Abstract

Sensitivity training includes various group therapy approaches like laboratory training and encounter groups, which are all intended to increase empathy and awareness of the viewpoints of others. It is commonly used as a human resources or organizational development intervention in order to defuse conflict within the workplace or make it more inclusive. This paper focuses on the costs and benefits of sensitivity training for the American corporate workplace. After a brief history and theoretical presentation of the goals of sensitivity training using the encounter training model, it examines the costs and benefits of sensitivity training for the organization. It concludes that despite the financial cost and potential for conflict, sensitivity training is a net benefit for organizations that are undergoing conflict or change, especially around areas regarding diversity.

Introduction

Sensitivity training is an exceptionally polarizing organizational development practice. As case involving the Toronto, Canada Police Department demonstrates this polarization. According to Saks and Haccoun's recounting, a 2000 raid on a lesbian women's bar in Toronto, a suit was filed against the department alleging significant violations of patron's privacy rights. The settlement of this case included a condition that the department had to host sensitivity training for its officers, focused on gay and lesbian rights. Julian Fantino, the police chief, reacted highly negatively, feeling that it was "being forced upon us" and was unnecessary; in contrast, Toronto's mayor David Miller argued that the training was "a very positive step" (Saks & Haccoun, 2010, p. 409)." Thus, even within a single management hierarchy, there was a substantial disagreement over the value of the sensitivity training process. Of course, not all sensitivity training decisions involve the top leaders of a major city. However, in many cases there is a similar lack of consistency in perception surrounding the costs and benefits of the practice. This essay discusses the costs and benefits of sensitivity training in the American corporation, exploring whether it is a net asset or net liability. It finds that for many organizations, sensitivity training may actually not be needed, or may only be needed in a certain set of limited circumstances. However, for organizations with known issues in integrating diversity with empathy, or where the structure of the organization may be changing too rapidly for members to assimilate these changes effectively, sensitivity training is a significant benefit.

ANALYSIS

There are many different models of sensitivity training, all of which use slightly different approaches and focus on slightly different issues. For the purposes of this analysis, the encounter groups model of sensitivity training is selected. This will provide some insight into how sensitivity training can benefit the organization, as well as what its cost can be. The analysis proceeds as follows. First, a brief definition of sensitivity training is offered, in order to clarify terms and ensure a consistent set of working terms. Second, a brief overview of the encounter groups sensitivity training approach is offered. This illustrates what is meant by sensitivity training generally and how it may be implemented. Third, the costs and benefits of this approach are analyzed, in order to determine what considerations organizations need to make before adopting the approach.

Definition of Sensitivity Training

Sensitivity training can be briefly defined as a group therapeutic discussion intervention that is focused on learning empathy and respect for the views of others. It was initially developed by Carl Lewin as a means of allowing for group development and change. The precise structure of sensitivity training groups vary depending on the model that is used for discussion; for example, encounter groups (the model discussed here) are member-led, while Gestalt groups are leader-led. However, the main goal of sensitivity training is generally to establish new group norms pertaining to diversity and difference and enable acceptance and understanding of these new norms. This suggests that sensitivity training may often be used as a means of coming to terms with changes in identity within a group or in the context the group operates within. The illustrative story of the Toronto Police Department's encounter with sensitivity training reinforces this idea. Miner notes that many (though not all) sensitivity training models are based on Lewin's model of change, which posits that in order for change to be effective existing practices or norms must be unfrozen (or disturbed to allow for change), the change must be made, and then the new practices or norms must be refrozen (or cemented into the organization's or team's structure). This common origin is not accidental; in fact, sensitivity training is directed to a particular type of organizational change. Using this information, it is possible to more fully define sensitivity training as a group change process focused on building empathy and understanding for the views of others and cementing this empathy and understanding within the norms and practices of the group and of individuals.

A Brief Overview of Encounter Groups

In order to reduce the complexity of analysis, only one of the many different models of sensitivity training is used to illustrate issues. The encounter groups model was first proposed by Moreno in the 1910s, but did not become popular until the 1960s, when it began to be used in family and couples therapy (Corey, 2008). An early supporter of encounter groups was therapist Carl Rogers, who was also the first to position it as a primarily group-led model that was only initially structured by the therapist and group leader. The original encounter group model was highly confrontational, but Rogers and others moderated this aspect of the encounter group during the 1970s as the focus shifted to empathy and awareness rather than confrontation. Early research into the effectiveness of encounter groups showed that although they were generally helpful, some people actually had negative outcomes from the experience. These negative effects stemmed from the increasing sensitivity of the group members to each other's needs and viewpoints, as well as the intense, short therapeutic structure. More detailed research into this situation showed that individuals that had an unusually low level of ego, or who had a poor personal interaction or match with their group, could have a poor experience. In contrast, the quality or characteristics of the leader was not a reliable predictor of positive or negative experience. Thus, on the individual level, encounter groups may not be effective, but on the aggregate they are helpful.

