Power and privilege exist in the classroom and impact engagement and discourse. Aligned with the University of Minnesota (UMN) Global Programs and Strategy Alliance’s Global Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity Initiative, we believe that it is vital to create a culture of belonging within our classroom communities. We present here a framework of communication guidelines for addressing oppressive classroom discussion practices and increasing students’ sense of belonging. We refer to this framework as the COFFEE Model: Centering, Observing, Forwardness, Flexibility, Empathy, and Engagement. Here, we first discuss how neglecting discussion expectations contributes to an oppressive environment that restricts a sense of belonging, then explore the need for clear communication guidelines to maximize classroom safety, peer feedback, student sense of belonging, and intercultural representation. We conclude by offering the COFFEE Model as a guide for addressing these pitfalls, and discuss how educators can apply these norms in their classrooms.

Instructors who don’t consider classroom discussion norms can inadvertently hinder students with diverse identities from feeling a sense of belonging and from engaging in class content. U.S. students of color, for example, may perceive that classroom discussions are tailored to historically dominant settler identities, which may result in feelings of classroom neglect (Pieterse et al., 2016). Students of color report feeling “othered” and “invisible” with the ethnocentric views and dominant cultural values present in classes, even in those that focus on diversity (Curtis-Boles et al., 2020). And international students often experience social difficulty in the classroom due to differences in cultural communication and understanding (Chapdelaine & Alexitch, 2004). These findings support the notion that discounting the sense of belonging and failing to adjust for dominant cultural values and communication norms in a classroom setting disproportionately affect students with diverse identities, and that these are types of institutional microaggressions. Intentionally addressing and correcting for ethnocentrism in classroom discussion, in contrast, boosts equity, thwarts oppressive classroom environments, and enhances intercultural communication and the sense of belonging.

Classrooms that lack clear communication guidelines may also unintentionally harm students by failing to prepare to intervene with covert indignities. Covert messages of exclusion, hostility, and lack of belonging—including microaggressions (Sue et al., 2007)—promote “othering” in higher education. Microaggressions are subtle put-downs that devalue individuals because of a characteristic, such as race or gender identity. They include slights and insults based on identities and characteristics, and, unfortunately, are commonly experienced in higher education, thereby impacting multicultural education courses. A systematic review reported that over 80% of the articles examined found instances of microinsults in college settings (Ogunyemi et al., 2020), and another study found that one-third of college classroom discussions exhibited various microaggressions (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). Even in programs with a high percentage of students of color, microaggressions are prevalent (Wong & Jones, 2018). Considering that the classroom is a social microcosm replicating stereotypes and personal biases, these findings may be unsurprising, but students experiencing microaggressions in intercultural education classes report a lack of confrontation or remediation regarding these comments (Seward et al., 2019).

There is a clear need for a communication framework to prevent and address microaggressions and harm in the classroom, provide guidance for giving peer feedback, enhance the engagement of all students with shared expectations, increase student comfort in engaging in courageous cultural conversations (e.g., experiential learning), promote a sense of belonging, and boost cultural responsiveness and sensitivity in intercultural communication. The COFFEE Model aims to serve as a communication framework that assists students in becoming active agents of change and promotes inclusivity in the classroom.

Model Development

The COFFEE Model arose from the grassroots as part of a Fall 2021 semester-long activity in co-creating classroom cultural communication norms. This activity was part of the graduate course Multicultural Foundations in Counseling/Clinical Psychology, which was was taught through the lens of cultural humility—a growth-oriented approach towards multiculturalism that continuously asks clinicians to recognize knowledge limitations and bring an open-minded and nonjudgmental approach to understanding clients’ cultural identities (Hook et al., 2013; Tervalon & Murray-García, 1998). In line with our textbook, Cultural humility: Engaging diverse identities in therapy (Hook et al., 2017), the class was prompted to consider discussion norms that would (a) demonstrate intellectual engagement, (b) demonstrate emotional engagement, (c) demonstrate relational engagement (e.g., developing and maintaining positive relationships with peers), (d) acknowledge and level powers and privileges, and (e) demonstrate allyship. We also considered communication practices that would not communicate the aforementioned values. The class created a list of values and communication norms that comprised our class’s goals and expectations for discussions and peer feedback, and discussed each communication value at the start of the semester. We then focused on one specific guideline each week, and practiced implementing it as we engaged in learning exercises.

After final grades for the course had been posted, all 12 students in the course were asked to participate in an online survey, in part to collect their self-definitions of COFFEE components. Students had the option to remain anonymous or disclose their names when responding. They also had the option of answering qualitative questions online or in an interview format. The total class comprised mostly white students (n = 11), cisgender women (n = 9), and individuals from low-to-middle-income households. A total of 11 out of 12 students responded to the survey. Since then, this framework has been presented, discussed, and refined with the American Psychological Association’s Society of Counseling Psychology and the UMN Internationalizing Teaching and Learning program.

