SAFE SPACE: STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON CLASSROOM …files.umwblogs.org/.../Student-Perspectives-on-Safe-Classrooms.pdf · grade). Creating a safe classroom space can reduce the negative

SAFE SPACE: STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON CLASSROOMENVIRONMENT

Lynn C. HolleyArizona State University

Sue SteinerArizona State University

Based on data from a survey of 121 baccalaureate and master of social work studentsat a western university, this study explores students' perspectives of "safe" and"unsafe" classroom environments. The majority reported that being in a safeclassroom changed both what and how much they learned. Students offered awide range of instructor, fellow student, personal, and classroom characteristicsthat contribute to the creation of safe and unsafe spaces. Responses about suchcharacteristics were relatively consistent across genders, race (n:ieasured as beingWhite or of color), and program level. Implications for social work educationand research are offered.

WHAT DOES IT TAKE to Create a classroom envi-

ronment in which students are willing and

able to participate and honestly struggle with

challenging issues? This type of environ-

ment, often called a "safe space," has been as-

sumed to encourage participation and honest

sharing of ideas (Boostrom, 1998; Latting,

1990). A number of authors from various

disciplines discuss the creation of safety or

a safe space in the classroom where students

can freely express their ideas and feelings,

particularly around challenging areas such

as diversity, cultural competence, and op-

pression (e.g., Blum, 2000; Chan & Treacy,

1996; Garcia & Van Soest, 1997; Hyde & Ruth,

2002; Latting, 1990; Tatum, 1992; Van Soest

& Garcia, 2003). Yet few go into much detail

about what they mean by safe space or how

to create it. Additionally, while safe space has

become an increasingly used metaphor for

a desired classroom atmosphere, the utility

of striving for safety is rarely questioned nor

are possible drawbacks examined,

While some has been written about the

creation of safe space from an educator's

perspective, little is available that discusses

students' views of safety in the classroom.

One aim of the current research is to examine

how students' views of safety compare with

those of academics who have written on the

subject. This information can assist educators

in assessing the utility of working toward the

creationofsafe space and in determininghowit

canbestbe achieved. Without this information,

instructors may create classroom environments

that they believe support honest dialogue and

Journat of Sociai Work Education Vol. 4 1 , No. 1 (Winter 2005) . ® Copyright 2005Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. 49

50 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

participation, but from students' perspectives,actually do not.

This article describes an exploratory studythat asked for student feedback on the roles ofthe instructor, other students, physical class-room environment, and the individual studentherself or himself in creating an environmentthat encourages honest and open dialogue. Italso explores student perceptions about theimportance of this type of space, and its effecton their academic experience. In other words,from students' perspectives, what is safe spaceand how do we create it, and can we have safeclassrooms where students are academicallyand personally challenged and learn to thinkcritically?

What Is Safe Space and Why Is ItImportant?

The metaphor of the classroom as a "safespace" has emerged as a description of aclassroom climate that allows students to feelsecure enough to take risks, honestly expresstheir views, and share and explore theirknowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Safetyin this sense does not refer to physical safety.Instead, classroom safe space refers to protec-tion from psychological or emotional harm. Itis "concerned with the injuries that individualssuffer at the hands of society" (Boostrom, 1998,p. 399), or when referring to a classroom, atthe hands of instructors and other students. Asafe classroom space is one in which studentsare able to openly express their individuality,even if it differs dramatically from the normsset by the instructor, the profession, or otherstudents.

Safe space does not necessarily refer to anenvironment without discomfort, struggle.

or pain. Being safe is not the same as beingcomfortable. To grow and learn, students oftenmust confront issues that make them uncom-fortable and force them to struggle with whothey are and what they believe (Boostrom, 1998;Holman & Freed, 1987; Van Soest, 1996). How-ever, if students are to risk self-disclosure, therewards (e.g., personal growth and becoming abetter social work practitioner) must outweighthe penalties (e.g., possible embarrassment orridicule or fear of receiving a lower coursegrade). Creating a safe classroom space canreduce the negative outcomes experienced bystudents willing to risk disclosure.

Educators in social work and other fields(e.g., education, English, psychology, andsociology) have suggested ways to facilitatethe creation of a safe classroom environment.Recommended instructor characteristics in-clude welcoming discussion, approachability,and supportiveness (Fassinger, 1995). Latting(1990) stresses the importance of instructorsmaintaining a "demeanor of nonjudgmentalacceptance of students as individuals" evenwhen their comments are "reprehensible" (p.43). She suggests that instructors offer oppos-ing positions and support students' honestyand willingness to question their own beliefs.Others recommend that instructors not pun-ish students for unpopular views (Garcia &Van Soest, 1997) and that instructors be emo-tionally present and not try to keep the classemotionally comfortable and without conflict(Chan & Treacy, 1996). A number of authorsrecommend setting up discussion groundrules or guidelines (Chan & Treacy, 1996; Good,1995; Hyde & Ruth, 2002), and having studentsdesign their own norms for class discussions(Fassinger, 1995). Using storytelling as a way

SAFE SPACE IN THE CLASSROOM 51

of creating shared experience (Rocklin, 1983)

and discussing social identities to normalize

students' feelings (Garcia & Van Soest, 1997) are

additional methods that have been described

as creating safe space through reinforcing

common understanding.