Today, the encounter group retains a focus on empathy, communication, and understanding each other's viewpoint, as well as the group-led dynamics established by Rogers and others. Typical groups include between seven and 20 members, and are usually short-term groups formed from existing teams. The group may meet for a few hours, or the training may extend to a multi-day workshop, but the encounter group is not ordinarily a continuing or long-term intervention. Encounter groups may be used in the organization for a number of different purposes. For example, they may be used to resolve conflicts, help integrate viewpoints and allow groups to deal with diversity, and develop and restore group and individual trust and positive viewpoints. The members of the encounter group focus on interacting, questioning, explaining, and understanding the experiences and viewpoints of others, forming emotional and trust bonds, and hopefully extending these bonds and viewpoints to others. These activities are meant to develop and enforce new ideas about the organization and potential changes. Although encounter groups are primarily member-led, there is still involvement from a leader (typically a psychologist or a training and development specialist), who arranges and coordinates meetings and makes sure that they do not become too derailed. Typically, the leader may open the meeting with a particular focus and then, unless intervention is required, let the group members continue until it is time to summarize and close the meeting.

In summary, encounter groups serve as a typical model of sensitivity training that can be used to understand the costs and benefits. For the individual, benefits can already be seen, including improved interpersonal relationships and trust among those he or she routinely works with. However, there are also some costs, particularly for the minority of people that have a poor experience in the encounter group. However, this does not answer the question of what benefits can be seen for the organization.

Costs and Benefits to Organizations

The main issue in this research is how sensitivity training benefits organizations, as well as its costs. In order to try to resolve this question, recent research (2003 to present) has been searched in order to find insight regarding the costs and benefits of encounter groups to the organizations. Additional research regarding sensitivity training generally is also included, in order to provide a broader perspective on the possible outcomes.

COST TO THE ORGANIZATION

The most obvious and banal cost to the organization from any training activity is the financial cost, which will vary depending on the number of employees included, the required training resources, the hours devoted, and other practices. However, there are far more important potential costs to the organization that need to be considered.

One possible cost to the organization is that the sharing of negative behaviors during the training process may actually counteract the goals of the organization in integrating diverse viewpoints. During encounter groups, individuals are encouraged to share emotions and feelings about the situation, including negative feelings (or possibly especially negative feelings). However, this could result in career setbacks for those who do so, according to a study that examined strategic emotional display and its influence on career prospects. Liu et al. found that while employees who shared positive emotions had positive career effects, those who shared negative emotions had negative career effects. Thus, there may be a perception that full participation in encounter groups or other sensitivity training exercises may result in negative career impacts, and this perception may be justified. Whether or not it is justified, the organization could have less positive outcomes than expected. This effect may also be seen with individuals who do not find encounter groups or other forms of sensitivity training helpful (or who even find it harmful), although effective leadership and matching individuals to appropriate groups can help reduce these effects.

Another potential way that the organization could experience reduced benefits or even negative outcomes from encounter groups is if inadequate leadership or inappropriate communication approaches are used. For example, one study of Israeli-Palestinian encounter groups that were conducted online found that the communication styles common to these groups were not conducive to empathy or understanding. This study found that when conversations focused on politics (a central point of conflict between the groups), communication styles began to exacerbate rather than resolve conflicts. This relates to the individual and cultural communication styles involved and the perceived importance of the topic, as well as the perceived opposition based on the group makeup. (Group makeup has been known to be a factor in the minority of negative outcomes associated with encounter groups since the earliest research studies in this area.) Thus, the use of leadership that is inappropriate or communication styles that are mismatched is also likely to have negative results.

A subtler problem with sensitivity training generally, including encounter groups, is that they can actually serve to enforce majority views and perceptions of the organization as well as majority norms and values. In this scenario, which can occur regardless of the stated goal of the organization, rather than developing empathy for minority viewpoints, the majority viewpoint is enforced and even further developed and the dominance of the majority group is further entrenched. This does not always happen, and in fact organizations can also achieve increased diversity. However, if it does happen it can have serious consequences for the organization. A study of professionals of color in the United States found that in cases where there was a perceived breach of the psychological contract regarding diversity, the group of interest experienced a loss of organizational commitment and increased turnover intentions. This was only partially mediated by interventions intended to correct the problem. In other words, if the encounter group or other sensitivity training exercise is positioned as a means of integrating diverse and minority viewpoints, but actually results in enforcing the minority view, this could result in a significant loss of diverse human resources power. Furthermore, the organization may have few opportunities to prevent this loss of skills and human resources. At the same time, the majority viewpoint may see sensitivity training as an imposition of political correctness designed to force a change in viewpoint, as illustrated by the example of the Toronto police chief discussed above. Discussions surrounding cultural sensitivity training (which specifically focuses on points of cultural and ethnic difference) indicate that excessive focus on politically correct viewpoint, or the appearance that a program is a punishment measure for inappropriate action, can introduce resentment and resistance. Thus, if inappropriately implemented sensitivity training can result in negative outcomes for both minority and majority groups.

Benefits for the organization

Much of the research focused on benefits for the organization suggest that the organization is likely to experience reduced organizational conflict as a result of the sensitivity training process generally, regardless of what its goals are. This is an obvious benefit to all organizations, since a reduction in non-productive conflict increases the productivity of teams and work groups.

Sensitivity training approaches, including (but not limited to) encounter groups, are one of the approaches to reducing and managing team conflict. This is important for the organization because of the need to increase team cohesion in order to improve long-term performance within the team. By introducing improved conflict management and empathy within the group, it is possible to substantially increase the group's performance in the long term.