Deductive qualitative analytic approaches to examine content and themes (for a review, see e.g., Fife & Gossner, 2024) supported six of the nine original components. Specifically, centering, observing, flexibility, forwardness, empathy, and engagement were identified as themes and displayed various subthemes. Three components were excluded based on feedback throughout the iterations: curiosity (due to potential cultural voyeurism; Hawthorne, 1989; Murray-Lichtman & Elkassem, 2021), openness (due to overlap with flexibility), and efficiency (due to overemphasis of capitalistic productivity culture; e.g., Chen & Lin, 2021).

Defining the COFFEE Model

Through this iterative process, the COFFEE model and acronym were collectively defined as the following six components: Centering, Observing, Flexibility, Forwardness, Empathy, and Engagement. For more details into how students conceptualized each component, see Table 1 for a summary of qualitative themes/subthemes and example quotations summarized from the students’ survey responses.

Centering

Centering, or placing a “full focus on the person speaking,” was created by the class in an effort to enhance equity and reduce power differentials in the classroom. Specifically, it was a way for the class to focus on being responsive instead of egocentric in our reactions to material presented by fellow classmates. Subthemes found underneath centering included focusing on others’ experiences, not being self-focused, listening, and grounding oneself. In addition to listening and keeping the focus on people sharing vulnerable experiences, some respondents defined centering as an intentional awareness to physically “grounding” their bodies in the moment when having visceral reactions to course content. For this class, “centering” was constructed to help uplift underrepresented voices and ease intense physical reactions during classroom discourse.

Observing

Observing included subthemes of having an awareness of others and of oneself. This communication value was described as “observing what biases, feelings, body sensations, and thoughts are coming up.” Other students defined observing as an awareness of others, where they noted the importance of “how [emotions and thoughts] are coming up for other people” and recognizing “how people are saying things.” At the individual level, observation may help individuals become more aware of themselves and recognize and question their own biases. Students may also use observation to help identify ruptures in the classroom and work to repair them. Observation can extend to students’ understanding of systems, potentially increasing students’ recognition of how systems influence individuals’ automatic thoughts. Overall, the communication norm of observation may promote self-reflection and understanding of personal biases, comprehension of how systemic factors influence society members, and relational awareness in the classroom.

Forwardness

Forwardness was another identified communication guide. This norm reflected subthemes of being direct, providing feedback, and challenging oneself. One respondent stated, “forwardness means being direct with feedback to peers and leaning into uncomfortable conversations to promote growth.” Responses indicated that forwardness could boost equity and inclusion in the classroom by promoting clear, constructive peer feedback that addresses and prevents microaggressions and insensitive responses. Additionally, pushing oneself to grow and develop may increase critical consciousness and comfort with intercultural conversations.

Flexibility

Flexibility was another theme, and comprised being “open to venture into new discussions” and “recognizing there are multiple ways to go about conversations.” Subthemes included multiple perspectives, openness, and topic exploration. Students acknowledged that there are many perspectives and manners of conversing. They reported openness to change one’s approach and opinions, as well as not being too rigid in their opinions. Students also stated that flexibility helped them understand that topic exploration in the class led to fruitful discussions and was to be embraced. Overall, students found that flexibility assisted in considering other viewpoints, opinions, and discussion topics depending on what felt important on certain days. Additionally, topic openness can help make space and support students following various world events, further enhancing the inclusion of all students in the classroom.

Empathy

Students were originally asked to define caring, which, after feedback, was renamed empathy. Empathy was defined as “being compassionate with language and holding empathy for the experiences of others.” Subthemes included caring, compassion, and interest/attention. Students noted that providing people with their full attention, using compassionate language, and being respectful were all important aspects of empathy. Empathy appeared to be a key component of developing cultural sensitivity and critical consciousness, paving the way for greater connection among individuals from different backgrounds and leading to shared emotional understanding. Empathy may also enhance inclusion and reduce harm in classrooms by fostering civility, sensitivity, and respect.

Engagement

Lastly, engagement was defined as “active participation in discussions and active listening.” The subthemes under this communication norm included involvement, listening, and questions. Many students conceptualized discussion engagement as participating in discussions, staying attentive to others, using active listening skills, and asking follow-up and clarifying questions. The engagement expectation assisted with the in-vivo practice for navigating conflicts and cultivated experiential learning, which was intended to help extend cultural humility skills beyond the classroom.

Conclusion

This paper presented a communication framework, the COFFEE (Centering, Observing, Forwardness, Flexibility, Empathy, and Engagement) Model, for encouraging in-class discourse that enhances self-reflection, critical consciousness, and a sense of belonging while also preventing microaggressive experiences. Educators are encouraged to adapt and define the communication norms according to students in their class. Each student, for instance, may offer a unique conceptualization of “centering” or “observing.” At the start of each semester, classrooms can (re)define these communication norms and discuss the implications these definitions have on in-class conversations, and classes may add or remove communication norms depending on what seems relevant for each class. Educators interested in testing the COFFEE Model in their classrooms are encouraged to ask students to define these values for themselves.

