TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

2021, VOL. 26, NOS. 7–8, 1122–1129

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1928063

POINTS FOR DEPARTURE

Navigating student resistance towards decolonizing

curriculum and pedagogy (DCP): a temporal proposal
Kirsten T. Edwardsa and Riyad A. Shahjahan b

a
Educational Leadership & Policy Studies, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA; bEducational
Administration, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A concerted attempt to offer a temporal lens (the way we make Received 2 February 2021
sense of and relate to time changes) underlying decolonizing Accepted 27 April 2021
pedagogy and curriculum (DCP) remains absent. Drawing on
KEYWORDS
student resistance as an entry point, we offer a temporal account Decolonizing; curriculum;
of DCP by unearthing the entanglements between past, present, pedagogy; time; students;
and future underlying DCP enactments. We explore timescapes resistance
shaping DCP from three specific temporal perspectives on
student resistance: a) student orientations to the past, b) student
perspectives on present allocations of time and c) student
orientations to the future. We argue that to deliver DCP
effectively, educators need to engage the temporal aspects of
DCP, particularly students’ temporal assemblages receiving and
engaging with DCP. We suggest that future DCP research and
enactments require probing the entangled timescapes underlying
HE institutions, disciplines, classrooms, students’ lives, and past/
future aspirations.

Introduction
In the recent decade, we see a growing emphasis on decolonizing curriculum and peda-
gogy (DCP), sparked by student movements, academics collectively, and national policy
initiatives. In response, a body of DCP literature emerged.1 Two years ago, we embarked
on critically examining this growing body of literature. Based on our analysis, across dis-
ciplines and global contexts, we realized that actualizing DCP encompasses probing the
positionality of knowledge, constructing an inclusive curriculum, fostering relational
teaching and learning, and/or partnering between higher education (HE) institutions
and entities outside of the institution (Shahjahan et al, forthcoming).2 While the insights
we gained were informative, we felt something was missing in the above literature.
Specifically, a concerted attempt to offer a temporal lens underlying such pedagogical
and curricular phenomena remains absent (Burke and Manathunga 2020). The present
point of departure is our attempt to offer a temporal account of the complexities, para-
doxes, and tensions of enacting DCP in HE.
However, both DCP3 and temporality are huge concepts; the intersections of which
are too complex to explore in a brief essay. We needed a useful pathway to explore

CONTACT Kirsten T. Edwards kirsten.t.edwards@ou.edu

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1123

this vast forest of knowledge. As Black and Brown faculty, who have experimented with
and enacted DCP in classroom settings, we decided to focus on a pathway relevant to our
own positionalities. Localizing our attention within the classroom necessarily implicated
our interactions with students. As racially minoritized faculty (and former students), we
have found student resistance particularly salient in our experiences as well as a larger
area of consideration in the literature. Hence, we decided to explore the relationship
between DCP and time, focusing on student resistance.
We provide a temporal account of DCP to help unearth the entanglements between
past-present-future underlying DCP. By temporal, we are going beyond clock-time to
include any phenomenon tied to making meaning and related to time-related changes
(e.g. physical, biological, psychological, social, spiritual, aesthetic) (Alhadeff-Jones
2017). We critically examine how student resistance to DCP can be understood from a
temporal lens, arguing that while many discuss decolonizing ways of knowing (i.e.
mind, knowledge, etc.), scholars rarely engage with temporality in DCP (a recent excep-
tion is Shahjahan 2015). Given DCP is about change, ‘and the study of changes involves
time, time appears as an unavoidable issue to consider’ (Alhadeff-Jones 2017, 33). There-
fore, engaging in DCP requires unpacking timescapes underlying DCP practices.
A timescape denotes an assemblage of temporal categories implicating each other but
may not be equally salient in a given context (Adam 1998, 2004). Second, timescapes
signify ‘complex maps of time’, informing ‘what we do and how we decide to do it’
(Burke et al. 2017, 5) and manifesting across various social settings, such as work, dom-
estic/family life, and/or learning. Third, a timescape encompasses social difference, given
one experiences time differently based on their social positionality (Streamas 2020).
Timescapes offer us a temporal heuristic to tease out the temporal landscapes upon
which DCP occur. We explore timescapes shaping DCP from three temporal perspectives
on student resistance: a) orientations to the past, b) perspectives on allocations of time in
the present, and c) orientations to the future. We argue that to deliver DCP effectively,
educators need to engage the temporal aspects of DCP, particularly students’ temporal
assemblages. We end by considering what it would take to forward DCP in HE given
varying timescapes.

