After our highly informative and thought-provoking expert panel on managing classroom discussions on challenging topics, I caught up with one of the panel members, Dr Michael Zekulin, to ask some of the questions that we didn’t get to at the panel event.
Two online attendees asked about what type of advice or guidance the teaching academics provide other teaching staff, such as tutors, who have limited or no experience in managing challenging discussions.
Michael explained that he prefers to give his tutors the freedom to lead discussions in ways that they are comfortable with, providing them with some key talking points or questions to spark discussion. For more sensitive topics like terrorism, he offers structured guidance, including tips on managing discussions that may go off track. He encourages tutors to approach him if they feel uncomfortable.
Experience, he noted, is a major factor in building tutors’ confidence and their ability to handle difficult discussions. He shared that when tutors return year after year and as their relationship develops, he can step back and give them more autonomy – something he finds very rewarding.
For new tutors or those teaching divisive topics for the first time, Michael stresses the importance of setting clear expectations and ground rules from the start. He suggests his tutors should start with a relatively controlled environment, a clear idea of what they want to achieve in the tutorial and have questions and ‘go to’ points already prepared.
Some useful phrases that Michael recommends to his tutors are “that’s a very interesting point – we’re actually going to cover that a little bit later on” or “ok, let’s hear from other people”. He also reassures tutors that it’s fine to say, “I don’t know the answer, I’ll get back to you,” or suggest that students take the question up with the course convener. According to Michael, students appreciate this kind of honest response.
Another useful strategy Michael described was positioning himself as the one presenting opposing views. This approach helps direct any disagreement or debate towards him rather than allowing students to argue directly with each other. By doing this, he can keep the discussion more controlled and productive, preventing personal conflicts between students. He finds that having students address their points to him as the intermediary helps maintain a more respectful and balanced classroom environment.
Do you only discuss expectations about communication and interaction about the beginning of semester or do you bring it up each time you’re engaging in a more than unusually challenging topic?
Michael said that this depends on the course. He always sets expectations during the first lecture, but for courses with just a few divisive topics through the semester such as his Introduction to International Relations course, he reminds students of those expectations before engaging in those topics. For his course on terrorism, where most of the topics are highly challenging, he revisits expectations regularly but also provides content warnings about the specifics of the topic. He gave the example about warning students about derogatory language used in a video about the radicalisation of a family towards right wing inspired extremism before they watch the video.
What are some practical tips for validating students having their own opinions [part of Michael’s approach to setting expectations at the beginning of a teaching period]?
Michael emphasised that his role is to present different, and often opposing, positions rather than imposing a particular viewpoint. He sometimes uses exaggerated examples, such as explaining why something is “the best thing in the world” and then explaining why the same thing is “the worst thing ever to happen” to help students understand that is entirely reasonable that they will develop their opinions based on their own experiences.
A key strategy he uses is to present different arguments neutrally. He often frames them as “there are those who suggest” followed by “and there are those who are opposed to this position”. In cases where students might bring up ideas that have been disproven, like certain early post-9/11 radicalisation theories linking religion to radicalisation, he explicitly tells students that even though these theories have been debunked, some people do still support such views. This helps students critically engage with different perspectives without feeling cornered or defensive.
Michael expanded on this point, stressing that it’s important to avoid making students feel as though they are being pushed into a corner, consciously or subconsciously, because that can trigger defensiveness. When students feel pressured or anxious about their opinions, they are more likely to push back or become entrenched in their views. Michael argued that presenting both sides of an argument and explaining why people may hold certain ideas, you create a space where students feel their views are acknowledged without judgment. This, in turn, leads to more productive discussions, where students can openly express their opinions while also being prepared for others to challenge those ideas.
Finally, Michael also noted that students should understand that while their opinions are valid, not everyone will agree with them. He encourages them not to be surprised if their ideas are challenged, explaining that this is a natural part of academic discourse. The key, he said, is to help students realise that differing opinions are expected and that they should engage with these differences respectfully.
How do you take the cultural diversity of your student cohort into account when discussing challenging topics?
Michael assumes students come with different perspectives, shaped by their unique life experiences, and that this diversity naturally influences how they understand and react to the subject matter. He adopts a neutral stance, presenting a variety of viewpoints to encourage students to think critically and empathetically. Part of his approach is teaching students to “walk a mile in someone else’s shoes,” helping them to empathise with others who may have different backgrounds or perspectives.
Giving the example of topics like colonialism or global inequalities, Michael said that he incorporates more critical theories, which challenge dominant Western-centric narratives. He provides students with a range of perspectives, particularly when discussing the relationship between the Global North and the Global South. While he does not tailor his teaching to individual students based on their specific cultural or national backgrounds, he remains mindful of the diversity in his classroom, aiming to balance the presentation of different global perspectives. This helps create a more inclusive environment where students from diverse backgrounds feel heard and understood.
In cases where the subject matter could directly relate to students’ backgrounds – such as when discussing regions or cultures that are the focus of heated debates – Michael explained that he generally maintains the same approach. However, he acknowledged that it is possible to misstep, and when he receives pushback from students, he reflects on how he presented the material and adjusts accordingly. He shared an instance where he used a case study on Russia and Ukraine during an open day lecture, and an attendee took issue with his remarks. Reflecting on the experience, he realised that his language could have been clearer to avoid such misunderstandings and ensure that attendees understood he was presenting multiple factual perspectives rather than personal opinions.