To become culturally competent and

think critically, numerous authors suggest that

students not only must acquire information,

they also must confront their biases and be

aware of their values and beliefs (Diller, 2004;

Greene, 1994; Gutierrez & Nagda, 1996; Lum,

1999; McPhatter, 1997; Van Soest & Garcia,

2003). Encouraging students to examine their

values, beliefs, and behaviors can be done in a

number of ways, including classroom discus-

sion. The path to self-discovery can be difficult

and stressful. Students often are unwilling to

risk exposing themselves to criticism, ridicule,

or ostracism by expressing views that might

not be readily accepted by others. Honest

self-exploration often requires "safe harbors

for meeting and confronting demons" (Kerr,

1996, p. 54). This suggests that in classrooms

where the encouragement of open and honest

communication is a goal, an atmosphere or

classroom climate should be created where

students feel that they are able to risk honesty

with the knowledge that they will not suffer

too greatly for it.

Encouraging students to speak honestly

about their biases and unpopular views is a

particular challenge in social work classrooms.

From early on in social work programs, students

are taught that to be effective practitioners, they

should not have racial, ethnic, gender, age, or

other biases. They also are taught professional

values and ethics that should guide their views

in a number of areas. Furthermore, they learn

about the positions that the profession takes on a

variety of issues. Yet many social work students

have values, beliefs, and attitudes that dif fer from

those espoused in the classroom (Van Soest,

1996). It is important that students in social work

classes be able toexamine and struggle with their

values and worldviews that may differ from

those of the profession. This is particularly true

in terms of biases toward members of socially

and politically subordinated groups.

Challenges in the Creation andUtilization of Safe Space

Some authors have raised concern that

safe classrooms might result in a nonacademic

environment that stifles student learning

(Boostrom, 1998; Weissglass, 1997). Boostrom

(1997) maintains that

Problems can occur when students or

instructors take safe space to mean a

classroom environment where all ideas

are accepted equally, and where no one

is challenged or made uncomfortable. It's

one thing to say that students should not

be laughed at for posing a question or for

offering a wrong answer. It's another to

say that students must never be conscious

of their ignorance. It's one thing to say

that students should not be belittled for a

personal preference or harassed because

of an unpopular opinion. It's another to

say that students must never be asked

why their preference and opinions are

different from those of others. It's one

thing to say that students should be ca-

pable of self-revelation. It's another to say

that they must always like what they see

revealed, (p. 18)


Similarly, problems can arise when asafe classroom environment is seen to be anenvironment without conflict. When trying tocreate a safe space, instructors may err on theside of trying to make the classroom stress-freeby making it conflict-free. As Boostrom (1998)notes, "if critical thinking, imagination, andindividuality are to flourish in classrooms,teachers need to manage conflict, not prohibitit" (p. 407). A classroom in which safe meansno conflict, and that no one is ever feelingchallenged or uncomfortable is likely to be aclassroom in which little learning and growthare occurring.

A second concern about creating a spacethat is safe enough for students to share openlyhas to do with harm to fellow students. Caninstructors create an environment in whichstudents are encouraged to honestly share theirviews, yet the views shared do not harm otherstudents in the class? Encouraging sharing ofviews that reflect underlying racist, classist, sex-ist, or homophobic perspectives, for example,might be important in providing the oppor-tunity for the view holder to be challenged toincrease self-awareness and to change thosebeliefs. However, hearing those views can bepainful for students whose groups are beingmaligned. Thus, one student's speaking up ina safe space has the potential to seriously harmanother student.

Attempts to create space that will feel safeto all students can be particularly difflcult ina multicultural classroom. There are cultural(e.g., ethnic, gender, regional, age) differencesin the appropriateness of speaking up in agroup, sharing personal information, chal-lenging others, public versus private demon-stration of learning, and the appropriateness

of disrupting the harmony of a group (Diaz,1986; Nordquist, 1993; Phillips, 1983; Sato, 1982;Swisher, 1992).

Method

This exploratory study examines theperspectives of social work students on thecreation, importance, and utility of safe spacein the classroom. Specifically, two primaryquestions are addressed: (1) What are students'perspectives about the characteristics or be-haviors of instructors, peers, themselves, andthe classroom physical space that contributeto safe and unsafe classroom spaces? (2) Whatare students' perspectives about the impact ofsafe classrooms on their own learning? In addi-tion, recognizing that dominant/subordinatedgroup status and classroom experience likelyaffect students' classroom experiences, thisstudy explored whether white students, malestudents, and master of social work studentsmight be more likely to state that they havetaken safe classes; and that students of color,female students, and baccalaureate social workstudents might be more likely to state that theyhave taken unsafe classes. Finally, the studyexplored whether the characteristics givenfor safe and unsafe space differed based onprogram level (MSW/BSW), race/ethnicity,and gender.

