By: Talia Loventhal
In a sociology course about gender and work at UGA, not a single man is enrolled. This may not be surprising, but it should be a concern. The way people learn is impacted by their existing values and views of the world. The idea of self-selection into education does not just apply to college access or careers postgraduate, but also to what people choose to learn while in college. When students choose to learn based on existing values, this can create an echo chamber where people are not exposed to new ideas and only reinforce what they already believe. This relates to the concept of endogeneity, where the independent variable (values and beliefs) is influenced by the dependent variable (class choice), creating a feedback loop of mutual influence rather than a single directional impact. In this case, students may choose courses that they have existing knowledge about, and then the course reinforces their beliefs.
Why is this a problem? If people do not want to learn something, why should they? The mere exposure effect explains that people have a “tendency to develop preferences for things simply because we are familiar with them,” thus people tend to make better choices when they have more information. It is therefore likely that the students who typically enroll in gender studies, race-related courses, or other classes that discuss contentious topics already have some knowledge and interest in these areas.
Although people tend to resist going out of their comfort zone, there are ways to make doing so more attractive. Carl Wieman explains that experts often design classes without fully considering how those new to the subject perceive the content. People familiar with a subject struggle to teach novices because their deep understanding of a subject makes it hard to see how beginners approach learning. Especially when discussing sensitive topics that are often politicized, it is even more crucial for professors to understand how those not exposed to these ideas process the new information. Wieman talks about science education and how the professor and student are unknowingly “speaking a different language.” The same concept applies to social sciences, especially courses discussing topics seen as political. To those accustomed to social science classes, it feels natural to discuss intersectionality or Marxism. Even concepts that social science students assume to be well-known, such as the gender wage gap or institutional racism, may feel foreign, abstract, or complex to those not used to discussing these topics. Further, Wieman explains how students often have misperceptions about science, seeing it as irrelevant to real-life problems. In social science, especially in departments like sociology, people view it as useless or too ideological to apply to their lives or careers.
Understanding the problem is not enough; it is vital to determine the steps needed to address the issue. The availability heuristic explains that experts draw on their recent experiences with a subject rather than their initial learning experiences due to misremembering their performance as novices. Intermediates may be better than experts at understanding novices due to their more recent experiences. In this case, that would require talking to people recently learning about these topics to understand how new people will process the information. Instead of simply assuming why certain people avoid topics like gender studies, data should be gathered to understand their perceptions and make the content more relevant and approachable. Using empirical evidence to improve teaching methods is crucial rather than relying on assumptions.Many potential solutions focus on fostering open dialogue and freedom of expression. For example, a researcher focused on improving climate change education in conservative, religious, or low socioeconomic status communities in the Southeast. They used public dialogue sessions to unite diverse groups and ensured everyone felt respected and free to express their views. The authors argue that “preaching to the choir” does not work when trying to reach groups that are skeptical or dismissive of an issue because it only involves speaking to those who already have knowledge or interest in the issue. In addition, social constructionism explains that reality is constructed through conversations and interactions. People can co-create a positive future through building relationships. Creating an environment where dialogue can flourish helps to overcome polarization in communities, in and outside of the classroom. It seems like stating the obvious that the way to encourage people to learn about topics they may avoid is simply promoting open discussion. Still, it is important to push beyond raising awareness among those who already care about an issue and bring in interdisciplinary perspectives. “Preaching to the choir” can incentivize people who already care to take action and become well-educated about a topic, but it is not enough to create change. Social science concepts can reach beyond the “choir” by focusing on intersectionality with other disciplines. Instead of fostering niche echo chambers, education should be designed to welcome people of all views and give them space for open dialogue.