Past orientations
The past plays an important role in how majoritized4 students in the Global North orient
themselves to DCP (Iseke-Barnes 2008). Students bring into the classroom individual
and collective orientations to the past. Both orientations influence how students
respond to DCP.
If prior curriculum and pedagogy introduced students in the Global North to aspects
of non-dominant cultures, such allocations limited the amount of time for dialogue and/
or presented minoritized communities in a compressed and/or exoticized manner. For
example, when discussing Canadian students’ prior exposure to indigenized curriculum,
Pete (2018), a ‘First Nations professor’ (100), noted students’ comments such as, ‘we
made dream catchers, heard a storyteller, or saw that movie’ (104). Other students
remarked that they ‘didn’t take Native Studies in high school and so I didn’t know any-
thing about Aboriginal people until now’ (Pete 2018, 107–108). Student comments reveal
how past educational experiences shape students’ responses to DCP. Contemporary
1124 K. T. EDWARDS AND R. A. SHAHJAHAN

encounters with difference reflect the temporal assemblages students inherited from their
academic pasts. Literature on student resistance to DCP reveals not only the curricular
and pedagogical ‘[h]istorical demarcation’ (Davis 2010, 141) that shields majoritized stu-
dents from substantively addressing oppression, but also a failure on the part of DCP to
account for majoritized students’ temporal assemblages.
When confronted with a curriculum that acknowledges the history and ongoing mani-
festations of racial hierarchies produced by European colonization, students reject a sys-
temic problem and attempt to (re)contain racism in the past. Dutta’s (2018) experience,
as an ‘Indian, non-American woman of Color from the [Global South]’ (275) applying a
decolonial lens to a ‘critical social justice agenda of community psychology’ (272), exem-
plified how majoritized students use the past. Remarks such as, ‘How can we have an
African American president then?’ and ‘An actual caste system would prevent all
African Americans from achieving higher office’ (Dutta 2018, 277) expose a temporal
orientation that situates the past as a container for oppression. When the evidence for
contemporary injustice exceeds dismissal, majoritized students universalize or de-histor-
icize racial hierarchies to alleviate white responsibility for present racist conditions: ‘Are
not caste systems universal?’ (Dutta 2018, 277). When students (re)contain or de-histor-
icize colonization, the defensive impulses reveal attempts to protect a white temporal
assemblage.
Past educational experiences also shape how students deal with national histories.
Majoritized students in the Global North often detach national ‘achievements’ in the
past from European colonization. They resist tethering dominant models, theories,
and methodologies to the oppressive contexts which produced them. For example,
when Dutta (2018) critiqued traditional methodologies in an effort to decolonize the
research process, students responded, ‘Are we not throwing the proverbial baby out
with the bath water’ (276)? ‘How can we use our centuries of scientific knowledge and
well-developed methodologies to engage with communities and their perspectives’
(276)? Dutta’s (2018) students’ responses to decolonizing methodologies reflect an
attempt to protect the history of ‘dominant knowledge structures’ (Dutta 2018, 277).
By viewing dominant methodologies as essentially helpful, students neutralize the past
violence against minoritized communities that made research in the West possible
(e.g. Tuskegee Experiment, tuberculosis experiments on Native children in Canada,
pain experiments on Aboriginal Australians, sterilization of Puerto Rican women,
etc.), projecting a net positive onto the present of Western science. Similarly, when
she reflected on DCP in women and gender studies, Davis (2010) noted that her white
middle-class heterosexual women students often resisted transnational perspectives to
feminism and, in particular, critiques of past U.S. policies and practices, as these perspec-
tives displaced the U.S. from the center of a progressive historical narrative. Her students
commented that they ‘did not think the [U.S.] should be ‘put down’’ believing that ‘our
country was the best in the world’ (Davis 2010, 138). White women students’ ‘resistance
… alerted [her] to just how significantly intersectional and transnational methods criti-
cally unsettle perceptions and assumptions inherited through cultural legacies of the
“imperialist centuries”’ (Davis 2010, 141). Student responses suggest that white orien-
tations to the past work as a temporal gaze stifling DCP.
Majoritized students’ past educational experiences and their desires to keep racism in
the past, universalize racial hierarchies, and valorize white histories, reflect how the ‘past’
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1125