One particular area where organizations may have a use for sensitivity training approaches like encounter groups or other areas is in training and employing expatriate managers and other expatriate workers. Expatriate workers, who are embedded long-term in other cultures, can experience reactions ranging from disorientation and displacement to severe stress and frustration when exposed without preparation to work practices common in other cultures. This phenomenon is commonly known as culture shock. It is also a more extreme version of the feelings of some workers in previously homogeneous workplaces when these workplaces begin to diversify. Both expatriate workers and workers in diversifying organizations may become resentful or may try to preserve their existing status quo; sensitivity training, including formal cultural awareness training or diversity awareness training and informal encounter groups or other sensitivity training methods, can reduce the uncertainty associated with this change. Thus, organizations where employees are exposed to a different or changing work environment, especially with cultural or other changes, should be aware of the benefits of sensitivity training to improving acceptance and empathy with the new viewpoints.

The cases of expatriate workers and workers in formerly homogeneous workplaces can be generalized in terms of the need to recognize diversity. Functional and non-functional forms of identity can both have productive impacts on the organization through improved problem-solving capabilities and expanded information and viewpoints. However, the importance of diversity within the organization is not always recognized, which can lead to the loss of organizational capacity. Furthermore, if members of a group cannot learn to trust each other during the early stages of group formation, there is an increased chance that the group will fall apart due to task and relationship conflict at a later stage. Conversely, if diverse groups do develop trust, this can lead to improved conflict resolution ability for both task and relationship conflict and increased group cohesion over time. This argues that ultimately, the success of the diverse group or team (or indeed, the homogenous group or team) is that it can develop trust, which it then uses to overcome relationship and task conflict at a later point. For groups that do not naturally cohere, the use of sensitivity training is known to increase the level of trust and empathy between participants. Thus, for organizations that are having difficulty with group cohesion, either systematically or in specific groups, sensitivity training to increase trust and empathy between group members can be a good approach to ensuring that conflict becomes more productive.

The organization that is dealing with a significant organizational change, either internally or externally, that is related to diversity is likely to be the strongest beneficiary of sensitivity training. One example of organizational goals that may be met through sensitivity training is the organization that is trying to integrate diverse perspectives. (However, as Olsen and Martins noted, the same approach may be used by organizations attempting to enforce acculturation of minority groups.) Sensitivity training may also be used by organizations that are bringing in new workforces or customer groups, in order to provide awareness of the needs and viewpoints of these groups. Organizations that have experienced difficulty in interacting with diverse viewpoints may also benefit from sensitivity training (though the precise extent to which it is required may be difficult to discern). All of these examples represent organizations, groups, or even small teams that undergoing change related to viewpoint, emotion, and social hierarchy and structure rather than to work processes. In change management terms, the unfreezing process does not relate to work practices or physical habits, but instead relates to ingrained psychological and emotional habits, viewpoints, and norms. These are not necessarily the easiest aspects of the individual worker to change; however, it also is not necessarily the goal. Instead, the goal may simply be to demonstrate alternative viewpoints and allow the natural empathy and trust built between team members to take hold.

SENSITIVITY TRAINING: ASSET OR LIABILITY?

In summary, there are some obvious costs to the organization for sensitivity training. These may include perceptions that full participation and negative emotional sharing may influence career prospects, which can impede full participation (and possibly justifiably so); inadequate leadership and communication, which do not allow for full sharing; and the more subtle problem that sensitivity training can enforce majority views and values rather than accomplishing a stated goal of integrating diverse views, resulting in the loss of organizational commitment and increased turnover from minority organizational members. Ultimately, sensitivity training cannot force the development of trust, empathy, or integration of diverse perspectives, no matter how well designed the program. However, sensitivity training can provide space for their development and facilitate open communication between team members. Organizations do generally experience lower levels of conflict related to diversity after undertaking sensitivity training, which is a significant benefit. However, the real benefits are realized by organizations that require change management related to organizational conflict and diversity (either internal or external diversity). These organizations are likely to benefit much more than homogeneous or more static organizations, or those that are already well integrated and reflect diverse viewpoints. Thus, for these organizations the benefits may be substantially greater, particularly if programs are designed to avoid some of the major problems of sensitivity training, like reinforcement of majority ideas. In summary, for organizations that are not undergoing conflict the benefits may be equivocal to costs, or even lower. However, for organizations that are undergoing diversity-related conflict and organizational stress, an effectively implemented encounter group or other sensitivity training approach may be highly beneficial.

Conclusion

This analysis has focused on sensitivity training, which is often a controversial and somewhat polarized organizational development practice. It first provided a unified definition of sensitivity training, which (regardless of model used) can be understood as a group change process focused on building empathy and awareness of the viewpoints of others and cementing these new insights into the norms and practices of the group and individuals. There is a range of different sensitivity training models that can be used in this case. This analysis focused on the encounter groups model, which is one of the oldest and most widely used models of the sensitivity group. After explaining the model briefly, it then addressed the costs and benefits of the encounter group for the organization. Costs are obviously financial costs, but can also include organizational resistance and resentment to the process. Benefits can include increased awareness of the benefits of diverse views and improved teamwork, among other and more personal improvements.

