded, “Randy, you need to leave now!” Dr. Jackson slammed his hand upon the desk in front of him and then turned to his backpack to retrieve his cell phone. At the same time, Randy and his friend walked toward the door of the classroom. As they neared the door, Randy’s friend Terry turned back toward Dr. Jackson and said, “Dr. Jackson, I apologize. I had nothing to do with this” as he and Randy and the rest of the class walked out of the room.

Dr. Jackson, still very bothered by Randy’s verbal threat and fist smacking, decided to call campus security. Campus security met Dr. Jackson in the classroom and took a report of what happened during class. The security officer explained the process for filing an incident report, which would ultimately end on the dean of student’s desk. The officer told Dr. Jackson he would follow-up with him in a few days and begin the investigation. Later that evening, Dr. Jackson received an email from Terry, Randy’s friend, which stated, “I’m sorry for happened in class today. I did not know Randy was going to talk to you after class.” During the investigation, Randy was not allowed to attend Dr. Jackson’s evening class as he was perceived as a threat to Dr. Jackson. The night before Randy was to return to Dr, Jackson’s course, Randy received a notice of charges from Dr. Edwards, Dean of Students, stating Randy was being charged with violating a CU student code of conduct which prohibits physical abuse, intimidation, or harassment of any person on campus.

In addition, the dean’s letter summarized the next stages of the due process for Randy, which included a hearing with the student conduct board. During the hearing he would be informed of and given a chance to respond to the chargers. The committee would then interview witnesses, gather information and recommend disciplinary actions if needed. Several days later, Randy had his hearing with the conduct board and, among other things, they told Randy he would have to finish the course with the department chair as an Independent Study.

Randy, however, feeling wronged by the dean, made a direct appeal to the public and took to twitter and news outlets to tell his side of the story. Not long after, Randy was interviewed by a local television reporter. During the interview he criticized the professor for introducing the class activity and explained to the public that he was being disciplined and suspended for not agreeing to deface the American Flag by standing on it when asked to by his professor.

Soon after initial press coverage of the topic, the university began to receive even more inquiries, many from media outlets generally not considered to be mainstream media. Members of the university’s faculty governance team and the media relations team met to discuss a statement about the incident written by Dr. Jackson’s department chair, Dr. Fuzzoli. The statement explained the transformational learning objectives behind the lesson as well as a more general discussion of academic freedom. However, Dr. Jackson had not been notified of the meeting and was only casually informed about it on Friday evening. Two days later, and as a result of the unwarranted outside interference by local, state, and national politicians as well as media pressure the university released a second statement to the media. This time the statement came at the direction of the university president, who instructed CU’s Senior Vice President of Student Affairs to apologize and talk about the offensive nature of the exercise and above all to ensure students and the community the lesson would never be used again. This press release came in the form of a video-recorded statement posted on the university’s website. The video claimed that the university had reviewed the issue and had dismissed the pending disciplinary process involving the student. Later the same day, Dr. Jackson received a call from Dr. Payne, Dean of students, who requested a meeting with Dr. Jackson, Randy, Randy’s legal counsel, and University officials. Dr. Jackson said he was available to meet, and waited to hear back from Dr. Payne but never received a call back. Instead, Dr. Jackson learned the violation of the student code of conduct charges against Randy had now been dropped while watching it on the evening news.

The next day, and exactly 30 days after the initial incident took place, Dr. Jackson learned, he was being put on administrative leave, without due process, by the dean of his college. The administration told Dr. Jackson that putting him on leave was only being done to protect his safety and to further minimize any more disruptions stemming from the case and he should not consider it a punishment against him but rather it was being done for him. True to their word, the university replaced Dr. Jackson with an adjunct for the rest of the semester and placed Dr. Jackson on administrative leave. Dr. Jackson was in shock over the administration’s decision, and he immediately went to the chair of his department and the faculty union for guidance and help. Some faculty and students were puzzled by the university’s response. Union leadership was particularly frustrated with administration believing they had circumvented the process and in effect, disciplined a faculty member without due process. The union leadership and others attended an on-campus demonstration where faculty, students, and some community members held signs protesting the action university administration had taken against Dr. Jackson’s academic freedom. The University Faculty Senate convened to investigate the university’s response to the incident. When questioned by the faculty leaders, the president responded that he wanted the situation diffused and his intent had not been to violate academic freedom. As a result of that meeting with the faculty governance representatives from the faculty senate and union, the video produced and defended earlier by the administration was taken down. But, the situation was far from over.