works as a container for white temporal assemblages. Engaging decolonized accounts of

time via class dialogue about white violence throughout history and its nonlinear, recur-
sive presence across time disrupts how they perceive the world and themselves. Major-
itized student resistance to DCP surfaces the complex raced power relations embedded
in educational contexts, revealing how traditional HE practice works as a temporal
compass orienting students towards whiteness (Shahjahan & Edwards 2021). A more rig-
orous temporal analysis creates conditions for transformational possibilities across time-
scapes. In light of time’s role in knowing and being, we suggest that DCP attend to
different cultural orientations to time, and account for the temporal assemblages students
bring to curricula and pedagogies.

Present allocations of time

Student resistance to disruptive past orientations often takes the form of demanding
certain temporal parameters in the present. While some students embrace the decolo-
nial shift, others react in ways that privilege existing temporal assemblages refusing to
cede the present to DCP. Pete (2018) noted that majoritized students responded to
indigenized education by writing in teaching evaluations that she ‘talk[s] too much
about Indians’ (110) and that she is ‘biased towards First Nations’ (110). Students’ per-
ceptions of ‘bias’ and quantity of time allocated to First Nations people directly cor-
relate with the lack of time spent on non-Western perspectives in their past
coursework. Temporal comparisons serve as justification for resistance by providing
rationale for appropriate time allocations in the present. Student resistance also
exposes how time allocations indicate priority and importance. Like physical land-
scapes, density and occupation mark timescapes. The amount of time a particular
idea occupies denotes its importance to the larger timescape. Student assessments of
time allocations are assessments of priority. Therefore, students’ resistance to increases
in time allocations is a refusal to engage temporal assemblages that prioritize non-
dominant perspectives.
Students’ affective responses to DCP also shape the temporal atmosphere of learning.
Fellner (2018), who is ‘Cree/Metis from central Alberta’ (283), teaching in the Canadian
context, noted: ‘Perhaps the greatest challenge in this work has come through students’
reactions to embodying decolonial education in the academy … [such as] anger, frustra-
tion, and other intense emotions’ (292). Similarly, Davis (2010) noted, ‘Students were
demonstrably angry when they were unable to locate their own subject positions
reflected or “mirrored” in the center of course materials’ (139). Student resistance to
negative feelings and/or decentering produces a variety of temporal effects. Challenges
to DCP lead to learning delays (Zinga and Styers 2018). Faculty must allocate more
time to content and critical ideas when students’ resistances impede learning. Also,
faculty designing curriculum from a decolonial perspective (who are often people of
color) must spend more time aligning course objectives with institutional mandates in
an effort to circumvent negative student evaluations and administrative censure.
Delays compound with structural challenges such as being ‘limited by lecture times’
(Fellner 2018, 291). Temporal conditions that arise from resistance to DCP reveal that
students not only experience discomfort with shifting temporal assemblages, but they
also resist discomfort through temporal modes. Said differently, majoritized students
1126 K. T. EDWARDS AND R. A. SHAHJAHAN

weaponize temporality. Consequently, temporality becomes an actor in DCP with which

educators must contend.

