At their best, classroom conversations can engage students, improve their communication and critical thinking skills, and help them connect learning to their lives.
But the so-called “culture of outrage” – in which students react collectively and disproportionately negatively to disagreements – can undermine attempts to have substantive conversations about controversial or challenging topics.
Michael McQueen, psychologist and author of Mindstuck: The Art of Changing Minds, spoke to Education Week about ways educators can help curb overreaction and a culture of outrage among students.
Why do we react so negatively when someone disagrees with us or we are told we are wrong?
The challenge is that our instinctive minds respond to psychological threats in the same way that they respond to physical threats. This response to physical threats is what has kept us alive for millennia: a tiger leaps out, you jump to conclusions, you run, you defend yourself, you stay alive. That’s been great for us as a species. The challenge is that we respond the same way when our instinctive minds are presented with ideas, information, perspectives and data that are confronting, uncomfortable or unfamiliar.
But we don’t go into fight or flight mode, but rather into denial or defensive mode.
These dynamics occur very often in all of us as humans, but especially in young people where the front part of the brain, where the more rational, thoughtful and linear part of our thinking apparatus is located, is not yet (fully developed).
How can we help students develop better skills in dealing with situations where disagreements arise and they may be wrong?
There’s such a willingness to label problems that aren’t in clinical terms – particularly a willingness to label students as “anxious” far too quickly, when really these conversations are just uncomfortable. We strengthen our cognitive muscles, we become well-rounded, thoughtful people, by being exposed to ideas and information that challenge us and sometimes even threaten us, make us uncomfortable. And now, by and large – and this is where schools and parents need to be on the same page – it’s about creating environments where it’s OK for people to feel uncomfortable and outside their comfort zone.
For students in particular, this idea that safety is the ultimate goal is fundamentally wrong. It results in young people not being robust and resilient. The dark side is simply reality. Shielding people from that doesn’t make them stronger; it makes them fundamentally less able to deal with the realities of life. … (But there are) teachers who are afraid to have these divisive conversations now, even though it’s what young people care about most.
How can teachers create structures for more difficult conversations with their students?
Life is complex and nuanced, and I think the most important thing for teachers is to encourage young people to be intellectually curious and humble.
One of the prerequisites for that is this feeling of psychological safety – that I feel safe enough to do that in admitting that I don’t know the answer, that I haven’t thought about it, that there are things I doubt. I think it’s incredibly helpful when teachers model that. So a teacher might say, “You know what, this text that we’re going to study – I personally find it very confronting, but we’re going to stick with it, and that’s OK.”
Many schools are trying to specifically incorporate social-emotional skills into the curriculum. Do you think this is the best approach?
The difficult thing is that these lessons often become principles in a vacuum. And so there is no connection between what I learn in math, English and geography classes and the politics that are embedded in geography and history and how that impacts ideology.
Ideally, you want to equip (students) not only with a set of skills, but with a lens through which they see the world. And I think the best way to do that is to give them that lens that they can hold up every time they engage with a number of different topics or subject areas, rather than just describing a set of principles or ideas. Every time you (teach subject content), there are micro-moments where you have a chance to model some of those principles and ideas (of civil disagreement and intellectual curiosity) and ask the questions that allow young people to think differently and see those nuanced perspectives. If you separate that out as a standalone lesson, it can very quickly turn into ideas that make sense, but don’t apply to anything that students experience and see every day.
How can a teacher deescalate a difficult conversation that has gotten out of control?
When someone disagrees with us, we often assume there is a knowledge gap. If we just teach them better or give them more information or better data, they will become aware of it and change their perspective. But very often that is not the reality. In fact, the challenge (in reaching agreement) is often how we address the things that are making the other person stubborn, rather than trying to pile on more information or logic in a way that leaves the other person no choice but to change their perspective.
There are practical things you can do in that moment. First, don’t react in the same way from an emotional perspective. Sometimes we assume that if we want to have an intense conversation, we have to reciprocate someone’s emotional intensity. But actually, the best thing a teacher can do is stay incredibly calm and… actually try to listen. throughnot listening Towhat they’re saying to figure out what’s going on that’s caused that incredibly strong reaction, that defensiveness, that defiance. People who are listened to are more likely to listen.