This study used a convenience sample ofBSW and MSW students from a Council onSocial Work Education-accredited program at alarge public western university. Questionnaireswere distributed during spring 2002 to studentsin six sections of four different social workcourses. These courses included senior-levelBSW practice courses (two sections), a junior-level BSW diversity course, and three sections


of MSW final-semester practice courses. Thesecourses were purposively selected to ensurethat the sample included both first-year andcontinuing students in both the undergraduateand graduate programs and MSW students whohad selected micro and macro concentrations.To prevent social desi rability bias, the authors'courses were not included in the study sample.Students were told that the survey was anony-mous and optional. They were asked to returnthe questionnaires to an envelope when theywere finished with them. A total of 54 BSWstudents and 67 MSW students completed thesurvey, resulting in response rates of 90% and71% respectively.

Questionnaire

The authors developed a questionnairewith consultation from a graduate-level re-search assistant. The pilot instrument wasreviewed by one MSW student for clarity, thenfor usefulness in answering the research ques-tions, and revisions were made in response tohis comments. Completed surveys from oneun-dergraduate class were reviewed to determinewhether responses appeared useful in answer-ing the research questions. Because responsesdid appear to meet this purpose, no furtherrevisions were made to the instrument.

The first section ofthe questionnaire askedstudents if they could think of a social workclass they had taken in which they felt ableand willing to raise controversial thoughtsand opinions or share personal experiencesthat were related to the course material. If theycould think of such a class, they were asked tolist up to six words or phrases that describedwhat the instructor did, or the instructor'scharacteristics, that were importantincreating

this type of classroom environment. Thinkingabout the same class, they were then asked tolist up to six words or phrases to describe whatother students did, then what they themselvesdid, to contribute to this environment. Finally,they were asked to list up to six words orphrases that described the physical classroomenvironment that were important in creatingthis classroom climate.

In the second part of the questionnaire,students were asked to think of a social workcourse in which they were not willing or ableto raise controversial thoughts and opinions orshare personal experiences that were relatedto the course material. If they could think ofsuch a class, they were then asked to list up tosix words or phrases that described what theinstructor, other students, they themselves,and the classroom environment contributedto creating this unsafe environment Studentswere asked not to name any specific instructorsor students in their descriptions.

The third section of the questionnaireasked questions to determine the importancethat students place on a safe classroom climate.On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not important atall and 5 being extremely important, they wereasked to rate the general importance of creat-ing an environment where they could honestlyexpress themselves. They were then asked toindicate, with a yes or no response, if such aclass environment changed what they learned,and if so, to describe what they learned thatthey did not learn in other classes. They alsowere asked ifa safe class environment changedhow much they learned, and if so, whether theylearned more, less, or the same in a class withthis type of environment. Students were askedif they were more or less challenged academi-


cally in classrooms where they could honestly

express themselves, and if they were more or

less challenged in terms of personal growth and

self-azvarcness.

In the final section of the questionnaire,

students were asked to provide demographicin-

formation about gender, race/ethnicity, sexual

orientation, and age. The lack of responses from

some students to selected demographic items

(described below) likely was a strategy used by

students from numerical-minority groups to

maintain theiranonymity. While thissituation

resulted in some missing data, it likely led to

more honest responses.

Sample

The 121 respondents ranged in age from 20

to 54 with a mean age of 29. The vast majority,

88% (71=106), were female. With 112 students

(93%) reporting their race or ethnicity, 73 (60%)

were White and 39 (32%) were of color. These

percentages are similar fo the program's overall

demographics. A sizable minority, 16% (n=19),

did not reporttheirsexual orientation, while80%

(H=97) self-identified as heterosexual and 4%

(n=5) reported being lesbian, gay, or bisexual.

Data Analysis

The authors independently developed a list

ofconstructsthatemerged from the qualitative

data in response to the first two sections of

the questionnaire (Miles & Huberman, 1994;

Ryan & Bernard, 2000). The authors then met

to compare constructs and categorization of

responses. Our respective constructs were in

agreement, and in those few Instances in which

we had categorized responses differently, we

discussed the differences until agreement was

reached. Finally, a second-year MSW student

was trained in inductive data analysis. The

authors' constructs and the raw data from

whichtheywerederived were shared with this

student to determine whether the constructs

developed by the authors (both instructors)

made sense from the perspective of a student.

Based on the student's review, the constructs

were confirmed, though in a few instances raw

data were re-coded into different categories.

As described above, students were asked to

give up to six words or phrases that described

characteristics of instructors, peers, themselves,

and classroom environment. When students

provided more than one word or phrase that

fell into the same category, their responses

were counted more than once in order to reflect

the importance that students placed on each

characteristic or behavior.

Data were entered into the Statistical Pack-

age for the Social Sciences (2001). Responses of

selected subgroups (e.g., women and men,

students of color and White students, BSW

and MSW students) to the two items asking

whether students had taken safe and unsafe

classes were compared. Chi-square analyses

were used todetermine if differences between

subgroupson these two nominal level variables

werestatistically significant. Frequencies were

run for each construct that had emerged from

analysis of the qualitative items.

Findings

In response to the question of whether or

not they had taken a class in which they were

able and willing to raise controversial thoughts

and opinions or share personal experiences

related to the course material, from here on

referred to as a safe class, 88% («=106) had taken

such a class while 12% (n=15) had not. Sixty-


three percent (n=76) reported having taken

at least one class in which they were not able

or willing to raise controversial thoughts and

opinions or share personal experiences related

to the course material, hereafter referred to as

an unsafe class. A higher percentage of MSW

students than BSW students indicated taking

both safe and unsafe classes (MSW safe class

n=ei, 92%; BSW safe class w-44, 83%; MSW

unsafeclass«=45,67%;BSWunsafeclassw^30,

58%), though chi-square tests of independence

indicated that these differences were not sta-

tistically significant. A higher percentage of

men than women reported having taken at

least one safe class and one unsafe class (men

safe class M=13, 100%; women safe class n=90,

87%; men unsafe class n=9,69%; women unsafe

class 0=64, 62%). More white students than

students of color indicated having taken safe

and unsafe classes (white students safe class

n=66, 92%; students of color safe class n=32,

82%; White students unsafe class n=47, 66%;

students of color unsafe class n=23,59%). Chi-

square tests of independence are not reported

for these analyses due to the number of cells

with expected count less than 5.

Importance and Effects ef Safe Spaces

When asked how important they thought

it was to create safe space in the classroom, on

a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not important at

all and 5 bein^extremely important, 97% (n=117)

indicated that it was very important (n=29,24%)

or extremely important (f(=88, 73%). Similarly,

97% (n=117) of the students said that being in

a safe classroom changed what they learned.

When asked to specify what they learned in a

safe classroom that they do not learn in other

classroom environments, students most often

said that: they learn about others' ideas, per-

spectives, and thoughts; they learn about others'

experiences or that others'experiences become

more personal; they are challenged to expand

their viewpoints and think outside the box; or

course content was more "real," "hands on," or

experiential (see Table 1).

In addition to affecting ivhat they learned,

84% (n=102) of the respondents reported that

being in a safe class changed haw much they

learned. Of that 84%, 79% (n=81) felt they

learned more in such a classroom, while 21%

(tt=21) felt they had learned less. When asked

TABLE 1 . Most Common Student Responses to What They Learn in a SafeClassroom (N=121)

Knowledge Cited as Gained Students Responding in)

I learned about others' ideas, perspectives, and thoughts. 50

I learned about others' exp>eriences, or others' experiences became more personal. 26

I was challenged to expand my viewpoints or think "outside the box." 18

Course content was more "real world," "hands on," or experiential. 13

I developed my communications skills (e.g., listening, dealing with conflict). 8

I grasped the subject more clearly; I was able to ask clarifying questions. 7

I increased my sW/-awareness or experienced personal growth. 7

I increased my understanding of others. 6


whether they found safe classes to be more, the

same, or less academically challenging, 65%

(«-79) said more, 22% {n=27) the same, and 11%

(n=13) less challenging. A large majority, 85%

(n=103), reported that they felt more challenged

in terms of personal growth in safer classrooms,

while 5% (n=6) reported feeling the same, and

10% («^12) reported feeling less challenged.

When asked to describe the instructor,

fellow student, personal, and classroom char-

acteristics that were important in creating safe

and unsafe spaces, student responses were ex-

tremely varied- As described below, there was

a surprising consistency of responses across

genders, race (measured as being White or of

color), and program level (MSW or BSW).

TABLE 2. Characteristics of Instructor, Peers, Self, and Physical Environment in aSafe Classroom

Safe ClassroomVariable Characteristic

Instructor Not biased; nonjudgmental; open (63)Modeled participation; developed ground rules (51)Comfortable with conflict/raised controversial ideas (35)Respectful/supportive of others' opinions (35)Encouraged/required class participation (32)Demonstrated caring (e.g., friendly) (26)Challenged students (e.g., posed questions) (19)Shared about self (e.g., personal biases) (15)Was informative, knowledgeable (12)Laid back, flexible, calm, or comfortable (10)

Peers Good discussion skills (e.g., respectful, listened, followed ground rules) (62)Honestly shared thoughts, ideas, opinions, and facts (59)Nonjudgmental and open to new ideas or perspectives (48)Sense of community (e.g., were friendly, supportive, trustworthy) (48)Led respondent to think critically (e.g., challenged my thoughts) (15)Had positive attitudes (13)

Self Tried to be open-minded (e.g., considered views of others) (42)Honestly shared ideas, views, and values (33)Actively participated in discussion, spoke up (30)Was supportive of or respectful toward others (21)Was prepared for class (e.g., completed readings, knowledgeable about subject) (20)Felt comfortable (e.g., comfortable with students, encouraged by peers/professor) (17)Listened actively (e.g., listened attentively, gave full attention to others) (16)Used other discussion skills (e.g., raised hand, thought before speaking,

controlled voice tone) (13)Was invested in class (e.g., interested, excited, passionate) (13)

Physical Seating allowed seeing everyone (e.g., circle seating) (60)Environment Appropriate room size for number of students (45)

Good lighting (18)

Note. Characteristics are included in this table only if mentioned at least 10 times. Numbers in paren-theses indicate number of responses that fell into this category.


Safe Space Components

Instructor characteristics. Students offered

a total of 387 descriptors of instructors thatcontributed to the development of a safespace (see Table 2). They were most likely todescribe the instructor in a safe space as beingnonjudgmental or unbiased; as developingground rules for class discussion or modelinghow to participate; as being comfortable withconflict or raising controversial ideas; as beingrespectful or supportive ofothers'opinions; asencouraging or requiring active participation inclass; and as demonstrating caring. Relative totheir representation in the sample, students ofcolorweremorelikely to say that the instructor'sattention to cultural issues was important increating a safe space.

Peer characteristics. Students offered 295

descriptors of their peers in a safe space. Theymost often described their peers as practic-ing good discussion skills; honestly sharingtheir thoughts, ideas, opinions, or facts; beingnonjudgmental and open to new ideas, per-spectives, or experiences; and sharing a senseof community.

Personal characteristics. A total of 275 words

and phraseswereprovided describing students'own behaviors or characteristics that contrib-uted to the creation of a safe space. The mostcommon descriptors indicated that studentstried to be open-minded; honestly shared theirideas, views, and values; actively participatedin discussion; were supportive of or respectfultoward others; and were prepared for class.

Physical environment characteristics.Students

offered 190 responses when asked to describethe aspects of the physical environment thatcontributed to the creation of a safe space.They overwhelmingly indicated that seating

arrangements that allowed class members tosee everyone (e.g., sitting in a circle or square)contributed to the creation of such a space.Students also commonly said that an appropri-ate-sized room (e.g., not too large or too smallfor the number of students) and good lightingwere important.

Unsafe Space Components

instructor characteristics.Studenisprovided

230descriptorsofinstructorsinanunsafeclass-room (see Table 3). The most common responseswere that the instructors: were critical of orchastised students; were biased, opinionated,or judgmental; and refused to consider others'opinions.

Peer characteristics. Study participantsprovided !46 words or phrases describingtheir peers in an unsafe space, most com-monly saying that they did not speak up orwere afraid to speak up (see Table 3). They alsoreported that peers in such a classroom werebiased, judgmental, or closed-minded; wereapathetic about the course; and tried to pleasethe instructor.

Personal characteristics. Students offered

145 descriptors of their personal characteris-tics and behaviors when asked what they didthat contributed to an unsafe classroom (seeTable 3). They most often said that they didnot participate; that they were fearful, wor-ried, intimidated, insecure, unconfident, orfelt vulnerable; and that they did not investin the course.

Physical environment. Students offered 93

descriptors of a classroom's physical character-istics that contributed to an unsafe classroom.Theymostoftensaid that row-style seating wasa characteristic of an unsafe classroom.


Discussion

While some authors have raised the im-portant question of whether students are aca-demically challenged ina safe space (Boostrom,1998; Weissglass, 1997), the majority of studentsin this sample reported being so challenged.A large majority of students stated that safeclassroom environments were important inboth what and how much they learned. In ad-dition, the majority of students reported thatthey were more challenged in terms of personalgrowth and awareness in classrooms that feelsafe. Students reported that in a safe space theywere more likely to learn about others, to bechallenged to expand their own viewpoints, toincrease their self-awareness, and to developeffective communication skills. This finding is

particularly importantinsocial work education,as cultural competency requires awareness ofthe ways in which a person's values and expe-riences influence her or his understanding of,and interactions with, others. Students suggestthat such a space may better prepare them forpractice, as evidenced by their responses thatthe content from safe classrooms was more"real world."

Given that this research was based on aself-report survey, the question can be raisedabout the validity of students' perceptions oflearning more and being challenged in class-rooms that felt safer. We do not know thatstudents necessarily learned more of whatthe instructors intended for them to learn in agiven class. However, the authors assume that

TABLE 3. Characteristics of instructor, Peers, Seif, and Physicai Environment In anUnsafe Ciassroom

Unsafe ClassroomVariable Characteristic

Instructor Critical toward students, chastised students, or "shot down" their ideas (38)Biased, opinionated, or judgmental (27)Did not consider others' perspectives (26)Relied on didactic format (18)Abrupt/rude when disagreed with students (13)Did not listen/respond to student comments (13)

Peers Did not speak; afraid to speak (27)Were biased, judgmental, or close-minded (14)Apathetic about course (e.g., did not attend class, unprepared for class) (14)Tried to please the instructor (14)Were frustrated, angry, or hostile (10)

Self Did not participate (35)Was fearful, worried, intimidated, insecure, unconfident, or felt vulnerable (20)Did not invest in the course (e.g., "tuned out," bored, skipped class) (16)

Physical Seating not conducive to discussion (e.g., row seating) (30)Environment Small or cramped room (14)

Uncomfortable temperature (10)

Note. Characteristics are included in this table only if mentioned at least 10 times. Numbers in paren-theses indicate number of responses that fell into this category.


Students are able to judge their overall level oflearning, and to compare their learning fromone class to another.

Results from this survey found fewer dif-ferences between students based on variousdemographic characteristics and programstatus (BSW versus MSW) than the authorsanticipated. However, some of the differencesare worth noting as they raise a number ofquestions for further research. More BSWthan MSW students reported that they hadnot taken a safe class. This difference raisesseveral questions. Does the relative lack ofexperienceofundergraduates in formal educa-tional settings lead them to feel less safe in thesameenvironment in which more-experiencedMSW students feel sa fe? Do thei r i nst ructors orpeers behave differently? Are undergraduatesmore likely to be in larger lecture-style classesthat do not provide opportunities for studentsharing and discussion, or classes led by lessexperienced instructors?

While sample size limited the ability toidentify statistically significant differences,the finding that a higher percentage of whitestudents than students of color—and allmen—had taken a safe class is important toconsider. Does Whites' and men's status asmembers of dominant social groups makethem more comfortable speaking up in a widerrange of settings? Are they more likely to betreated with respect by their instructors andpeers? Do their cultural characteristics makethem more comfortable participating activelyin classroom settings? For Whites, did theirnumerical majority in the classroom lead to anincreased comfort level?

Results of this study did not find majordifferences among gender, race/ethnicity.

or program groups in the perceptions of thecharacteristics that are necessary to create asafe space. This finding suggests that there areapproaches that can be taken in the classroomthat can help most, if not all students fee! safer.However, instructors may need different skillsand knowledge in order to address the uniqueneeds of some students. For example, none ofthe whitestudentssaid that inclusion of culturalcontent was an important instructor behavior,while this was mentioned six times by studentsof color in their descriptions of safe spaces.This finding suggests that discussing socialidentities, as described by Garcia and Van Soest(1997), is particularly important in creating asense of safety for students of color.

Students offered many more descriptorsfor instructors' behaviors and characteristicsthat contributed to the development of bothsafe and unsafe classrooms than they did forpeers, themselves, or the physical environment.This finding suggests that students place mostof the responsibility for classroom environmenton instructors, and may not be aware of theirroles and responsibilities in creating or hin-dering the development of safe spaces. Moreeffort might need to be invested in workingwith students to develop an understandingand appreciation of shared responsibility forclassroom climates.

As described previously, the literaturesuggests that instructors can encourage the de-velopment of sa fe spaces by bei ng approachableand supportive (Fassinger, 1995), presenting anonjudgmental demeanor (Latting, 1990), notpunishing students who hold unpopular views(Garcia & Van Soest, 1997), not avoiding conflict(Chan & Treacy, 1996), developing guidelinesfor class discussion (Ghan & Treacy, 19%;


Good, 1995; Hyde & Ruth, 2002), and welcom-ing discussion (Fassinger, 1995). Findings fromthis study suggest that students would agreewith each of these recommended behaviors.Students in this study offered four additionalinstructor characteristics or behaviors that arenot mentioned or strongly emphasized in theliterature: that instructors shared about them-selves; were informative or knowledgeable;challenged students; and were laid-back, flex-ible, or calm. This study also suggests that forstudents of color, inclusion of cultural contentis important in the creation of safe space.

The number one category of responsesgiven by students regarding instructor char-acteristics in a safe space was "unbiased" or"nonjudgmental"; the number one responsecategory for instructor characteristics in anunsafe space was "critical toward students."Given the structure of the current surveyinstrument, it is not completely clear whatstudents meant by these descriptors, andwhether students and academics interpretinstructor behaviors in the same way. On onehand, students may have used terms such as"unbiased" to refer to instructors maintaininga "demeanor of nonjudgmental acceptance ofstudents as individuals" (Latting, 1990, p. 43),not punishing students for unpopular views(Garcia & Van Soest, 1997), and not laughingat, belittling, or harassing them for their beliefsand ideas (Boostrom, 1997,1998). On the otherhand, students may be using such terms torefer to practices that Boostrom suggests areimportant in creating an academically rigor-ous classroom, such as critiquing their views,pointingoutways in which their thinkingmightbe faulty, or challenging them to explain whytheir views or opinions differ from others and

those ofthe profession. If the latter is true, thenone must question whether students feel safeonly in an environment where their beliefs gounquestioned and ideasunchallenged. If this isthe case, what feels safe for students might beantithetical to the discomfort that is sometimesnecessaryfortruegrowth and learning to occur.As will be discussed later, further research isneeded to determine what specific instructorbehaviors students perceive to be supportiveor threatening.

Finally, it is important to emphasize thatstudents offered 16 descriptors indicating thatthey did not invest in their unsafe courses, and13 phrases indicating that they were investedin their safe classes. For example, they spokeof being prepared for class and completingtheir readings in safe classes, and being bored,disinterested, and "skipping" their unsafeclasses. This finding suggests that creatinga safe classroom can contribute to increasedstudent learning, or at least increased effortand commitment.

Limitations

There are several limitations with thisstudy. The use of a purposive sample composedof students from only one school of social workprecludes generalization of findings. The rela-tively small numbers of males and studentswho identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgender prevented a thorough explorationof differences in their perceptions of safe andunsafe spaces. Similarly, the relatively smallnumber ofstudentsof color precluded analysisof the responses of specific ethnic groups. Nopsychometric information about the instru-ment developed for this exploratory studyis available. Because the survey instrument

SAFE SPACE IN THE CLASSROOM 6 1

used primarily open-ended items, we can-not determine whether more students mighthave agreed with specific items identified byother students. We also cannot be completelyclear what certain descriptors actually meanto students in terms of specific behaviors orattributes of instructors, fellow students, orthemselves. Finally, due to the exploratorynature of this study we did not ask studentsto rate the importance of each characteristic,making it impossible to determine which char-acteristics are considered most important. Ourdecision to count student descriptors that fellinto the same category multiple times (e.g., onestudent offering both "non-biased" and "non-judgmental" in describing instructor, peers, orselOwasone strategy to capture the importancethat students placed on various characteristics.This decision, however, may have resulted inover-weighting the perceptions of students whowere able to come up with more descriptorsthan were other students.

impiications

New information that emerged from thisstudy suggests that the vast majority of stu-dents consider the creation of a safe space tobe very or extremely important and that themajority of students perceive that they learnmore in such a classroom. Based on the find-ings of this study, and consistent with existingliterature, instructors who desire to createsafe classes may want to create ground rulesfor class discussion; demonstrate respect forothers' opinions; demonstrate that they arecomfortable with conflict; encourageor requirestudent participation in class; be friendly andpersonable in their interactions with students;and behave in a nonjudgmental way toward

students. Further, some students may feel saferwhen instructors demonstrate that they areknowledgeable about the cou rse subject matter;share about themselves; challenge students; arelaid-back, flexible, or calm in theclassroom; andarrange their classrooms so that students cansee each other. Perhaps most important is thedevelopment of guidelines for classdiscussion.As a class develops these guidelines, studentslearn what behaviors and attitudes their peersand the instructor desire of them. It is likelythat student-developed guidelines will includethose characteristics identified by students inthis study: being respectful; listening; andsharing their thoughts, ideas, opinions, andknowledge.

Given the diversity of social work class-rooms and the challenging issues often raisedin them, it may be unrealistic to expect anyclassroom to be truly safe for all students. Thefindings that some students have never expe-rienced a classroom they would define as safewhile others clearly have, supports this point.A comment that is perceived as an appropriatecritique by one student might be felt as judg-mental or as an attack by another. Possibly thebest that instructors and students can strivefor is the creation of safer space. The processof the creation of safer space could begin withclassroom conversations about what it meansfor students and instructors to feel safe, and theacknowledgment that given conflicting needs,complete safety for all may be unrealistic. Itmight also be important to discuss the connec-tion between personal and intellectual growthand periodic discomfort or challenge. Hav-ing had this conversation, when discussionsbecome particularly difficult or students findtheir beliefs and ideas being challenged, they

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

may be less likely to feel surprised or betrayedby the instructor or fellow students, and thus,less likely to shut down.

As was discussed earlier, it is not clearwhat students mean by nonjudgmental ornon-critical instructors or fellow students.Does any critique leave some students feel-ing threatened and unsafe? Are there manyor some students who will not feel safe inany classroom where their ideas or beliefsare challenged? Further research is needed toclarify this point. Focus groups with studentswould be one way to achieve this end, askingstudents for specific examples of instructorbehaviors that demonstrate that she or he isunbiased or nonjudgmental. Students alsocould be presented with various scenariosof student-instructor interactions, and askedto rate the level of safety they might feel be-ing part of such an interaction. Given thatsafety is likely an important component forhonest self-exploration, future work mightalso examine ways in which instructors canencourage students to better accept construc-tive challenges to their ideas and beliefs, inthe service of becoming more effective socialwork practitioners.

In addition to further research clarifyingthe meaning of descriptors given by students, itwould be helpful to know more about the per-spectives of instructors in terms of the utilityand creation of safer classroom environments.Do instructors believe that some classes call forthe creation of safe space while others do not? Ifthey see the need for creating a safer classroomenvironment, what techniques do instructorsperceive to be successful toward achievingthis end? What challenges do they face? Are

there certain situations in which instructorsfeel more or less safe in the classroom? If so,do instructors' feelings of safety contribute tostudents' perceptions of safety?

While this exploratory study providessome information about the utility and cre-ation of safer classroom environments, moreresearch is called for. In the meantime, it isinteresting to note that many of the character-istics offered by students regarding what theinstructor, their peers, and they themselvesdo in safe classrooms are fundamental skillsfor social work practice. The safe classroomthus can be viewed as an arena in which stu-dents can develop and refine the knowledge,attitudes, and skills necessary for culturallycompetent practice.

References

Blum, L. (2000, April). Reflections of a White teacher

teachingacourseon racism. Paperpresented at the

Annual Meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Boostrom, R. (1998). Safe spaces: Reflectionson an

educational metaphor. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 30, 397-408.

Boostrom, R. (1997, March). Unsafe spaces: Reflec-

tions on a specimen of educational jargon. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Associa-

tion, Chicago.

Chan, C. S., & Treacy, M. J. (1996). Resistance in

multicultural courses: Student, faculty, and

ciassroom dynamics. American Behavioral

Scientist, 40, 212-221.

Diaz, C. (1986). Multicultural education for the 21st

century. Washington, DC: National Education

Association.

SAFE SPACE IN THE CUSSROOM 63

Diller, J. V. (2004). Cultural diversity: A primer for

the human services (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom

mteraction. Journal ofHigher Education, 66(1),

82-96.

Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (1997). Changing per-

ceptions of diversity and oppression: MSW

students discuss the effects of a required

course. Journal of Social Work Education, 33,

119-129.

Good, G. E. (1995). Students' perceptions of a

gender issues course: A qualitative and

quantitativeexamination. CowHse/orErfucflton

and Supervision, 34, 308-321.

Greene, R. (1994). Human behavior theory: A

diversity framework. New York: Aldine de

Gruyter.

Gutierrez, L., & Nagda, B. (19%). The multicultural

imperative for human service organizations.

InRRaffoul&A.McNeece(Eds.),fu(ureisswfs

for social work practice (pp. 203-213). Boston:

AUyn & Bacon.

Holman, S., & Freed, R (1987). Learning social

work practice: A taxonomy. The Clinical Su-

pervisor, 5(1), 3-21.

Hyde, C. A., & Ruth, B. J. (2002). Multicultural

content and class participation: Do students

self-censor? Journal of Social Work Education,

38, 241-256.

Kerr, D. H. (1996). Democracy, nurturance, and

community. In R. Soder (Ed.), Democracy,

education, and the schools (pp. 37-56). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Latting, J. K. (1990). Identifying the "isms":

Enabling social work students to confront

their biases. Journal of Social Work Education,

26(1), 36-44.

Lum, D. (1999). Culturally competent practice: A

framework for growth and action.Facx^cGxave,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

McPhatter, A. R. (1997). Cultural competencein child

welfare: What is it? How do we achieve it? What

happens without it? Child Welfare, 76,255-278.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative

dataanalysis: An expanded sourcebookO-r\ded).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Nordquist, G. (1993). Japanese education: No

recipe for authentic learning. Educational

Leadership, 50. 64-67

Phillips, S. U (1983). The invisible culture. New

York: Longman.

Rocklin, E. L. (1983, March). The resonance of

dialogue: Composing a literature class. Paper

presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of

the Conference on College Composition and

Communication, Detroit, ML

Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Data manage-

ment and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzin

& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research (2nd ed., pp. 769-802). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sato, C. J. (1982, March). Ethnic styles in classroom

discourse. Paper presented at Annual Confer-

ence of Teachers of English to Speakers of

Other Languages, Detroit, MI.

SPSS for Windows Release 11.0 [computer soft-

warel. (2001, November). SPSS, Inc.

Swisher, K. (1992). Learn ing styles: Implications for

teachers. In C. Diaz (Ed.), Multicultural educa-

tion for the 21st century (pp. 23-35). Washing-

ton, EXI: National Education Association.

Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning

about racism: The application of racial iden-

tity development theory in the classroom.

Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1-24.

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Van Soest, D. (1996). Impact of social work

education on student attitudes and behavior

concerning oppression./ournfl/o/Socifl/Wor/c

Education, 32,191-202.

Van Soest, D., & Garcia, B. (2003). Diversity education

for social just ice: Mastering teaching skills. Alexan-

dria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Weissglass,]. (1997, April). Deepening our dialogue

about equity. Educational Leadership, 78-81.

Accepted: 02/04

Lynn C. Holley is assistant professor and Sue Steiner is associate professor. School of Social Work,

College of Public Programs. Arizona State University.

Address correspondence to Lynn C. Holley, Arizona State University, PO Box 87102, Tempe, A2 85287-

1802; email: [email protected].

This project was partially supported by the College of Public Programs. Arizona State University. Theauthors thank Scott Hooyman and Damaris Donado for their research assistance; BSW and MSW stu-dents for their thoughtful participation in this research; and Layne Stromwall and anonymous reviewersfor comments about an earlier draft of this paper. The views expressed in this paper are those of theauthors, who accept all responsibilities for any errors.

Beyond the Shelter WallHomeless Families Speak Out

By Ralph da Costa Nuiier,

Beyond the Shelter Wall givts readers a rare look atthe other side of homelessness. Ai 3 time when fam-ily homdessness has reached an all-time high, thesefirst-hand accounts provide insight and clarity intothe growing epidemic of Anierica's poorest.

"A miiit rtad felt anyone "•lin sfim <" look Iwynnd iiijmbecsaniit. leriikncy indhopc in the lives of tionidcs5 women

To order call212-529-5252,

or visit us online at

Institute for

(Children .md Poverty

White Tiger PfcssNew York

Documents

SAFE SPACE: STUDENT PERSPECTIVES ON CLASSROOM …files.umwblogs.org/.../Student-Perspectives-on-Safe-Classrooms.pdf · grade). Creating a safe classroom space can reduce the negative