Polona establishes clear boundaries and frameworks for safe, structured debates on complex theoretical, conceptual and philosophical ideas, especially race, difference and inequality. She adopts a decolonial, inclusive and collaborative approach to the reading materials, involves students as co-creators of learning and uses a variety of participation modes to encourage engagement.

Teaching area

Seminars; structured debate

Course

In the Autumn term 2025/26, I taught two seminar groups of 18 students on a Level 4 core module: Critical Approaches. The students came from English, Philosophy and Creative Writing. There was little ethnic diversity among the students, but there were many neurodiverse and LGBTQIA+ students, as well as a few American students.

Description

The module offers students a wide range of theoretical, conceptual and philosophical ideas, terminology and frameworks that can be applied across the humanities. The differences in students’ fields of study posed a challenge, as the topics covered were largely philosophy-centred and theoretically demanding. This made teaching uniquely challenging, as their prior knowledge of theoretical, philosophical and conceptually demanding content varied greatly. Therefore, I had to ensure that my delivery was understandable, accessible and inclusive for all students, particularly those who are neurodiverse.

The module was organised around central themes, with each week focusing on one key theme and one or two authors:

Each week, we defined and explained the key concepts and ideas, and outlined the topic’s general theoretical frameworks. The two-hour seminars followed a weekly lecture that provided the background, central arguments and the impact of the theory’s ideas on the humanities. Before the seminar, students were expected to complete the readings to prepare for the discussions. Most students did not do this regularly, so I had to devote a substantial part of the teaching sessions to summarising the texts and explaining central terms and ideas.

Case study: Race, colonialism, Eurocentrism

After two weeks on structuralism and poststructuralism, we focused on colonial discourse and then on the Black Lives Matter movement. This allowed us to reflect on and analyse sometimes opposing ideas about difference among people, including racial difference, and the impacts and implications of Western, Eurocentric, imperialist, colonialist, racist, binary and exclusionary thinking. It also enabled us to think about collaborative ethics and, more generally, about how we relate to one another.

As I was trying to make the topic more current, I brought into our discussion today’s political climate, including right-wing, conservative ideologies. A lively and productive debate ensued, which I had to keep returning to the theoretical and philosophical frameworks we were studying. This was sometimes difficult, as the students held strong views, with the vast majority firmly on the liberal, left, inclusive, anti-colonialist/imperialist and anti-racist side. However, a small number of students shared contrasting perspectives, and argued passionately for more conservative political positions. They offered various arguments in favour of somewhat exclusionary views and political perspectives. Other students challenged these exclusionary arguments, which led to a very lively exchange of positions. The discussion became slightly heated, students became defensive and the atmosphere grew tense. But as the debate was relevant to our topic and the exercise in discussion valuable and formative, I did not want to shut it down. Instead:

• I re-anchored the discussion in academic analysis, returning to Foucault and reminding them of the role and meaning of discourse. I asked them to treat these views as claims and assumptions and invited them to seek evidence. It was an attempt to encourage them to step away from entrenched position-taking and shift back to knowledge, analysis, interrogation and examination.
• I suggested we remove our individual selves, set aside ideologies and return to frameworks (Western, Eurocentric, colonialist and so on).
• I then reintroduced a plurality of views with respectful and clear boundaries, again focusing on thinking about frameworks and evidence.
• Throughout, I ensured that everyone, particularly students from more vulnerable groups, who might be more impacted by this type of debate, felt safe and supported. This entailed not allowing any direct and personal comments. In moments when the discussion began to shift from critiquing ideas and arguments to commentary on individuals or specific groups, I immediately redirected the conversation back to evidence, possible assumptions, and the potential implications of those views.
• I stayed attuned and applied a ‘notice–assess–redirect, if needed’ strategy. I acknowledged that the debate had become heated and asked the students to pause and return to a constructive mode of discussion.
• To slow the pace of the discussion, I used reflective mirroring and distancing.
• When necessary, after students spoke, I rephrased their contributions for clarity. I offered the students useful alternative phrases:
  
  • ‘You are wrong,’ (which they said repeatedly) > ‘I disagree with this premise/idea/statement/logic.’
  • ‘This doesn’t make sense’ > ‘What evidence would support this?’
  • ‘This is incorrect’ > ‘How would we explain this using a different framework?’
• I also offered prompts such as:
• • How is this justified?
  • What are the limitations of this?
  • What evidence might be relevant?
• To re-centre the discussion, I continued to introduce anchoring questions:
  • ‘Let’s please keep this focused on the argument.’
  • ‘Even if we don’t necessarily agree, what have we clarified?’
  • ‘Can we map this as two different approaches rather than opposing sides?’
  • ‘Can we think of the most reasonable version of the opposing argument?’

All these methods helped calm the discussion, refocus the debate and return it to the theories, logic and the ideas we were unpacking in the seminar – away from politics and individual views, and back to theory.

Outcomes

My inclusive approach to pedagogy directly supports narrowing ethnicity awarding gaps in these ways:

Decolonisation and anti-racist pedagogical approaches

It is critical to frame knowledge by identifying and addressing positionality and biases, and ultimately broaden whose knowledge is taught. To achieve this, I try to reflect on and explain how disciplines were shaped, and what role positionality had in this. I audit and critically reassess reading materials and use diverse sources, so that more (ideally all) students see themselves reflected and can connect prior knowledge to learning.

To begin with, we establish clear boundaries and frameworks for discussions that address race and inequality safely (structured turn-taking and evidence-based arguments only). These can help students critically examine authors’ positionality and role-model analysing their own. Together, we can then examine which voices are excluded or muted.

Sense of belonging and co-creation

I aim to create a strong sense of belonging by using inclusive language, representing diverse scholars and normalising support-seeking. Furthermore, I involve students as co-creators of learning and regular co-contributors.

Student engagement

I replace passive lectures with structured participation and offer a variety of engagement modes (such as discussions; writing exercises; group, pair and individual activities; mind-mapping, quick-fire drafting). I scaffold tasks, break them into steps and seek frequent feedback so students can build skills. I ensure the study materials are accessible.

Comments

At the end of the seminar described above, I checked in with the students as a group and with a few individuals after class to ensure they had felt safe and that no boundaries had been crossed. I checked again before class the following week. Before recommencing the following week, I ensured that we all agreed on the basic rules for critical debate and mutual respect. I also reminded them that our discussions needed to further the learning outcomes for the module. Verbal feedback from students indicated that although the debate became heated at first, it was ultimately productive and enlightening.