During the weeks that followed, the university president began to be pressured by politicians near and far, including the governor of the state where CU is located. In response to this mounting pressure, the university president wrote a letter to the state education chancellor stating that while he appreciated the governor’s perspective, CU was sorry for any disturbances the issue had caused and fully believed and embraced the use of responsible open discourse in the classroom and academic freedom. However, by the end of the letter, again the president pivoted his stance and told the Chancellor that the exercise was insensitive and hurtful and would never be used again. He added that lessons learned from the incident will help CU adhere more closely to its values and mission.

At this point, the story had gone viral. News coverage of the incident had spread to the national level and a debate wavered between academic freedom and cultural sensitivity across a plethora of news outlets, blogs, and professional associations such as the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). As time went on, the episode became fodder for political debates where national figures frequently used the incident to further their own political or other agendas. Meanwhile, Dr. Jackson became subjected to hate mail, death threats, and calls for him to be fired. The incident damaged his reputation and could have ended his career, if it were not for the unwavering and vocal support of the faculty union and faculty senate. The investigation and subsequent report to administration authored by the executive members of these two faculty governance bodies reemphasized the fact that CU violated the academic freedom rights of Dr. Jackson. It also articulated how the university had mishandled its response to internal and external pressures to abandon one of its core values; academic freedom.

The report written by the academic planning and freedom committee questioned the administrators who publicly declared the lesson would never be used again. The report also placed blame on media relations and other university officials who didn’t clarify what actually happened in the classroom and allowed the incident to take on a life of its own resulting in a tarnished image across CU. Despite the faculty governance report’s accuracy showing clear violations of academic freedom perpetrated by several administrators at CU, and evidence produced that the student, Randy, had violated the student code of conduct, no one suffered any consequences except Dr. Jackson, who suffered the most consequences, both short-term and long-term.

During the subsequent two semesters (spring and summer), citing safety concerns, Dr. Jackson was not allowed to teach any face-to-face courses. Instead, he was told to teach all of his classes online. Also, during this time, Dr. Jackson continually fretted over his job security. As an instructor on an annual contract, he could only nervously await the end of the contract year to find out if his contract would be renewed for another year.

Theoretical Perspectives

To assist readers in purposely reflecting on and analyzing this case study, we briefly review several theories directly or tangentially related to this case. We ask readers to consider the case through four specific perspectives/frames/lenses. First, the main objective of the activity Dr. Jackson used, that triggered Randy’s outburst, came from a textbook that encourages the use of transformational learning objectives. Transformational learning objectives are often implemented, when course objective call for a shift in student mindsets, such as, but not limited to empathy for others, objectivity, greater context and reflection upon one’s own assumptions and shifts to long held assumptions and beliefs (Mezirow, 2000). Next, the strength of symbols in relationship to the organization and the actors within the organization is described. From there, we transition into literature describing the intersection of power and policy. This lens as defined is provided as a tool with which to analyze case actors’ definition and use of power. In other words, our intent for using power and politics as a frame for analyzing this case is to encourage students to examine this case by focusing on the way in which the actors in the might define power based on the way they wielded their power; formerly and informally as individuals and collectively. The final theoretical perspective we provide is cultural competence. We provide a brief introduction to cultural competence and situate it as yet another theoretical lens that can be used to analyze the way in which actors make sense of their world, their identity, and their own agency in the context of this case. We conclude our case study with teaching notes to broaden the possibilities of learning from the case study.

Transformational Learning Theory

Mezirow’s (2000) transformational learning theory describes an andragogical process that facilitates critical reflection on individual beliefs or mindsets. The theory provides insight into how people make meaning of life experiences. It describes one’s learning transformation occurring as result of 10-stage process that begins with a “disorienting dilemma” or a disruption of a belief which leads to self-examination, planning, and actions, some experimentation with new roles and ultimately, reintegration. The disorienting experience is a necessary component that join learner engagement in “critical reflection, reflective discourse, and action” (Merriam, Caffarella, & Baumgartner, 2007, p. 134).