Future self and global subjectivity

So far, we have discussed the past and present timescapes underlying majoritized stu-
dents’ resistance to DCP within the Global North. However, some have observed
student resistance to DCP in the Global South context tied to their future global subjec-
tivity aspirations (Fomunyan 2017; Winberg and Winberg 2017). Here we demonstrate
how DCP operates beyond a nationally bounded temporal field, but a global timescape –
entangling individual aspirations, global labor market, and academic mobility. In short,
DCP operates within the temporal constraints of ‘future self’ tied to the global market.
Here, we briefly refer to two empirical studies in the South African context to illustrate
our argument. Both studies focus on decolonizing the engineering curriculum and
student responses (Fomunyan 2017; Winberg and Winberg 2017), highlighting the tem-
poral constraints tied to global timescapes. Winberg and Winberg (2017) sought to ident-
ify elements of a decolonized computer engineering curriculum through interviews with
academic and practicing engineers, as well as a student survey. For their participants, the
decolonized curriculum had to both meet local needs and emphasize globally transferable
skills. Some students expressed uneasiness about ‘Africanizing’ the curriculum, as they
wanted to study overseas. For instance, one student noted: ‘I am planning to work or
study overseas for some years to gain specialized skills … ’ (251). While many invited
a more inclusive African Engineering curriculum, some were anxious about the loss of
transferable skills, across disciplines and national scales. Similarly, Fomunyan (2017)
conducted a qualitative case study on the decolonization of the engineering curriculum
at a South African university of technology. Using questionnaires completed by 116 stu-
dents and lecturers, this study sought to articulate ‘what needs to be decolonised in
engineering education, how this should be decolonised, what can enhance the decoloni-
sation process’ (Fomunyan 2017, 6800). Many of Fomunyan’s participants favored DCP
in bridging theory with practice in local contexts, using more ‘home’ languages in the
curriculum, and improving Black faculty’s representation in their programs. However,
for some, a decolonizing curriculum stifled ‘mobility of labour since most graduates
would simply possess contextual knowledge which cannot be used elsewhere in the
globe’ (Fomunyan 2017, 6802). As one student put it: ‘why would anyone want to do
this? Engineering and Science is a field of study which is a universally agreed upon set
of rules. Decolonizing it would be a waste of time and make it much more difficult for
people to leave this country and work elsewhere’ (Fomunyan 2017, 6802). Another par-
ticipant added that ‘it will be difficult to find work overseas’ (Fomunyan 2017, 6802). To
these students, a future decolonized Engineering curriculum has numerous career
implications.
As these studies highlight, DCP, in particular disciplinary and Global South contexts,
operate within temporal constraints. Given the geopolitics of knowledge (Mignolo 2011),
a globally-oriented labor market and credentials validate particular ‘transferrable’ and
‘mobile’ knowledge systems that a decolonizing curriculum might thwart. Student resist-
ance reveals that educational desires are dictated by ‘ideal future selves’ (Shahjahan 2020,
793). Such students are concerned about attaining their future selves (i.e. working or
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1127

studying overseas), thus hampering their willingness to participate in DCP. Given the
unknowns of a decolonizing curriculum in terms of international qualifications, creden-
tial mobility, and career trajectories, students are also concerned about the ‘precarity’
introduced by DCP. To put it simply, while DCP may introduce temporal continuity
with local contexts, for some Global South students, it also introduces precarity to
future aspirations and career mobility.

Conclusion
Using students’ resistance as an entry point, our temporal account of DCP helps unearth
the entanglements between past-present-future underlying DCP enactments. First, a
temporal lens illuminates how majoritized students’ ‘past orientations’ either to past his-
tories or lack of experience with certain knowledge systems (e.g. indigenous knowledge)
can disrupt DCP. More specifically, students’ affective attachments to previous temporal
accounts of a national imaginary impede partaking in new temporal accounts of the
nation-state evoked by DCP. Second, a temporal lens highlights the contestation of tem-
poral allocations with certain knowledges (e.g. ‘talks too much’) and classroom temporal
rhythms. Finally, a temporal gaze helps illuminate the underlying geopolitics of knowl-
edge informing students’ future aspirations, and, thus, acts as a barrier to DCP.
So far, the DCP literature has paid little attention to the temporal challenges of enga-
ging DCP in HE. Several conditions contribute to this absence: a) temporality is often
taken for granted in the HE literature (Burke and Manathunga 2020), particularly in
DCP, b) temporality is invisible because it’s so abstract to begin with (Shahjahan
2018), and c) temporality is usually associated with linear clock-time, and therefore
undertheorized, rather than approached from a broader sense of temporality encompass-
ing various temporal categories and timescapes (Burke et al. 2017). As a result, DCP often
assumes that everyone possesses the same temporal orientations and resources to engage
in decolonization.
However, our temporal account of student resistance suggests otherwise and raises
further questions. What are the differences between decolonizing pedagogies and deco-
lonizing curriculum and how does that shape student resistances differently across
different timescapes? How are resistances (re)produced in institutional timescapes and
in relation to raced/gendered/classed/sexualized/linguistic/religious inequalities and
differences (Streamas 2020)? What are the intersections of student resistances at the
micro-level with wider systems, discourses and structures of oppression (e.g. geopolitics
of knowledge)? How are the wider institutional structures positioning students differ-
ently across time and space and how might this inter-relation between structures,
power and the micro-level of perspectives towards DCP shape (im)possibilities (Burke
and Manathunga 2020)?
A temporal gaze also raises many questions about DCP beyond simply student resist-
ance: How does one’s (instructor, student, or administrator’s) past orientations and one’s
notion of temporality serve or disrupt engagement with DCP? Similarly, how does insti-
tutional or disciplinary temporal rhythms (like classroom time, academic calendar,
clock-time, or future aspirations) facilitate or disrupt DCP? We challenge pedagogues
to attend more intentionally to the temporal conditions of decolonization. Since decolo-
nizing is deeply contextual, historical, and political, educators attempting to decolonize
1128 K. T. EDWARDS AND R. A. SHAHJAHAN