The model’s flexibility helps address its primary limitation. This model arose from one university classroom comprising mostly Westernized white students in Duluth, Minnesota, and our conceptualizations of values will differ from those of individuals from various nations and backgrounds. Nonetheless, this model is intended to be adaptable to various intercultural contexts, even outside of classrooms, such as extracurricular group activities or supervision with students. The COFFEE Model’s communication norms can extend to these contexts and be presented similarly, with individual members sharing their definitions and preferences regarding intercultural discussions and feelings of belonging. The  COFFEE model is not, however, an end-all-be-all in intercultural learning. Educators may utilize the model as one method of setting communication expectations and norms for these conversations, rather than leaning solely on the model as sufficient for internationalizing teaching and learning.

In conclusion, as well-intentioned as educators may be, failure to establish shared communication expectations and norms may exacerbate fatigue and reduce inclusion among students holding diverse identities in courses. This paper presented the COFFEE Model framework, which seeks to dispel dominant-identity communication norms through co-constructed discussion guidelines that promote a sense of belonging and intercultural dialogue along six overarching values: centering, observing, flexibility, forwardness, engagement, and empathy. We encourage classes to define communication norms that best meet the needs of their students, with the COFFEE model as one potential framework.

References

Chapdelaine, R. F., & Alexitch, L. R. (2004). Social skills difficulty: Model of culture shock for international graduate students. Journal of College Student Development 45(2), 167-184. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0021

Chen, S., & Lin, N. (2021). Culture, productivity and competitiveness: Disentangling the concepts. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 28(1), 52-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-02-2020-0030

Curtis-Boles, H., Chupina, A. G., & Okubo, Y. (2020). Social justice challenges: Students of color and critical incidents in the graduate classroom. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 14(2), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000293

Fife, S. T., & Gossner, J. D. (2024). Deductive qualitative analysis: Evaluating, expanding, and refining theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241244856

Hawthorne, S. (1989). The politics of the exotic: The paradox of cultural voyeurism. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 1(4), 617-629. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4315958

Hook, J. N., Davis, D., Owen, J., & DeBlaere, C. (2017). Cultural humility: Engaging diverse identities in therapy. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000037-000

Hook, J. N., Davis, D., Owen, J., Worthington, E. L., & Utsey, S. O. (2013). Cultural humility: Measuring openness to culturally diverse clients. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(3), 353-366. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032595

Murray-Lichtman, A., & Elkassem, S. (2021). Academic voyeurism: The white gaze in social work. Canadian Social Work Review, 38(2), 179-205. https://doi.org/10.7202/1086125ar

Ogunyemi, D., Clare, C., Astudillo, Y. M., Marseille, M., Manu, E., & Kim, S. (2020). Microaggressions in the learning environment: A systematic review.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000107

Pieterse, A. L., Lee, M. & Fetzer, A. (2016). Racial group membership and multicultural training: Examining the experiences of counseling and counseling psychology students. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 38, 28-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-015-9254-3

Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295-1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709

Seward, D. X. (2019). Multicultural training resistances: Critical incidents for students of color. Counselor Education and Supervision, 58, 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12122

Suárez-Orozco, C., Casanova, S., Martin, M., Katsiaficas, D., Cuellar, V., Smith, N. A., & Dias, S. I. (2015). Toxic rain in class: Classroom interpersonal microaggressions. Educational Researcher, 44(3), 151-160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15580314

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

Tervalon, M., & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233

Wong, R., & Jones, T. (2018). Students’ experiences of microaggressions in an urban MSW program. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(4), 679-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2018.1486253

Notes

Author Note We have no known conflict of interest to discuss.

Positionality statement: Because our identities impact our scholarly lens (Roberts et al., 2020), the authors would like to provide readers with more information regarding our backgrounds and identities at the time the manuscript was drafted. D. L. is a graduate clinical psychology trainee, and V. N.-F. is an associate professor of psychology who teaches a biannual graduate-level multicultural foundations course. V. N-F. identifies as a queer Southeast Asian/Vietnamese American from the lands of the Piscataway and the Manahoac, otherwise known as Alexandria, Virginia in what is now the Washington, DC metropolitan area. D. L. identifies as a queer, neurodiverse, white American of mixed European descent, raised on the lands of the Yankton and Wahpeton within the Dakota (Sioux) Nation, also known as Sanborn, Iowa.

Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge Samantha Benzing, Claire Clifton, Joseph Davidson, Marissa Marsolek, Grace Pegel, and additional individuals who wished to remain anonymous.