There is no clear answer as to whether a given model is better or worse - instead, the benefits and costs depend on the organizational context. Although this analysis has focused on the encounter groups model of sensitivity training in order to reduce the set of possible variations, the general costs and benefits are likely to be similar. For organizations that are currently well integrated and do not have issues dealing with internally diverse views or external demands, sensitivity training may be an unnecessary expense. Organizations that are experiencing diversity-related conflict, have had negative incidents that are related to lack of understanding and empathy, or have a rapidly changing external or internal environment may experience some significant benefits from the use of sensitivity training. However, even these organizations must take care not to alienate or isolate the participants, make sensitivity training into a punishment, or otherwise impose negative connotations onto the group practice. If it does so, then even organizations that could potentially benefit from the practice are not likely to have a positive outcome.

References

Bell, M. P. (2011). Diversity in organizations. Mason, OH: Cengage.

Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-Harris, L. (2010). The impact of diversity promise fulfillment on professionals of color outcomes in the USA. Journal of Business Ethics , 91 (4), 501-518.

Chun, M. B. (2010). Pitfalls to avoid when introducing a cultural competency training initiative. Medical Education , 44 (6), 613-620.

Corey, G. (2008). Theory and practice of group counseling. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict and trust. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice , 14 (1), 66-79.

Fehr, S. S. (2003). Introduction to group therapy: A practical guide. New York: Routledge.

Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmond, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.

Jassawalla, A., Truglia, C., & Garvey, J. (2004). Cross-cultural conflict and expatriate manager adjustment: An exploratory study. Management Decision , 42 (7), 837-849.

Liu, Y., Liu, J., & Wu, L. (2012). Strategic emotional display: An examination of its interpersonal and career outcomes. Career Development International , 17 (6), 518-526.

Miner, J. B. (2011). Organizational behavior 6: Integrated theory development and the role of the unconscious. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Mulili, B. M., & Wong, P. (2011). Continuous organizational development (COD). Industrial and Commercial Training , 43 (6), 377-384.

Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Understanding organizational diversity management programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 33 (8), 1168-1187. Doi: 10.1002/job.1792.

Paton, R. A., & McCalman, J. (2008). Change management: A guide to effective implementation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rogers, C. (1971). Carl Rogers describes his way of facilitating encounter groups. The American Journal of Nursing , 71 (2), 275-279.

Saks, A. M., & Haccoun, R. R. (2010). Managing performance through training and development (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage.

Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group Organization Management , 34 (2), 170-205.

Walther, J. B. (2009). Computer-mediated communication and virtual groups: Applications to inter-ethnic conflict. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 37 (3), 225-238.

Zastrow, C., & Kirst-Ashman, K. (2009). Understanding human behavior and the social environment. Mason, OH: Cengage.

Multicultural education is a necessity in the 21st century, as the racial and ethnic makeup of public schooling has changed significantly in the past couple of decades. We are no longer in a situation in which teachers can merely teach as if everyone is the same, and that a student's cultural background is not of importance. Students come to school with prior knowledge and linguistic referents that are significant and hold that student's well of information about the world, and though he or she cannot express this in English, it is imprudent, at best, to dismiss it.

Dewaele reports that students-all humans, in fact-respond differently when confronted with a language not their own. Some gravitate to the new language, find it invigorating, and learn it quite easily. Others tend to avoid contact with the new language or those who speak it, preferring to have primary contact with their own linguistic communities. A learner's feelings and attitudes toward the target language are significant, and must be taken into account if a student is to be fully engaged and be fully effective in learning the target language. One of the ways in which this can occur is for teachers to become bilingual themselves.

Spanish is a common language among immigrant children, since most immigrants to the US are of Hispanic heritage. Even those who are from countries like Brazil, where Portuguese is the national language, can benefit from a teacher knowing Spanish, as Portuguese is very similar in structure and vocabulary to Castilian Spanish, or what is commonly referred to as "Old Spanish." Children from Central America, Latin America, and south America all speak Spanish or derivatives of Spanish though the accents and dialects may be quite different from each other. A teacher whose native language is English but who also has an understanding of Spanish can quickly engage Spanish-speaking children, especially those at lower levels down to preschool.

The National Association of Bilingual Education has developed an action plan aimed at the education of bilingual learners. Among other things, NABE recommends that, in order to close the historic gap between non-native speakers and their native peers, which has often resulted in a rate of more than 50% dropout among non-native speakers, children who are non-native speakers be taught using their own language to learn academic concepts while learning English. Cummins, Thomas and Collier and Thomas and Collier conducted studies that show that not only does literacy development in a child's native language facilitate literacy learning in a second language, but that the learning gap is most effectively narrowed or closed when enrichment forms of bilingual education that provide instruction in both languages throughout the elementary years are implemented. In this model, teachers who have no or little knowledge base of the language and culture of these students are ill-equipped to provide the best education for their students. In order to provide it, a school must then look to outsiders or those others in the building who have that kind of linguistic fluency, ultimately costing more and forcing staff reduction times in other areas of the school.

Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this research is to determine whether bilingual teachers who speak both languages at school are more effective in preparing their students than those who are not. Effectiveness can be measured in a variety of ways, from student satisfaction to test scores to, in a longer-term study, whether these student acquire the necessary information to perform well at higher levels without intervention. If one could track these students through all 12 years of their schooling (or more, if they are in preschool), one could learn how this kind of teacher preparation and linguistic effectiveness could impact the graduation rates of children who came to school as immigrants.

Bibliographic Results

It stands to reason that the more mainstream multicultural education is, the more likely it is that obstacles to that education are removed and that students from varying racial and ethnic/cultural backgrounds feel that they can progress just as any native speaker can. Jay and Jones found that when schools and teachers examine their own multiculturalist tendencies, they move from what the authors see as "celebratory multiculturalism" to "critical multiculturalism." When schools and teachers are critically multicultural, school decisions in curricula and policy become more universal in their application, and the trickle-down effect in communities of color change to reflect less bias toward the school and teachers.

One of the ways in which this can be addressed effectively, according to Caruthers is to educate teachers by allowing storytelling among the faculty of the school, so that the school can truly become multicultural. This is done by presenting opportunities to and allowing teachers to engage with each other in dialogue, stories and inquiry so that on multiple layers of communication, they can begin to understand each other and develop sensitivity for all of the meanings inherent in the communication of "the other." With sensitivity comes openness. With openness comes the dropping of barriers to learning, for the teachers first, and ultimately for the students in their charge.

Some believe, of course, that students have a right to their own language. If language is a basis for, or a background to, who we are as individuals and as cultural groups, then it is crucial to students, as a matter of course and as an entry point into the new culture and new language, to be able to depend on that background for learning new material. Traditionally, that is the way in which education has been structured. One moves progressively from easier material to more difficult material, with the goal of mastery in mind. When mastery is removed, as when one's language is removed, the student, who may well understand the concepts being taught, will have to begin again as a novice. This does an incredible disservice to the child and to his or her future, because time will have to be spent teaching what is already known, rather than moving that student toward mastery and progress in the ways in which native children do. Kinloch discusses this, and the 1974 NCTE resolution that declares a student has a right to his or her own language, and that by honoring that language we positively benefit that child as well as others and the community at large.

There is also benefit seen from the other side. In schools where there is a large population of non-native speakers, there is significant intermingling among students, both native speakers and non-native speakers. Those who are native speakers of English benefit from these exchanges, learning about other cultures as they learn about themselves. As students become empowered to see things from different perspectives, all education becomes more powerful (Carter). Success in school depends on more than just mastery of academic content; one becomes equipped to enter into the larger adult world when one is conversant with, and understanding of, those whose backgrounds are clearly different, and whose perspectives are not always the same as those of native speakers. One is able to give and take, negotiate, and come to basic understanding with others much more easily when there is shared commitment to multicultural exchanges and a familiarity with the culture from which a person comes.

Elementary students have a preference for collaborative activities over those which are individualistic, passive, or competitive (Johnson). This natural preference is most suited to multicultural education-students enjoy helping each other, particularly in the early grades, and as students interact, they naturally learn from each other, not just academic tasks but about what it means to get along, to work with others who are different, and to understand the roles that people play in groups. When language is not a barrier to this kind of collaboration, there is no difference in these collaborative groups and those made up of native speakers except for the cultural possibilities that are inherent in such groupings. Thus, it can be seen that multicultural groupings are in fact not only preferred, but that they carry with them some advantages in multicultural settings that other collaborative groups do not. A teacher with some facility as a linguist can help this process, further enhancing the effect. In this kind of situation, everyone wins-the collaboration works, the students learn and the teacher is much more effective as a leader and also as a learner.

Even when teachers themselves are not bilingual, there are things that they can do to enhance multiculturalism and diversity in their classrooms. Nieto and Bode offer many suggestions in their text for affirming diversity in the classroom. One of these suggestions is to become informed, and a related on is to understand and be open about what one does not know. These are the very basic first steps to becoming truly multicultural. Merely having students from many cultures in one's classroom does not make one multicultural. To the contrary, multiculturalism means being informed about one's students, who they are, what they know, how they learn, particularly if their ways of knowing and learning are different from the teacher's own experiences. Trust between a teacher and his or her students is an important variable in student achievement. When one is not informed, and does not display any curiosity about the students' cultures, there can be no real trust that develops naturally between the teacher and the students. Anyone who has taught for any length of time knows this. Nearly everyone has had a teacher who knew the student's family members, their father's occupation, the names of household pets, for example. There is a sense of security in that for young students-a teacher who cares to know those things must like me, they think, and then the attitude toward learning is affected, and a deep trust develops. It is the same with all students. When a teacher is informed and open, students will try harder and will have confidence that they will learn.

Other suggestions that Nieto and Bode make are to use the curriculum critically, enliven the environment (collaborate!), create inclusive disciplinary practices, and promote family and community outreach. An effective teacher may also show respect for student differences, research family finds of knowledge (someone always knows something others don't know), accept students' identities and languages, and expand perspectives of success. It is all of these ways that we become inclusive, and inclusiveness is the core goal of multiculturalism in the schools.

Applications

I am a preschool teacher, and have students who come to school with no English skills. Even the ones who are native speakers, at this age, are not fluent in English. This is the perfect place for engaging in multicultural instruction, bit conceptually and linguistically. I believe that, as mentioned above, students have a right to their own language. To strip them of the very basic abilities which they have, and to expect them to come to school and speak only in a language that they don't know makes the task of educating the effectively and efficiently nearly impossible. I can see that, through the school years, student's who are continually penalized for not speaking English well would not then ultimately graduate-by that time, school will have become a place where who they are and what they know is not valued, not is their culture. Passing from teacher to teacher, when the teachers are not prepared for them, would be deeply discouraging, and make schooling something that is seen as not for them. It is a double bind: they don't do well in school, because what they may know isn't valued, and because they don't do well in school, others pass them and it all becomes an exercise in futility, making them do less well in school that they may have done had their language and cultural identity been recognized, respected, and incorporated into what schooling means for them.

The suggestions made by Nieto and Bode are significant. My first responsibility as a teacher is to be informed and to take responsibility for what I don't know. It is important for me to have a classroom that is free of obstacles to learning, including linguistic ones. It is important for me to know that the curriculum is sometimes biased, and I need to always be watchful for that. It is important for me to expand what I consider success, to honor those who are different, not just linguistically and culturally, but in all ways. It is important for me to collaborate with other faculty in gaining an understanding of who our students are, to talk frequently about our students and their cultures, and to apply what I have learned from others in my own classroom. It is important for me to be fair in discipline, to straddle multicultural boundaries whenever I can.

Most importantly, it is requisite that I learn another language, in my case, Spanish, since most of my immigrant students are of Hispanic heritage. By understanding their language and culture, I am truly a teacher for them too, just as I am with my native speakers. When there is no difference, when I can teach in either language effectively while helping my non-native speakers acquire academic concepts as they learn English, we will genuinely have a multicultural classroom, full of engaged students, full of students who trust that the school is deeply interested in them and that the communities from which they come are valued, as is their own heritage and skill.

In any classroom, the teacher makes a huge difference in his or her students' lives. I do not choose who my students are, not do I choose what language they speak, or what cultural experiences they may have. I do, however, choose how I respond to that. I can, as some teachers do, ignore all of that and complain all year that my students just "don't get it." Conversely, I can enter into their world jut as I expect them to enter mine, trusting that we can learn from each other, trusting that the students are people of good will who are ready to respond to school in the ways that students typically respond. How well that goes is completely up to me.

REFERENCES

Cummins, J. Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok (Ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. 165-176). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nieto, S. and Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. 5th ed. Pearson Education.

Thomas, W.P. & Collier, V.P. Assessment and evaluation. In C.J. Ovando & V.P. Collier, Bilingual and ESL Classrooms: Teaching in multicultural contexts (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thomas, W.P., & Collier, V.P. A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students' long-term academic achievement. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity and Excellence, University of California-Santa Cruz.

The human memory is a storage compartment in the mind where past events and experiences are stored. Memories can be stored for a short time or they can be stored or longer periods in the long term memory. The memory is not contained within one part of the brain but is a brain wide process that works in conjunction with other parts of the brain. Memories are encoded in the brain and important to cognitive health. Through memories, people learn. The memory will sort through the information and store what is important and discard what is not. The way the memory is organized is important to learning.

Based on the Atkinson-Shiffrin theory, the memory involves an information processing model acting similar to the functions of a computer. The model begins with the environmental input. This means processing what was seen, felt, or heard and sending to the sensory memory. If the person pays attention to the environmental input, it will be placed in the short term memory where it can be retrieved for short periods of time. The recall or retrieval of the information from the short term memory sends the information to the long term memory. Information can then be retrieved from the long term memory when needed.

In this model, the senses detect the environmental input and then enters the sensory memory. The sensory memory is important to discarding information not relevant or important enough to be sent to the short term memory. For example, if you saw a blue car on Wednesday, this would be discarded as irrelevant by the sensory memory but a teacher informing a student of a test Friday would travel through the sensory memory into the short term memory. If the information is rehearsed, it will store in the long term memory. Rehearsal is described by Atkinson and Shiffrin as maintenance rehearsal. This means the person makes a conscious effort to remember the information.

Short term and long term can be improved through a proper diet and amble amounts of sleep. When people eat a healthy diet, engage in physical activity, and get plenty of sleep it ensure the brain is in top physical condition. Physical exercise can stimulate the brain and improve learning. The memory works optimally when the mind and body is taken care of. It is important to properly stimulate the brain through learning and brain training. Improving long term memory requires a conscious effort to remember information. This can be done by practicing various learning techniques. Improving memory requires focus, the senses, and repeating the information.

Memory is organized through an information processing model where the brain encodes information in the environment, relevant information is then stored in the memory, and the memory is retrieved when it is needed. Attention results in sensory information moving into the short term or working memory. This process can be conscious or unconscious. For example the student will make a conscious effort to remember they have a test on Friday. Different organization strategies assist in the storage of memories. Retrieval cues are used to move memories into the long term memory.

Healthy eating involves eliminating food high in fats and foods high in carbohydrates and increasing consumption of lean proteins and vegetables. The best way to remember the best foods to eat is to write a list of the healthy foods and then memorize them. Once a list is made of the information, attention has been paid. Paying attention to the information will allow the student to store it in their short term memory. Studying or rehearsing the information will store the information in the long term memory. If the information is not rehearsed, it will not store in the long term memory to be used later.

References

Raaijmakers, J.G.W. & Shiffrin, R.M. (2003). Models versus descriptions: Real differences and language differences. Study on Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 753.

Shrager, Y. et al. (2008). Working Memory and the Organization of Brain Systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(18): 4818-4822

Technology consistently surrounds the everyday interactions between man and the outer world, be it people or information. In our course readings Wozniak (1985) highlights many ethical concerns that we will have to face in the future as technology continues to advance. Wozniak suggests that many elements will affect the way in which interactions, the economy, and corporations will face moral issues in regards to the increasing presence technology or humanoids in the workplace.

Wozniak has asserted in his work, that human relationships would be greatly benefited if partners were switched out to robots, as they are easily programmed to be consistent, patient, clear, concise, and ideally anything that the buyer wished them to be. The only thing that they wouldn't possess is human error. These robots that Wozniak paints a picture of are ideal candidates for the workplace, individuals that would be on-time, diligent workers, and easily placed into positions without requiring a person to train them. Wouldn't it be great to walk into a more efficient workplace where duties were performed in half the time that a human could conduct it on a good day if they were in the right mood, motivated, or feeling well? How about the days that corporations are understaffed, unsupported, or even unfunded to provide wages for a human worker? The aforementioned scenarios are cases in which humanoids would most likely benefit a workplace. Yet, one can imagine how replacing humans with robots could be potentially dangerous. What about complex situations and decisions that require more than an algorithmic computation? How will robots handle situations that involve human emotion, feelings, or abstract concepts that techies can't provide concrete definitions or evaluations for?

Dependence is often a topic that continues to arise when discussing the effects of technological advances. What is an individual learning, or what knowledge is being use when they are simply pressing the button of an instrument to automatically compute locations, evaluations, placements in position to the earth, virtually anything? The human brain is losing the ability to perform the functions "the old fashion way". Think of all the complaints a math teacher encounters when he or she urges students to show their work when solving mathematical equations? How many groans are heard when they announce that calculators aren't allowed for the exam? The more their students rely on a calculator to compute equations for them, the more they'll lose the independent algebraic skills that they learned. What happens for instance when their calculator dies, or suddenly stops working? Their test will still be due at the end of class, but one can be sure that they will blame the instrument and not themselves for either receiving low scores, or not finishing the exam at all. The same would be seen in worldwide economy. Take for instance the stock market, missile launches, cruise ships, or transportation vehicles that solely rely on computer computations and algorithms to conclude numbers that then influence the choices of the people who use it; the operators may know the basis of what the computer is computing, but what for any reason would happen if that sector of the country loss power, or any energy resources for that matter? What are individuals going to do when parts break or need to be replaced and overnight shipping is not an option? The amount of control and power that comes with access to information is mind blowing. What if a technology savvy computer hacker was able to alter files in NASA's database? There could easily be a potential for another World War as Wozniak predicts. Or what would be the consequences of falsely predicting a natural disaster, inaccurately providing a currency exchange rate, or reading a false temperature of a volcano that is on the verge of eruption? Even Wozniak agrees stating that "information is seen as the hub around which revolve the issues of societal value, power, security, comfort and affluence" which he further suggests that possession of such technology will create a societal divide.

Technology in its various forms has the ability to skyrocket our economy through precise prediction, evaluation, and projections of monetary values, incentives, and profits. The possibilities are endless when it comes to the power that technology can play in the development of our country. Yet in the back of my mind I can't help but to wonder what kind of accuracy such predictions can have. What if technological measurement systems aren't calibrated correctly? The belief that humanoids will completely terminate the fear of human error is highly unlikely. The parameters that allow technology to function correctly bring its own barriers.

Even though robots could potentially be better employees than their human counterparts, how much would these devices cost? Where would the funding come from for humanoids, what would be the rules, regulations, or constitutions for allowing a robot to replace the role of a human within a company. Can you imagine a robot teacher? Will it pick up on facial expression, sarcasm, or attitude? What if the robot was teaching young children (pre-school), potty training, or children with special needs? Will the builder's put in enough computations for robots to be able to pick up on all the subtleties that make us human?

What will the presence of robots contribute in regards to communication and human interaction? In the workplace there is constant communication with groups, colleagues, discussions, meetings, and trainings. If there were humanoids present, and perhaps replaced the majority of your colleagues, how would you interact for eight hours of your day? Who would you talk to? Would it drive you mad that they didn't understand your jokes? Or perhaps they interpreted your joke literally and it blew off the one moment you had to let off some steam... Yet the robots would not be able to understand that either, as they work efficiently under the pressure and stresses that humans feel. They simply would not be able to understand your feelings. Would it bother you? Furthermore, would it affect the way you interact with your family? Would you overgeneralize the fact that robots can't understand so no one can? The pride that a human takes in the completion of work, or in the gains of a client, or in the milestones that a student has reached can never truly be understood by a man-made object. What are our feelings worth, and how much are our feelings worth to others? Are ethical codes broken when concern, gut feelings, and intuition are ruled out?

Is it worth more than human wages to keep a robot updated, fine-tuned, and programmed for its duties? Will having such technological advances place individuals in higher power and affluence just for their possession; and if so, the "haves" versus the "have-nots" will create a power struggle of the rich and poor. Should those in power simply be the individuals who can afford to obtain it, or will there still be room in society for brilliant minds?

High school students often get miffed at having to do so much reading and essay writing as part of their class requirements. The students find it boring, repetitive, and not relevant to their studies. In short, they think of it as a waste of time. Surely there is some other way to learn the lesson. A far more interesting way. What they don't realize is that the essay writing and research papers they develop in high school can make or break their college education.

High school essays teach the students how to write academic essays. They are encouraged to develop a writing style early on to help them deal with the more intricate papers they will be writing in the future. In fact, these high school essays are the first step towards their introduction to college essay and research writing tasks. The first task of which, are the college application essays. These college application essays are the first criteria that helps the admissions officers to determine the preparedness of a high school student to progress to the next academic level.

However, students do not realize early enough that there is a tremendous amount of difference between writing a high school essay and a college level essay. There are several differences that do not become obvious to the student at the high school level because the teachers are there to guide them, by allowing them time to revise their essays when they make mistakes. Something that college professors do not normally allow a student to do.

What changes should a high school student be prepared to address once he begins to write essays at a college level then? Here's a run-down of what to expect:

Deeper Thesis Statements

In high school, a student can expect to get a passing grade for an essay simply because the student was able to prove an understanding of the class discussion. Teachers, who are training the students for future advanced writing, make sure to keep their hands on the student's essay development by pointing out mistakes and showing the student how to improve the presentation. In college, the student is simply provided with a discussion topic to be threshed out over a few words or pages. If the paper is wrong, the student doesn't get a second chance. He's got only one opportunity to impress his professor. If he fails, there's always the next assignment.

The Type of Reader

The high school teacher does not expect a high school student to present a solution to ever lasting world peace. The teacher will be more than satisfied with the essay if the student can write something interesting or informative. The college essay though, needs to go beyond simplistic expectations. As future professionals. The professors hold the students to a higher academic writing standard that not only proves an ability to write in English, but also provides an insight into the analytical, research, and opinion presentation abilities of the student.

Opinion Essays

Most high school essays are written from a neutral standpoint. This allows the student to learn more about a given topic based on varying points of view. A college essay however, is always written from the active first-person point of view since research evidence and analysis of the material is required for the proper presentation of the discussion.

While high school and college essays are markedly different based on several factors, the one constant between a high school and college essay is that there is only one purpose for the development of the paper. To prove to the teacher or professor that the student learned something from the class and the available reading material, with the help of some additional research.

I've been getting quite a few clarification inquiries regarding how to write a Goal of Study or Study Plan. Several international scholarships, such as the Fulbright Masters and Government Korea Scholarship (GKS) Graduate require intricate essay presentations of their goals of study / study plans for their scholarship applications. Most students write these essays as explanations of how they plan to spend every semester studying different curriculum subjects in relation to their chosen major. This is a confusion that occurs because of the way the essay is titled: "Goal of Study" / "Study Plan".

The reason for the confusion is obvious. If one were to go by the common sense meaning of the phrase, then the student, who describes his strategy for studying each semester is on the right track. The problem is, what the essay is referring to is the master thesis of the student. It has nothing to do with the semester by semester study of the student, but rather the culmination of his studies and skills development during the academic process.

The Goal of Study or Study Plan requires the student to explain how he plans to focus his studies on a particular purpose that will help him advance both academically and professionally upon the course completion. Therefore, he is being requested to present a masters thesis presentation as proof of his intentions for his studies.

As such, the goal of study or study plan must respond to the following questions:

1. What is your field of interest that you will pursue both during and off - class hours?

2. How does this interest relate to your academic studies?

3. Why is this line of study relevant to your professional advancement?

4. How does this line of study apply to your academic and technical development?

5. What is the real-life application of this study?

6. How do you plan to implement the required research?

7. Who do you hope to work with? What industries will you require exposure to?

8. How will the university facilities help you with your research?

9. What do you expect the result of your research to be?

10. How can your research be considered a success by your mentor?

11. Can you justify the viability of this research within your professional field? How?

These may seem like excessively long questions to respond to. However, these are the information that are required for both the Fulbright Study Objective and GKS - G Goal of study and study plan.

The ability of the student to thresh out his plans on a detailed basis, although the topic is subject to change, will prove several points to the reviewer:

1. The student is serious about his intentions to complete the course;

2. There is an actual professional purpose for the student's interest in the masters course;

3. The student is familiar with the research requirements of a masters course;

4. The student has given a great deal of thought to his study requirements which indicate that he will be capable of delivering the demanding course requirements so he may become a certified specialist in the field.

Once a student properly represents himself on paper, in relation to his research interests, the reviewer will have a clearer idea with regards to the qualifications of the applicant and whether he fits the profile of a student for the scholarship course. This is what makes the goal of study / study plan of an applicant one of the most important written interviews he may have for the scholarship.