How do you pick up the signs that a discussion is about to or has started to be problematic?
Michael noted that observation is key in identifying when a conversation may be heading into uncomfortable or tense territory. He looks for students’ physical and emotional reactions, such as a student vigorously shaking their head in disagreement or their facial expressions shifting in discomfort, which could indicate that someone is becoming uneasy or agitated by the discussion.
These visual cues, while not a perfect science, are reliable indicators that the conversation might be straying into sensitive territory. When Michael sees such signs, he said that he takes steps to diffuse the tension by bringing a neutral tone back into the discussion. For example, he might acknowledge that the perspective being presented is valid but then quickly pivot to introduce another viewpoint, signaling to students that not everyone may agree with the stance being discussed. According to Michael, this balanced approach is designed to calm the situation and reassure students that differing opinions are welcome in the classroom.
He also explained the importance of adapting on the fly, adjusting the conversation if he senses that the room is becoming tense. By staying alert and continuously scanning the room for cues, he can anticipate when a conversation is heading in a difficult direction, allowing him to intervene early and maintain a balanced and respectful classroom environment.
Michael admitted that experience over time has helped him develop a sense of which topics are more likely to provoke strong reactions. However, he acknowledged that it’s important not to become complacent, even when teaching subjects he has covered many times before. He mentioned his heightened awareness going into tutorials and lectures on counter-terrorism, given the current geopolitical climate. Despite having previously navigated similar discussions successfully, he said that he is revisiting his material and approach, ensuring that he communicates explicitly and neutrally to prevent potential escalation.
Michael also discussed strategies for diffusing tense situations when students become uncomfortable or agitated during discussions. He emphasised the importance of recognising when a student may be upset and using techniques such as inviting them to speak privately after class. This allows for more nuanced conversations without escalating emotions in the classroom setting. He also shared how he provides his tutors with similar tools to de-escalate situations before they get out of hand. Through these strategies, he ensures that students feel supported, even when engaging with challenging or polarizing topics.
What are some of your strategies for use ‘in the moment’ when students clearly have very different views from other students that are taking the discussion somewhere that you don’t think is useful?
Michael explained that in situations where students are engaging in a heated discussion, he might intervene by saying something like, “I’m going to open it up to others in the room,” ensuring that the discussion remains inclusive and doesn’t become a personal debate between just two individuals.
He might also subtly shift the focus, asking questions that link the current discussion to a broader or related topic. For example, if students are debating a specific instance within counter-terrorism, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, he might move the discussion toward a different region or a similar, but distinct issue. He has found that this allows the conversation to continue productively without getting bogged down in a polarised debate.
If necessary, Michael said that he will also assertively move the class forward by saying “we’ve already discussed that, so let’s focus on this new aspect” indicating that the topic has been covered and it’s time to explore a different angle.
Michael described his overall strategy as maintaining a balance between allowing free discussion and preventing unproductive or overly emotional exchanges, using subtle redirection and strategic interventions. This enables a healthy learning environment where all students feel heard without escalating the discussion beyond its educational value.
Do you see a relationship between the need to manage these types of discussions and students developing skills in concise and reasoned argument?
Michael explained that yes, he uses the idea of the ‘elevator pitch’ to teach students how to communicate effectively and efficiently. In class discussions, he emphasises the importance of staying on topic, reminding students that time is limited. When conversations start to meander or drift off-topic, he believes it is the lecturer’s or tutor’s responsibility to step in and redirect the discussion. He finds that most students are receptive to this intervention when it’s framed constructively.
In her presentation at the panel event, Pascale Taplin talked about the difference between that state of what she called student calm as opposed to student wellbeing, and that maybe we were potentially focusing too much on keeping students calm as opposed to their wellbeing and the greater wellbeing of society. What are your thoughts on this?
Michael described the challenge in developing students’ skills in grappling with complex and challenging ideas while protecting their mental health and suggested that educational institutions may have shifted too far in shielding students. While he believes students are generally up to the challenge of engaging with diverse viewpoints, he noted that better preparation, starting at the high school level, could equip them to handle such discussions before reaching university.
He talked about the change in students’ ability to engage with difficult discussions over their years at university. He observed that most students are capable of handling challenging conversations and distinguishing between theory and reality as they progress. However, he also noted that a small minority of students do struggle with these discussions and the unpredictability of emotional responses from some students makes it necessary to approach these situations cautiously.
Despite his personal belief in pushing the envelope for more open discussions, Michael conceded that the current climate requires careful navigation. He said he favours gradually scaling students’ exposure to difficult conversations over time, from first-year to third-year levels, helping them develop the tools to handle complex issues. Ultimately, he strives to work within the present realities of the education system, but with a strong hope for future improvement in preparing students for broader societal challenges.
Key takeaways
- Scaffold tutors so they are supported as they develop the skills to lead discussions on sensitive topics.
- Set expectations with student early and revisit often.
- Present all relevant perspectives neutrally.
- Be mindful that students have a variety of experiences and backgrounds that influence their opinions and ideas.
- Observe your students and watch for signs of discomfort and distress.
- Prepare techniques for deflecting or redirecting discussions if necessary.
Cait Greenup is a Senior Education Designer (Inclusive Design) at the Centre for Learning and Teaching.