The rational discourse stage has implications for classroom educators as Mezirow (2000) builds on Habermas’ advocacy for open dialogue in promoting democracy in the sense of “respect for others, self-respect, willingness to accept responsibility for the common good, willingness to welcome diversity and to approach others with openness” (p. 14). Some of the ideal conditions strive for complete and accurate information, non-coercion, empathy for others, objectivity, greater context, and reflection upon one’s own assumptions, equal access to multiple roles in discourse, and a “willingness to seek understanding and agreement” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 14). Empirical studies exploring classroom conditions generally support Mezirow’s principles of fostering transformational learning for adults (see Merriam et al., 2007).

Organizational Theories and Symbols

Organizational theorists generally describe and categorize organizations in several different ways, such as but not limited to, structures and structural processes, humans as investment capital and/or resources, policies as the foundation for organizational political behaviors, and the symbols, cultures, and myths that pervade organizational cultures (see, for example, Bolman & Deal, 1997; Morgan, 1997). Bolman and Deal advocate using one or more of the following four frames as a tool(s) to analyze organizational problems—the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic frames. Each is described very briefly below.

The structural frame provides a way to analyze organizations by the way organizations are structured and how each structure relates to another structure within an organization (Mintzberg, 1980, 1983), it is a lens that allows for the examination of units and sub-units design, in addition to reviewing procedures and rules that shape position, governance, and decision making. Typically, structural problems can be resolved with changes to structures or processes within an organization, yet fails to consider the role of the employees working within those structures (Mintzberg, 1983). Conversely, the second Bolman and Deal (1997) frame, the human resource frame, is a lens used to analyze the needs of organizations in relationship to the needs of the individual employees. The primary concept of this frame is that organizational problems can be diminished if there is a close fit between the needs of the organization and the needs of its employees. Motivation theory undergirds this frame and is supported by motivation theorists such as, but not limited to Elon Mayo, Abraham Maslow, and Douglas McGregor (Shafritz, Ott, & Yang, 2016).

The other two frames posited by Bolman and Deal (1997), the political and symbolic frame are heavily dependent on the way power is enacted within organizations. Both frames are useful when organizational problems stem from an abuse of power or misrepresentation or misuse of organizational symbols. The political frame most often includes multiple theories on power structures and hierarchies, and how power is wielded by those in formal and informal positions. It is difficult to find any organization or even a level of society that does not organize around power and/or wealth to influence organizational decisions and policy. The political frame demonstrates a close relationship to the final and fourth frame, the symbolic frame and will be discussed in greater detail in the power and policy section below. The symbolic frame is itself a very powerful frame and is perhaps the most meaningful to those within most organizations. Although Gareth Morgan (1997) advanced the use of metaphors such as jungles or factories to describe organizations and to analyze problems inherent to organizational systems and processes, Bolman and Deal (1997) extended Morgan’s concept by examining organizations through their cultures, myths, traditions, and symbols. It is the symbolic frame that is of particular interest to this case study.

For anyone who has ever been part of an organization, even at the level of family, the symbolic frame should feel familiar. Part of the symbolic frame considers those inside the organizations as actors in a play, and those outside as the audience. The actors relay only the positive about the organization and work hard to create a perception that everything within the organization is good and sound. The audience rarely has any choice but to believe what they are being told. This way, employees of an organization are the ones privy to the true inner workings of an organization and external constituents know only what is shown. In today’s vernacular, this might be called branding or conversely, airing/covering of dirty laundry. Either way, the symbolic frame is concerned with the myths, traditions, and symbols that represent an organization; regardless of intentionality (Bolman & Deal, 1997). From sports team mascots to religious symbols, to institutional branding, symbols bear varying degrees of meaning and influence but are an important part of any organization; often so influential that the symbols are known more readily than the name of the organization. Consider, for example, the level of importance the Badger might hold for stakeholders of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and then compare that level of influence with the level of loyalty inspired by the Crucifix as a symbol of Jesus and Christianity. All of these symbols mean different things to different people and have different levels of influence. Symbols are extremely influential to loyalty as well. Symbols create legitimacy and agency for those who are part of an organization or who once were and desire the organization as a piece of their own identity (Bolman & Deal, 1997). Although one might slightly offend a Badger fan by likening it to “roadkill” in a friendly competition against a competing team, disrespecting a crucifix can stir up negative and often extreme emotional responses. A full understanding of an organization requires knowing the myths, symbols, and culture of the organization and is an important piece to consider when analyzing organizational cases.

