This page deals with two primary types of difficult dialogue- the hot moment, and the high-stakes conversation.

Hot Moments

These exchanges are characterized primarily by the fact that they seemingly “come out of nowhere.” A student, or a group of students, may suddenly express big feelings in a way that is disruptive to your class. In other cases, you may sense an unspoken but clear sense of tension in the room that you haven’t previously encountered. Often, these moments are closely tied to current or campus events– something happening recently, or in real-time. There can be some developmental reasons for these moments. Traditional college-age students are undergoing  transformation in the way they think about the world around them, and many of them enter college with stark, dichotomous beliefs. When those are challenged or threatened, students can become upset or disruptive.

High-Stakes Conversations

In contrast, the high-stakes conversation is usually one that you as an instructor see coming due to your course content. When some aspect of your course’s content or skill-building intersects with a student’s sense of identity, discussion can become extremely challenging. A high-stakes conversation requires advanced planning, and a resolution of some kind in order for students to progress in their learning experience.

While there are some shared approaches between these two types of difficult conversation, it is important to identify which of the two you are hoping to address when choosing to engage and how.

In either situation, a hot moment or a high-stakes conversation, there are times when direct engagement is not a good idea. Here are some reasons why you might not want to engage:

• When emotions are so high that student learning is likely to be difficult or impossible. Strong negative emotions prevent some students from meaningful learning, and discussion is unlikely to do much to advance your goals.
• When the discussion is not an appropriate use of class time. Remember, you are the ultimate decision maker for the course curriculum. If a student-initiated discussion significantly distracts from core learning objectives, you are justified in deferring or declining the conversation.
• When you are not prepared or equipped to calmly and meaningfully engage. Strong emotions effect instructors too, and bringing your fully focused and regulated self to the discussion is critical for success.
• When there is a perceived risk to your personal security, professional standing, or mental well-being. Your physical safety, emotional welfare, and ability to continue working in your role must always be prioritized over leading a spontaneous discussion.

You should feel comfortable engaging in a difficult conversation if two key criteria are met:

1. The topic or issue is closely related to your course’s learning outcomes or content, or you feel there is a relevant lesson from this conversation that can be applied to your course
2. You are comfortable modeling productive disagreement, including arguing an opposite position to your own.

Below we cover approaches on how to do this properly, but it is important to note that engaging students in a difficult conversation may require facilitation and discussion skills that are different from those you engage with during a normal class session.

Engaging appropriately in either a high-stakes conversation or a hot moment involves some similar practices. First, you must find a way to assess how students are feeling, and what the source of their discomfort is. Second, you must provide suitable structure for students to engage with each other, and you respectfully and purposefully. And finally, regardless of the situation, you’ll want to allow students some quiet time to reflect and process both their feelings and the issues explored.

A high-stakes conversation may also benefit from some of the tactics you use in a hot moment, namely diffusing tension at the beginning. But if you are planning for a conversations because you have deemed it essential for your learning outcomes, students should not be given the same opportunity to opt out, as they are in a hot moment. Other critical practices to consider include:

• Explain the value in listening to opposing views
• Create high-structure discussions
• Serve as a moderator, reinforcing community norms and rules
• Leave ample time for reflection and consolidation of ideas

Planning ahead, with structure and supports, is critical for successful engagement when the stakes are high. Here are some of the practices to include in your planning.

Ground rules. If you don’t already have a policy in your syllabus for how you expect students to discuss challenging issues, create ground rules for this exercise. There should be expectations about attention, appropriate and inappropriate language, and when and how to raise an issue.

Facilitation. If your goals include students engaging with each other, even across opposing views, then your role is less that of instructor and more that of facilitator. Practices of facilitation include reminding students of the questions at hand, enforcing ground rules, and redirecting students when a conversation has gone astray. You may also play a more active role as a moderator, having students repeat and rephrase to check for understanding, and ensuring that their responses to each other are based on an accurate understanding of their points of view. Ask open-ended questions that get at the target issue from a variety of viewpoints.

Offer supports. Beginning and ending with writing is a useful way for students to form thoughts, as well as consolidate new learning. Generate a few open-ended questions and give students time to consider them in writing before the conversation begins. Prior to the end of the class session, make time for reflective writing. 

Move towards synthesis. Before the conversation even begins, consider previous course sessions or content where this new topic, even if it is upsetting, can provided additional insight, challenge or other context. Keep pushing students to see connections and comparisons. Rooting your high-stakes discussion in previous, well-trodden content or skills can give students greater confidence to take on this challenge.

Bielby, Philip (2003) “Courting Controversies: using insights from a legal philosophy course to develop practical recommendations for realizing pedagogical objectives in teaching morally contentious issues.” Teaching in Higher Education, 8:3, 369–381.

Bruff, Derek (2025) “Managing Hot Moments in 2025 with Rick Moore and Bethany Morrison,” Intentional Teaching Podcast. September 30, 2025. https://intentionalteaching.buzzsprout.com/2069949/episodes/17913926-managing-hot-moments-in-2025-with-rick-moore-and-bethany-morrison 

Caufield, Catherine (2017) “The Agency Paradigm: A Pedagogical Tool to Facilitate Nuanced Thinking on Sensitive Issues,” Teaching Theology and Religion 20:1, 89-101

Hansen, Karen (1996) “Between Apathy and Advocacy: Teaching and Modeling Ethical Reflection,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 66. 33-36.

Love, Jeannine M., Tia Sherèe Gaynor & Brandi Blessett (2016) Facilitating Difficult Dialogues in the Classroom: A Pedagogical Imperative, Administrative Theory & Praxis, 38:4, 227-233, DOI: 10.1080/10841806.2016.1237839 

Sptizer, N. and Michael, G. (2025) “Teaching Educational Crisis amid (Multiple, Real-Time Crises). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 65–70.