education must recognize both the shifts in content and temporal orientation needed to
influence student learning. In short, the timescapes underlying HE institutions, disci-
plines, classrooms, students’ lives, and past/future aspirations are entangled and
require probing in future DCP research and practice.

Notes
1. See for example, Attas 2019; Adefarakan 2018; Diab et al. 2020; Dutta 2018; Knight 2018;
Schultz et al. 2018; Sian 2019; Walsh 2015.
2. It is beyond the scope of this short piece to unpack the contextual meaning of ’decolonizing’
across and within different timescapes. Elsewhere (Shahjahan et al forthcoming) we pro-
vided a comprehensive review of debate about ’decolonizing’ pedagogy and curriculum
across disciplines and global HE contexts, illuminating what decolonizing means and
how to decolonize are deeply contextual, historical and political. However, one area
lacking in this debate were temporal perspectives, hence why we focus on temporality here.
3. We acknowledge the complexities and nuances surrounding concepts of curriculum and
pedagogy, but driven by what predominantly emerged in the DCP literature, we view a)
pedagogy as detailing instructional and relational learning practices, and b) curriculum as
material content and purpose, manifesting inside/outside of classrooms, such as in a
course, program, discipline/profession, institution, and/or minoritized community setting
(Shahjahan et al forthcoming).
4. By ‘majoritized’ we are signifying students who are part of social majority groups, not simply
numerically, but receive privilege due to their racial, gender, class, and linguistic asymme-
tries tied to socio-politico-cultural and temporal landscapes. As such students often shift in
and out of these categories, while the majoritized identity is revealed in the ontological
moment of ‘being,’ when the student is occupying the privileges of asymmetry. It is the
moments (or times) when DCP and majoritization intersect for which we are concerned.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Riyad A. Shahjahan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3244-3215

References
Adam, B. 1998. Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards. London: Routledge.
Adam, B. 2004. Time. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
Adefarakan, T. 2018. “Integrating Body, Mind, and Spirit Through the Yoruba Ori: Critical
Contributions to a Decolonizing Pedagogy.” In Wong, Sharing Breath: Embodied Learning
and Decolonization, edited by Sheila Batacharya and Yuk-Lin Renita Wong, 229–252.
Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University Press.
Alhadeff-Jones, M. 2017. Time and the Rhythms of Emancipatory Education: Rethinking the
Temporal Complexity of Self and Society. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.
Attas, R. 2019. “Strategies for Settler Decolonization: Decolonial Pedagogies in a Popular Music
Analysis Course.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 49 (1): 125–139. doi:10.47678/cjhe.
v49i1.188281
Burke, P. J., A. Bennett, M. Bunn, J. Stevenson, and S. Clegg. 2017. “It’s About Time: Working
Towards More Equitable Understandings of the Impact of Time for Students in Higher
 TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1129

Education.” Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive, Australia, Curtin University. http://
shura.shu.ac.uk/15364/
Burke, P. J., and C. Manathunga. 2020. “The Timescapes of Teaching in Higher Education.”
Teaching in Higher Education 25 (6): 663–668. doi:10.1080/13562517.2020.1784618.
Davis, D. R. 2010. “Unmirroring Pedagogies: Teaching with Intersectional and Transnational
Methods in the Women and Gender Studies Classroom.” Feminist Formations 22 (1): 136–
162. doi:10.1353/nwsa.0.0120
Diab, M., G. Veronese, Y. A. Jamei, and A. Kagee. 2020. “The Interplay of Paradigms:
Decolonizing a Psychology Curriculum in the Context of the Siege of Gaza.” Nordic
Psychology 72: 183–198.
Dutta, U. 2018. “Decolonizing ‘Community’ in Community Psychology.” American Journal of
Community Psychology 62: 272–282. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12281
Fellner, K. D. 2018. “Embodying Decoloniality: Indigenizing Curriculum and Pedagogy.”
American Journal of Community Psychology 62: 283–293. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12286
Fomunyan, K. G. 2017. “Decolonising the Engineering Curriculum in a South African University
of Technology.” International Journal of Applied Engineering Research 12 (7): 6797–6805.
Iseke-Barnes, J. M. 2008. “Pedagogies for Decolonizing.” Canadian Journal of Native Education 31
(1): 123–148.
Knight, J. 2018. “Decolonizing and Transforming the Geography Undergraduate Curriculum in
South Africa.” South African Geographical Journal 100 (3): 271–290. doi:10.1080/03736245.
2018.1449009
Mignolo, W. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Pete, S. 2018. “Meschachakins, a Coyote Narrative: Decolonising Higher Education.” In
Decolonising the University, edited by Gurminder K. Bhambra, Karem Nişancıoğlu, and Dalia
Gebrial, 173–189. London: Pluto Press.
Schultz, T., D. Abdulla, A. Ansari, E. Canlı, M. Keshavarz, M. Kiem, L. Prado de O. Martins, and
P. J. S. Vieira de Oliveira. 2018. “What is at Stake with Decolonizing Design? A Roundtable.”
Design and Culture 10 (1): 81–101. doi:10.1080/17547075.2018.1434368
Shahjahan, R. A. 2015. “Being ‘Lazy’ and Slowing Down: Toward Decolonizing Time, our Body,
and Pedagogy.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 47 (5): 488–501. doi:10.1080/00131857.
2014.880645
Shahjahan, R. A. 2020. “On ‘Being for Others’: Time and Shame in the Neoliberal Academy.”
Journal of Education Policy 35 (6): 785–811. doi:10.1080/02680939.2019.1629027
Shahjahan R.A. (2018). “Re/conceptualizing time in higher education.” Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education. doi:10.1080/01596306.2018.1550041
Shahjahan, R., & Edwards, K. T. . 2021. “Whiteness as futurity and globalization of higher edu-
cation.” Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-021-00702-x
Shahjahan, R., Estera, A., Surla, K., & Edwards, K. T. . (forthcoming). "Towards ‘Decolonizing’
Curriculum and Pedagogy (DCP) across Disciplines and Global Higher Education Contexts:
A Critical Synthesis".
Sian, K. P. 2019. Navigating Institutional Racism in British Universities. New York University:
Springer International Publishing.
Streamas, J. (2020). “The war Between ‘School Time’ and ‘Colored People’s Time’.” Teaching in
Higher Education 25 (6): 709-721. doi:10.1080/13562517.2020.1782882
Walsh, C. E. 2015. “Decolonial Pedagogies Walking and Asking. Notes to Paulo Freire from
AbyaYala.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 34 (1): 9–21. doi:10.1080/02601370.
2014.991522
Winberg, S., and C. Winberg. 2017. “Using a Social Justice Approach to Decolonize an
Engineering Curriculum.” In 2017 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference
(EDUCON), 248–254. New York City: IEEE.
Zinga, D., and S. Styers. 2018. “Decolonizing Curriculum: Student Resistances to Anti-Oppressive
Pedagogy.” Power and Education 11 (1): 30–50.
Copyright of Teaching in Higher Education is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.