Power and Politics

Analyses of the dynamics of power in higher education is typically framed by traditional definitions of power. That is, power as the ability to control or influence others (Weber, 1924). When analyzing power in higher education organizations, where governance structures are most often hierarchical regardless of claims of shared governance or egalitarianism the definition of power is typically modified as the ability to control or influence others at lower levels of the organizational hierarchy or bureaucracy (Mintzberg, 1983). This common and fairly well-accepted view of organizational power emanates primarily from political and sociological sciences (Dahl, 1961; Follett, 1942; Fowler, 2000; Lasswell & Kaplan, 1950; Weber, 1924) and is often referred to as power over. For example, Max Weber (1924) defined power as “the imposition of one’s will upon the behavior of others” (p. 30). This definition of power is somewhat dependent on a hierarchical governance structure where domination by authorities and obedience by subordinates are commonly accepted norms of organizational behavior (Dahl, 1961; Fowler, 2000; Simon, 1953). In fact, this enactment of power in educational organizations is more often than not seen as a requisite to social action and/or bureaucratic performance (Dahl, 1961; Simon, 1953; Weber, 1924). However, relationships between and among members of educational organizations steeped in hierarchical governance and who define power as power over, tend to be controlling and riddled with conflict (Follett, 1942; Fowler, 2000). All is not lost, however.

There is a growing body of literature that frames power differently and incorporates a softer and more socially productive frame for the use of power in educational organizations and educational leadership (Bjork, 1993; Capper, 1993; Capper & Young, 2006; Chase, 1995; Sergiovanni, 2000; Starratt, 1995). Some of these scholars have written about this view of power using the term power with to best capture its essence of meaning (Brunner, 2001; Follett, 1942; Sergiovanni, 2000).

Power with is power that is property of the social unit as a whole. The community has power when it produces some social product or solves a common problem or attains a public good. Furthermore, it involves acts of communication, cooperation, and collaboration (Follett, 1924). This variant of power in educational settings suggests that those in leadership roles, who have acquired power should not use their power to dominate, control others, oppress others, or take a singular role in decision making (Brunner, 2002a, 2002b; Fowler, 2000). Wielding power this way only serves to perpetuate and perhaps even steepen an organization’s’ hierarchical structure, thicken its bureaucracy and thus perpetuate processes in which those who hold the power, maintain their power (Brunner, 2002, 2002b; Starratt, 1995). In society, power and culture is extricable and may differ from one country to another making it sometimes problematic for those visiting other cultures or dealing with cultural differences within an organization (Capper & Young, 2006).

Cultural Competence

Culture is a complex concept which is rooted in many disciplines like anthropology, sociology, intercultural communication, and cross-cultural psychology and has a range of definitions (Bustamante, Nelson, & Onwuegbuzie, 2009). There seems to be a superficial perception of culture, which reduces culture to food, clothes, music, and art (Kochan & Pascarelli, 2012). It is necessary to go beyond these superficial elements of culture to understand cultural diversity and uphold high, “ethically justifiable standards of fairness” (Sirin, Roger-Sirin, & Collins, 2010, p. 50).

For many, culture provides a sense of identity or community in which to belong. It can also provide moral guidance and meaning (Sensoy & Diangelo, 2009). However, when pluralism challenges culture and denigrates cultural norms, many rally to defend chosen cultural beliefs (Jones, 1999). Multiculturalism and the movements of cultural responsiveness/competence, originated out of desire to defend minoritized cultures against institutionalized oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, and classism) and cultural hegemony (Banks & Banks, 2004; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Sleeter, 1995). While everyone has learned biases and prejudices these can only become -isms with institutional support. Although those in minoritized groups may have prejudices toward members of a dominant culture, they don’t have the social and institutional power to transform their prejudice into any -isms (Sensoy & Diangelo, 2009).

