Campus Without Boundaries: The Brooklyn Green Walk

Berger, Monica; Blake, Reggie; Leonard, Anne; Michals, Robin; Noonan, Mark J.; Phillip, Susan; Spellane, Peter

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9166-6_14

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In reference to materials, they can use textbooks, media (videos, audios), objects, or art (paintings, music, sculpture) to show diverse elements of identity. In reference to activities, they can engage in walking tours (Berger et al, 2011;Fitzpatrick, 2016), role plays/performance, debates (Greene, 2008), group discussions, or online simulations (Fitzpatrick & Kostina-Ritchey, 2019). In their classroom (in person or online), instructors can convey MI support or openness via communication strategies such as respectful questions/discussion starters, active listening, validating statements, and openness to new information (e.g., Molina et al, 2019;Powell et al, 2013).…”

Section: Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microinclusive teaching in family science courses

Fitzpatrick

2022

Family Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of microaggressive (MA) and microinclusive (MI) issues in college teaching. In MA communications, individuals/ groups are treated as invisible or comparatively less desirable. MA can have a detrimental impact on its targets (to whom comments or behaviors are directed) as well as bystanders who witness the aggression. As part of ethics in family scholarship, it is worthwhile for faculty to consider MA and learn about more prosocial/supportive options, such as MI. This article provides a brief overview of MA, MI teaching, ethical approaches to MA/MI guidance, and MI teaching examples in one family science course. These issues are also relevant to coursework in other HDFS department programs or tracks (e.g., developmental, policy and practice, therapy, community education). K E Y W O R D S cultural diversity, family life education, pedagogical and curriculum issuesThe article provides a summary of microaggressive (MA) and microinclusive (MI) issues in college teaching. In MA communications, individuals/groups are treated as invisible, unequal, or undesirable (Fleras, 2016;Offermann et al., 2014). Compared with moderate-macroaggressions, MA is less dangerous, intense, or severe. However, MA can still have a detrimental impact on its targets (to whom comments or behaviors are directed) as well as bystanders (Burleigh & Wilson, 2021;Fleras, 2016). Individuals, including instructors, can engage in MA (Abdelaziz et al., 2021) with little awareness or ill intent. As part of ethics in family scholarship, faculty should consider MA and learn about counteractive options such as MI. This article provides a brief overview of (a) MA, (b) MI teaching, (c) ethical approaches to MA/MI guidance, and (d) MI teaching examples in one family science course. WHAT IS MICROAGGRESSION?MA has been addressed since the late 1970s. In a thematic analysis of TV commercials, Pierce et al. (1978) described MA as derogatory or disparaging messages. The message elements Please note that this email address is case-specific. It requires a capital "J" and capital "F"; all other letters must be lower-case.

show abstract