Being culturally competent can be defined as possessing the necessary cultural beliefs, motivation, knowledge, and skills to successfully collaborate or work with others from different cultural backgrounds, which include but are not limited to race, ethnicity, culture, socioeconomic status, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ability (Kohli, Kohli, Huber, & Faul, 2009). However, “cultural competence goes beyond surface cultural variations to include an understanding of historic oppression and discrimination” (Krentzman & Townsend, 2008, p. 9), and a commitment to combating racism and “all forms of prejudice and discrimination, through the development of appropriate understanding, attitudes, and social action skills” (Bennett, 1995, p. 263). Building cultural competence requires developing capacity from within. It requires examining, reflecting on and challenging personal biases, beliefs and values (Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989; Khalifa, Gooden, & Davis, 2016; Pang, 2010; Terrell & Lindsey, 2008).

In a pluralistic society, cultural and religious sensibilities must be respected and protected as argued by Modood (1998) “if people are to occupy the same political space without conflict, they mutually have to limit the extent to which they subject each others’ fundamental beliefs to criticism” (p. 394). So how can societies reconcile freedom of speech with cultural sensitivity and cultural competence? Is it possible to criticize people’s cultures and deepest held beliefs without creating conflict and risking the social cohesiveness of societies (Malik, 2013)? Or, are conflict and risk-taking necessary components of transformational learning?

Teaching Notes

Cultural competence, deep held beliefs and organizational symbols, transformational learning, power, and politics all play an important role in this case. One student’s reaction to a class activity that impacted the instructor of the course, other students in the course, the university, the community surrounding the university, and beyond creates a context for examining the interplay between theory and practice. The following teaching notes are mere suggestions to guide classroom discussion. We encourage the use of additional theories and creative activities to enhance context-specific learning from this case.

Discussion Questions

What were the contributing structures at CU that added, helped, or hindered resolution of the conflict?

What, if any, structures and/or policies does your university have in-place to confront threats to academic freedom?

What is the dues process followed in your university before placing a faculty member on administrative leave? From a structural perspective, what (if anything) would you change?

What kinds of power did you see in this case? And how did the power relations shift throughout the case?

Were there examples of bargaining, negotiations, and/or coalition building in the case?

Discuss the relevance (or not) of Dr. Jackson’s race and non-tenure status on the progression and outcome of the case.

Discuss the compatibility of the needs of the CU organization and those who work and learn within the organization as this case progressed.

What were the key symbolic and cultural challenges that CU’s administration had to face?

Were classroom conditions sufficient for transformational student learning, why or why not? What would you have changed (structurally, politically, culturally/symbolically, and from the human resources perspectives)

Activities

Role-play activity: “You are . . . ,” is an activity that will allow students to recreate the case and examine the issue from multiple perspectives. Assuming the position of a different stakeholder allows the students to openly discuss controversial issues in a more objective fashion. Please see the appendix for details and needed resources.

Find your university’s “due process” for dealing with student’s breach of rules, regulations or student conduct and use it to prepare a report that evaluates the measures taken by CU’s administration in dealing with Randy.

Supplemental Material

Appendix_A – Supplemental material for Tidal Wave: A University’s Response to Transformational Learning Objectives

Supplemental material, Appendix_A for Tidal Wave: A University’s Response to Transformational Learning Objectives by Maysaa Barakat, Meredith Mountford, Deandre Poole and Dustin Pappas in Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership

Footnotes

Appendix

Role-play activity: You are . . .

In this role-play debate, students examine different points of view or perspectives related to the power and importance of symbols for individuals and organizations. The opinions on the role play cards are intentionally exaggerated to exemplify extreme viewpoints and in no way represent the opinions of the authors.

Directions for the instructor:

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Maysaa Barakat is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology at Florida Atlantic University. She received her PhD in educational leadership at Auburn University, Alabama. Her research interests and publications focus on cultural competence and educational leadership preparation.

Meredith Mountford is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and research Methodology at Florida Atlantic University. She earned her PhD in educational administration at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests include transformational learning, the Superintendency and educational preparation programs.

Deandre Poole has over a decade of higher education experience in communication education, curriculum and instruction. He serves as a senior instructor in the School of Communication and Multimedia Studies at Florida Atlantic University. He received his PhD in Communication and Culture from Howard University. His research is focused on critical race theory, community and civic engagement, and political discourse analysis.

Dustin Pappas is a doctoral candidate in The Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology at Florida Atlantic University.

References

Banks

J. A.

Banks

C. A. M.

(2004). Handbook of research on multicultural education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bennett

C. I.

(1995). Preparing teachers for cultural diversity and national standards of academic excellence. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 259-265.

Bjork

(1993). Effective schools-effective superintendents: The emerging instructional leadership role. Journal of School Leadership, 3, 246-259.

Bolman

Deal

(1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Brunner

C. C.

(2001, November). Power and authentic participatory decision-making in the superintendency: Effects on social justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Cincinnati, OH.

Brunner

C. C.

(2002a). A proposition for reconceptualizing the superintendency: Reconsidering traditional and nontraditional discourse. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 402-431.

Brunner

C. C.

(2002b). Professing educational administration: Conceptions of power. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 693-720.

Bustamante

R. M.

Nelson

J. A.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2009). Assessing school wide cultural competence: Implications for school leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 793-827.

Capper

(1993). Educational administration in a pluralistic society. Albany: State University of New York Press.

10.

Capper

Young

M. D.

(2006). Educational leaders for social justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

11.

Chase

S. E.

(1995). Taking narrative seriously. In Josselson

Lieblich

(Eds.), Interpreting experience: The narrative study of lives (Vol. 3, pp. 273-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

12.

Cross

Bazron

Dennis

Isaacs

(1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care (Vol. I). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.

13.

Dahl

(1961). Who governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

14.

Follett

M. P.

(1924). Creative experience. London, England: Longmans, Green.

15.

Follett

M. P.

(1942). Power. In Metcalf

H. C.

Urwick

(Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 62-64). New York, NY: Harper.

16.

Fowler

(2000). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Press.

17.

Gay

(2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

18.

Jones

(1999). The definition of diversity: Two views. A more inclusive definition. Journal of Library Administration, 27(1-2), 5-15.

19.

Khalifa

M. A.

Gooden

M. A.

Davis

J. E.

(2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86, 1272-1311.

20.

Kochan

Pascarelli

J. T.

(2012). Perspectives on culture and mentoring in the global age The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coaching in education (pp. 184-198). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

21.

Kohli

H. K.

Kohli

A. S.

Huber

Faul

A. C.

(2009). Assessing cultural competence in graduating students. International Journal of Progressive Education, 6, 6-27.

22.

Krentzman

A. R.

Townsend

A. L.

(2008). Review of multidisciplinary measures of cultural competence for use in social work education. Journal of Social-Work Education, 44(2), 7-31.

23.

Ladson-Billings

(1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

24.

Lasswell

Kaplan

(1950). Power and society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

25.

Malik

(2013). Free speech and cultural sensitivities: A debate. Pandaemonium. Retrieved from https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/free-speech-and-cultural-sensitivities-a-debate/

26.

Merriam

S. B.

Caffarella

R. S.

Baumgartner

L. M.

(2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformational theory. In Mezirow

&Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Mintzberg

(1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organizational design. Management Sciences, 26, 229-344.

29.

Mintzberg

(1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

30.

Modood

(1998). Anti-essentialism, multiculturalism and the “recognition” of religious groups. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6, 378-399.

31.

Morgan

(1997). Imaginization: New Mindsets for Seeing, Organizing, and Managing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

32.

Pang

(2010). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach. San Diego, CA: Montezuma Publishing.

33.

Sensoy

Diangelo

. (2009). Developing social justice literacy an open letter to our faculty colleagues. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 345-352.

34.

Sergiovanni

(2000). Educational governance and administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35.

Shafritz

J. M.

Ott

J. S.

Jang

Y. S.

(2016). Classics of organization theory (8th edition). Cengage Learning.

36.

Simon

(1953). Notes on the observation and measurement of power. Journal of Politics, 15, 500-516.

37.

Sirin

S. R.

Rogers-Sirin

Collins

B. A.

(2010). A measure of cultural competence as an ethical responsibility: Quick-racial and ethical sensitivity test. Journal of Moral Education, 39(1), 49-64.

38.

Sleeter

C. E.

(1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

39.

Starratt

(1995). Leaders with vision: The quest for school renewal. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

40.

Terrell

Lindsey

(2008). Culturally proficient leadership: The personal journey begins within. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

41.

Weber

(1924). The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB