Disentangling the Impact of Diversity Courses: Michelle...

Running head: DIVERSITY COURSES 1

Disentangling the Impact of Diversity Courses:

Examining the Influence of Diversity Course Content on Students’ Civic Engagement

Michelle Castellanos and Darnell Cole

Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michelle Castellanos,

Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089.

E-mail: [email protected]

Michelle Castellanos is a Ph.D. Candidate in Rossier School of Education, University of

Southern California. Darnell Cole is an Associate Professor in Rossier School of Education,

University of Southern California.

*Note. This is a draft manuscript. A revised version is forthcoming in the Journal of

College Student Development.

DIVERSITY COURSES 2

Abstract

Utilizing Bennett’s (2001) genres of multicultural education, the authors examine whether

diversity course content clusters influence students’ civic engagement. Diversity course content

clusters were predicted to influence white students and students of color differently, given

principles identified by social development, cognitive development, and social identity theory.

Findings indicate that diversity courses that emphasize multicultural competence positively

influence all students over a period of four years. Courses that emphasize societal equity,

however, have a greater effect on students of color when compared to white students.

Implications for faculty, undergraduate curriculum committees, research, and theory are

discussed.

Key words: diversity course(s), civic engagement, typology, multicultural education

DIVERSITY COURSES 3

Disentangling the Impact of Diversity Courses:

Examining the Influence of Diversity Course Content on Students’ Civic Engagement

The role of institutions of higher education in promoting the democratic engagement of

America’s future leaders has been hotly debated (Fish, 2008; Wilhite & Silver, 2005). Today,

however, few disagree with the need to prepare students for life in a diverse and democratic

society (Ehrlich, 2000). In fact, a national initiative, the President’s Higher Education

Community Service Honor Roll, was recently launched in order to recognize colleges and

universities that promote civic engagement. For instance, in 2012, North Carolina State

University received the President’s Honor Roll award for their comprehensive community

service outreach programs.

The challenges of the 21st century, particularly the changing racial and ethnic demographic

landscape, economic difficulties, and increasing globalization, necessitate considerable attention

to differences between nations, groups, and individuals. As institutions of higher education

attempt to promote students’ social and democratic development, an emphasis on a liberal

education has become widespread. A liberal education has been described as a “…philosophy of

education that empowers individuals, liberates the mind, cultivates intellectual judgment, and

fosters ethical and social responsibility” (Schneider, 2008, p. 30).

In line with the ideals of a liberal education, a majority of colleges and universities have

developed programs and initiatives that address the needs of a multicultural society (Humphreys,

2000). Such programs include racial awareness workshops, study abroad, service learning, and a

diversity course requirement. While researchers have examined whether these and other college

experiences influence students’ civic outcomes, research on diversity courses remains limited in

that the variation of diversity course content is rarely considered (Zirkle, 2008). Although some

DIVERSITY COURSES 4

researchers have considered the impact of departmental diversity courses (e.g., ethnic studies), to

our knowledge, no study has examined undergraduate diversity course content, specifically.

Diversity courses aim to expose students to cultures, life experiences, and world views

different from their own. Such courses emphasize a range of topics including racial, ethnic, and

gender inequalities, as well global struggles for human rights, freedom, and power (Schneider,

2008). At American University of the West Coast (AUWC, pseudonym), for example, university

approved diversity courses range from “Race and Racism in America” to “Jazz: A History of

America’s Music.” A detailed analysis of diversity course content may help clarify the role of

such courses in promoting students’ civic outcomes. Furthermore, the effect of diversity course

content across different groups of students should be considered given (a) students’ varying

familiarity with the issues presented in diversity courses, (b) the rapidly increasing racial and

ethnic minority population, and (c) previous research indicating the long term effect of diversity

courses (Brandenberger, Bowman, Hill, & Lapsley, 2010; Hurtado, 2001).

In the current study, we examine whether diversity course content clusters influence

students’ civic engagement over the course of four years. We utilize Bennett’s (2001) genres of

multicultural education to formulate a typology of diversity course content clusters at AUWC, a

predominately white institution of higher education. The following research questions guide our

study: (1) To what extent, if any, do AUWC diversity courses vary in their course content? (2) If

course content varies, do diversity courses with distinct content have a differential effect on the

civic engagement of white students compared to students of color?

DIVERSITY COURSES AND STUDENTS’ CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

DIVERSITY COURSES 5

Ehrlich (2000) defines civic engagement as an active effort to make a difference in the civic

lives of communities as well as developing the knowledge, skills, and motivation needed to make

a difference. Civic engagement includes the promotion of community well-being through both

political and non-political processes (Ehrlich, 2000). Following Ehrlich, the Association of

American Colleges & Universities (AACU, 2010) developed a Civic Engagement VALUE

Rubric and operationalized civic engagement as a commitment to civic behavior, civic

leadership, intercultural awareness, and perspective taking. Scholars have examined the

relationship between students’ participation in diversity courses and a range of civic outcomes,

including civic mindedness (Cole & Zhou, 2013), cultural awareness (Engberg & Mayhew,

2004), interpersonal skills (Hurtado, 2001), pluralistic orientation (Engberg, 2007), social action

engagement (Nelson-Laird, 2005; Nelson-Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005; Zuniga, 2005),

diversity orientation (Bowman, 2010), pro-social orientation, recognition of racism

(Brandenberger et al., 2010), and acceptance of people with different racial and ethnic

backgrounds (Hurtado, 2005).

A recent meta-analysis on students’ diversity experiences reviewed 19 studies that examined

the relationship between diversity coursework and students’ civic outcomes (Bowman, 2011).

Findings from the meta-analysis indicate that diversity courses have a consistent and positive

effect on students’ civic outcomes. Of these studies, only three distinguished differences among

courses. The major distinction between these three studies was their emphasis on women studies

and/or ethnic studies courses rather than a catch-all diversity course grouping (Gurin et al., 2002;

Hurtado, 2001; Jayakumar, 2008). For example, Hurtado (2001) examined the relationship

between women’s studies and ethnic studies courses on students’ civic outcomes. Both ethnic

studies and women’s studies courses demonstrated positive effects on four civic outcomes:

DIVERSITY COURSES 6

acceptance of people from different races, cultures, cultural awareness, tolerance of people with

different beliefs, and interpersonal skills. Enrollment in ethnic studies courses but not women

studies, however, had significant effects on two additional civic outcomes: leadership abilities

and public speaking ability. Beyond the specification of a department-specific diversity course,

no study included in the meta-analysis considered variations in diversity courses.

Race and Ethnicity

Regarding the role of race and ethnicity, only seven studies in the current literature review

examined the effect of diversity courses across students from different racial and ethnic groups

(i.e., Bowman, 2010; Cole et al., 2011; Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez,

2004; Lopez, 2004; Zhou et al., 2011). Findings from these studies indicate that white students

seem to experience positive gains on a range of civic outcomes as a result of participating in

diversity coursework. Such findings, however, are not as consistent for students of color.

In a recent study, Cole et al. (2011) examined whether diversity courses impact students’

understanding of the various forms of oppression that influence intragroup differences and

experiences (i.e., intersectional consciousness). An analysis of covariance indicated that white

students, but not students of color, experienced significant gains in intersectional consciousness.

Similarly, in his multi-institutional study, Bowman (2010) found that white students experienced

positive gains in three diversity orientation measures—comfort with differences, diversity of

contact, and relativistic appreciation—as a result of taking two diversity courses. Students of

color, on the other hand, experienced positive gains in only one of the three measures—diversity

contact—after completing three diversity courses and no gains after completing two courses.

Interestingly, Zhou, Cole, Castellanos, and Manson (2011) found that diversity courses with

global focus had a greater effect on the civic engagement of students of color, rather than white

DIVERSITY COURSES 7

students. Examining students’ familiarity and relationship with the content presented in diversity

courses may help explain inconsistencies in the literature.

In the current study, we contribute to the literature in three important ways. First, we utilize

Bennett’s (2001) genres of research in multicultural education to examine the effect of diversity

course content clusters on students’ civic engagement while controlling for a range of student

characteristics and college experiences. Second, we integrate Gurin et al.’s (2002) theoretical

framework, social identity theory, and social categorization theory to explain why diversity

courses may have differential effects across white and students of color. Third, we consider race

(i.e., white and students of color) as a possible moderator when examining the effect of diversity

courses on students’ civic engagement. While minimal research has considered the variation in

diversity course content, several researchers have called attention to this gap in the literature

(Chang, 2002; Engberg & Mayhew, 2007; Zirkle, 2008).

Genres of Research in Multicultural Education

In order to examine the variation of diversity course content, we borrow from the

multicultural education literature and utilize Bennett’s (2001) research genres of multicultural

education. Bennett’s framework was selected given its foundation in over three decades of

research, theoretical support in previous studies, and its ability to illustrate the multidisciplinary

nature and complexity of multicultural education (Bennett, 2001). Bennett’s research genres

have been used to frame King and Magolda’s (2005) model of intercultural maturity, as well as

to provide theoretical support for the impact of cultural diversity on online learning (Tapanes,

Smith, & White, 2009). Although the higher education literature does not provide a working

framework for examining differences among diversity courses, Bennett’s framework may be

directly applied to the undergraduate diversity course curriculum. At the core of Bennett’s

DIVERSITY COURSES 8

research genres are four broad principles of multicultural education: cultural pluralism, social

justice, affirmation of culture in teaching and learning process, and educational equity. These

core principles underlie the genre clusters, which are utilized in the current study: (1) curriculum

reform, (2) multicultural competence, (3) societal equity, and (4) equity pedagogy. Each genre

cluster is comprised of three sub-genres with shared purposes, values, and assumptions (please

see Figure 1).

The focus of the first cluster, curricular reform, is the transformation of Anglo

Eurocentric curriculum and the inclusion of marginalized perspectives. Students’ experiences,

cultures, and histories are utilized as a context to help them relate to other cultural perspectives.

The assumptions underlying the curricular reform cluster are (a) Eurocentric curriculum is a tool

for cultural hegemony and (b) knowledge is constructed and contested.

The multicultural competence cluster centers around students’ dispositions of open-

mindedness, awareness of racial and cultural prejudice, cultural consciousness, and the capacity

to interpret ones’ unconscious cues and culturally conditioned assumptions. Two major

assumptions underlie the multicultural competence cluster: (a) the reduction of cultural and racial

prejudice is possible and desirable and (b) individuals do not need to reject their identity or

cultural worldview in order to function comfortably in another cultural environment.

The assumptions that underlie the societal equity cluster include (a) broad societal change

is necessary for equity in educational access, participation, and achievement and (b) change is

not only possible but a basic democratic value. Unlike the former two genre clusters which focus

on curriculum and individuals, respectively, this cluster focuses on broader societal issues.

The fourth cluster—equity pedagogy—emphasizes the transformation of hidden attitudes

and expectation, school environments, instructional strategies, community relations, and

DIVERSITY COURSES 9

practices that disadvantage different groups of students, especially underserved students of color.

The major assumptions underlying this cluster include (a) all students have special talents and

the ability to learn, (b) the goal of public education is to enable all students to reach their full

potential, and (c) teacher and student cultural socialization influence teaching and learning.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Several theoretical perspectives guide our understanding of the effect of diversity courses

on students’ civic engagement: a) social and cognitive development theory and b) social identity

and self-categorization theory. Utilizing Langer (1978), Coser (1975), and Piaget’s (1985),

theories of cognitive and social development, Gurin et al. (2002) argue that diversity courses and

informal diversity-related experiences provide an optimal learning environment in which

students confront different perspectives, resulting in their social and intellectual development.

According to Coser (1975), new situations, unfamiliar individuals, and the expectations of others

encourage students to act and think in new ways. Theoretically, the disequilibrium resulting from

confronting multiple points of views and from interacting with diverse peers of equal status

should promote students’ civic engagement (Piaget, 1985).

While Gurin et al.’s (2002) framework has been helpful in guiding the literature on the

influence of diversity experiences, three additional points merit consideration. First, diversity

courses vary in their scope and span. Second, students from different racial and ethnic

backgrounds may have varying familiarity with the issues discussed in diversity courses. Third,

given the nature of diversity courses and the racial composition of diverse campuses, such

courses may include, and consequently resonate with some students more than others. The

contributions of social identity theory (SIT) and self-categorization theory (SCT) may help

explain the differential effect of diversity courses on students with different social identities.

DIVERSITY COURSES 10

According SIT and SCT, individuals are motivated to attain positive group

distinctiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Given their different social positions, members of

minority and majority groups’ possess distinct interests. Members of minority groups are highly

motivated to enhance their groups’ social position in society (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1999).

Members of a majority group, on the other hand, wish to retain their group’s high status. If group

membership is devalued, individuals will either leave the group or develop alternative appraisals

to strengthen their group ties.

While cognitive disequilibrium may be an important first step for students’ moral and

intellectual growth in diversity courses, the extent to which students possess familiarity with the

course content and the extent to which students’ social identities are validated or threatened may

influence whether such disequilibrium transfers into growth. Given the variation in diversity

course content, it is essential that researchers consider differences in the content presented as

well as students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Hypotheses

Given the theoretical perspectives outlined above we expect that diversity courses with a

distinct emphasis on societal equity will have a greater effect on the civic engagement of

students of color, while the multicultural competence cluster will have a greater effect on white

students. According to SIT, diversity courses that focus on societal inequalities and make group

identities salient should (a) motivate students of color to enhance their group status and become

more civically engaged and (b) motivate white student to resist the course content in order

maintain a positive group identity (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009).

We expect that multicultural competence courses will stimulate greater cognitive

disequilibrium among white students compared to students of color. Students of color may be


less likely to experience cognitive disequilibrium given their presumed familiarity with the issues

discussed within this cluster (e.g., cultural consciousness). This is not to say that students of

color do not benefit from courses in which they posses epistemic privilege; rather, the benefits

they experience may reflect gains in a different domain such as academic self-concept and/or

ethnic identity (Zirkel, 2008). While white students may experience resistance to multicultural

competence courses, given their emphasis on prejudice reduction, we expect that the cluster’s

emphasis on values such as open-mindedness will diminish this effect.

METHODS

Site and Data Sample

For this study, we utilized secondary data analysis from AUWC, a research university

(very high research activity) located in a major metropolitan city. AUWC has approximately

33,500 students (16,500 undergraduates and 17,000 graduate students) and admits an incoming

freshman class of approximately 2,700 students each year. The undergraduate campus population

is 50.4% female and 49.6% male, and made up of 46.6% White, 22.9% Asian/Pacific Islander,

12.1% Latina/o, 5.4% Black, and 0.9% Native American (unknown/other represent the

remaining population). AUWC was chosen as the site for this study given its size and the racial

and ethnic diversity of its student body.

The sample for the study was drawn from the population of students who enrolled as

freshmen in 2004 and were seniors in 2008. The specific sample included those who had

completed two surveys, the 2004 Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s (CIRP)

Freshman Survey and the 2008 AUWC Senior Survey. The CIRP Freshman Survey was

administered during students’ first weeks in college. The AUWC Senior Survey was

administered at the end of students’ fourth year in college. The number of students who


completed the 2004 CIRP Freshman Survey was 2,429, and of those, 20% also completed the

AUWC Senior Survey. The final sample consisted of students who completed both instruments

for a total of 404 students, due to a 20% response rate and listwise deletion. Students’ course

registration, course completion, and grades were obtained from academic transcripts and utilized

along with both instruments to create a longitudinal data file. Of the 404 students in the data

sample, 72% identified as white and 28% identified as students of color (i.e., African American,

Asian, and Latino/a). Sixty-three percent of the sample is female and approximately 85% of

students have average high school grades of A- or better.

AUWC undergraduate students are required to take at least one of over 100 different

approved courses in fulfillment of the diversity requirement. In order for a course to receive the

diversity course designation, faculty and/or academic departments must submit a course syllabus,

provide an explanation of diversity course qualifications, and a list of potential instructors.

Courses designated as meeting the diversity requirement must meet five criteria defined by the

Diversity Requirement Committee (DRC). First, courses must examine two or more dimensions

of human diversity and consider these dimensions in terms of their social and/or cultural

consequences. Second, at least one third of the course should address human diversity, and this

must be proportionately reflected in course materials and assignments. Third, courses must

provide students the opportunity for personal reflection on their attitudes toward other groups

and the effects of those attitudes on institutions. Fourth, syllabi are expected to demonstrate how

the course topics relate to issues students face in a contemporary context. Fifth, courses must

encourage comparative and analytical thinking about issues of diversity. Significant changes to

approved syllabi must be approved by the DRC and all courses are reevaluated every five years.

Variables


In accordance with Ehrlich (2000) and the AACU’s (2010) Civic Engagement VALUE

Rubric, we define students’ civic engagement as a value of and commitment to social action,

social justice orientation, leadership skills, perspective taking, and intercultural understanding.

Students were asked to indicate the importance they place on influencing social values, helping

others who are in difficulty, participating in a community action program, helping to promote

racial understanding, understanding different countries and cultures, and becoming a community

leader on a four-point Likert scale ranging from not important to essential. This six-item

composite combined to form a reliable attitudinal measure of civic engagement (std. α = .846).

While civic engagement comprises of both behaviors and attitudes, a recent meta-analysis found

that differences in the effect sizes of studies that utilize behavioral versus attitudinal measures of

civic engagement did not differ significantly (Bowman, 2011).

The independent variables were organized by students’ background characteristics and

three groups of college experiences. Six student background characteristics (pre-college civic

engagement, gender, race, parental education, average high school GPA, and pre-college

interracial interactions) were entered as control variables to determine the unique effect of

college experiences on students’ civic engagement (Bowman, 2010). The civic engagement

pretest variable represents a six-item composite, identical to the outcome variable (std. α = .800).

The first group of college experiences measures the type of diversity courses students

took and was identified based on Bennett’s (2001) four genre clusters: curriculum reform,

multicultural competence, societal equity, and equity pedagogy clusters. The second group of

college experiences represents diversity-related experiences outside of the classroom: attending

racial awareness workshops, interracial interactions, community service, and study abroad. The

final group of college experiences includes students’ academic experiences: student-faculty


interactions (8-items; std. α = .819), college major, and college GPA. Additionally, we included

interaction terms for each course content cluster and race in order to assess the moderating effect

of race on the influence of diversity course content clusters on students’ civic engagement.

--Please insert Table 1 about here--

Analysis

We utilized content analysis, multicollinearity analyses, descriptive statistics, factor

analyses, reliability analyses, and a regression analysis to examine our research questions. In

regards to the first research question, we conducted a content analysis and utilized the guidelines

set forth by Bennett (please see Bennett, 2001) in order to identify diversity course alignments

with the four genre clusters: curriculum reform, multicultural competence, societal equity, and

equity pedagogy. We evaluated all AUWC diversity course syllabi independently and utilized

Cohen’s kappa to assess our inter-rater reliability (κ=.772). Cohen’s kappa was utilized given the

ordinal nature of the cluster variables and its ability to account for the proportion of agreement

that is expected by chance (Cohen, 1968). Forty-six courses met requirements for two or more

genre clusters and were entered into multiple categories in the variable construction phase. We

conducted a multicollineary diagnostic to assess the overlap between the variables and found no

significant overlap between the cluster variables.

For the second research question, we calculated theoretically and conceptually supported

factors for civic engagement, pre-college civic engagement, and student-faculty interactions

using Principle Component Factor Analyses and Cronbach’s alphas. To examine the relationship

between diversity course clusters and civic engagement, we performed a regression analysis. In

accordance with Astin’s (1993) Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) Model, we considered the

longitudinal effects of student background characteristics and college experiences on the


outcome variable of interest. We entered student background characteristics in block one of the

analysis to control for their effect on students’ civic engagement. If relevant input variables are

not controlled, spurious effects of diversity courses on the outcome variable might be observed.

These input variables were selected based on prior research indicating the significance of pre-

college civic engagement, gender (Bowman, 2011), race, parental education, high school GPA

(Engberg & Mayhew, 2004), and interracial interactions (Chang, 2002).

The college environment variables were entered in block two of the analysis. These

variables include the diversity course clusters, informal diversity-related experiences, interracial

interactions, and academic experiences (Bowman, 2011; Engberg, 2007; Gurin et al., 2002). In

order to account for the different effects of diversity content clusters on white and students of

color, we included an interaction term for each cluster variables and race. In order to avoid

multicollinearity, we centered each set of cluster variables prior to multiplying them by race

(Robinson & Schumacker, 2009).

--Please insert Figure 2 about here--

--Please insert Table 2 about here--

Limitations

Several limitations may be noted from this study. First, the current study utilizes single

institution data and has limited generalizability to other four-year institutions and universities.

Utilizing single-institution data within the context of this exploratory study, however, allowed

for a more nuanced examination of diversity course content. Second, given the limited sample,

students of color were aggregated into one group. While it is not uncommon to aggregate

students of color in this way (Bowman, 2010; Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Nelson Laird, 2005), there

is a risk that important group differences may be minimized. Third, the total number of diversity


courses students took by their fourth year in college was calculated from the first 40 courses

taken. The assumption is that traditional college students take 5 courses each semester. This

method of calculation neglects the fact that students may take more than 5 courses each semester,

and may have taken 40 courses before the end of their fourth year. Therefore, the total number of

diversity courses students took within the four years of college may have exceeded the number

that was calculated in this study. Students who have taken 40 courses, however, are likely to

have met AUWC’s unit requirements for graduation. Fourth, we were unable examine the effect

of diversity course content clusters on students with low ethnic identity. Our data was limited to

students’ self-reported racial and ethnic identification rather than the intensity of their

identification. Data regarding the intensity of students’ ethnic identification would allow for

further exploration of the principles set forth by SCT.!Finally, our outcome measure of civic

engagement, although longitudinal, reflects students’ self-reports. Self-reported measures in the

current study, however, reflect the importance students place on engaging in civic thoughts and

behaviors during their first and fourth year in college. The use of an identical pre-test measure of

civic engagement serves to reduce potentially inflated effects.

Findings

With regard to our first research question, whether AUWC diversity courses vary in their

course content, we found Bennett’s model to be a useful framework for distinguishing diversity

course content. Three of Bennett’s four clusters were identified in AUWC’s diversity course

curriculum—curriculum reform (51%), multicultural competence (27%), and societal equity

(22%). No courses met the requirements for the equity pedagogy cluster which was not

surprising given its emphasis on teaching strategies and the absence of an undergraduate

education major at AUWC. Although 36.8% (46) courses met the requirements for two or more


clusters, a multicollinearity diagnostic indicated that there was no significant overlap between

the cluster variables: variance inflation factors were as low as 1.4 and as high as 1.9.

In order to address our second research question—do diversity course content clusters

have a differential effect on the civic engagement of white and students of color—we ran a

regression analysis with interaction terms by white students and students of color. The overall

regression model represented approximately 33.9% (adj. R2=.307) of the variance for civic

engagement (please see Table 3). Although students’ background characteristics explained

approximately 22% of variance, the college environment variables contributed another 11% to

the variance explained in the model. More specifically, the findings indicated that three of the

student background characteristics were significant in predicting gains in students’ civic

engagement: high school grade point average (β=.099, p<.01), race (β=.119, p<.05), and pre-

college civic engagement (β=.405, p<.001). This suggests that students with good high school

grades, students who indicated that they are not white, or report being civic-minded prior to

attending college are more likely to report gains in civic-engagement after four years of college.

When considering the college environment, three college experiences were found to

promote students’ civic engagement: racial awareness workshops (β=.093, p<.05), interracial

interactions (β=.177, p<.001), and interactions with faculty (β=.186, p<.001). Regarding our

primary variables of interest, only the multicultural content cluster was found to predict civic

engagement for all students (β=.116, p<.05). Interestingly, the main effect for the social equity

cluster was not significant, yet, the interaction term for race (i.e., white and students of color)

and the social equity cluster was significant and positive (β=.136, p<.05). This finding suggests

that diversity courses which emphasize societal equity have a differential effect for white

students compared to students of color. Diversity courses that emphasize societal equity appear


to have a greater effect on students of color compared to white students. No other interaction

terms were significant in the analysis.

-- Please insert table 3 about here --

DISCUSSION

There are a number of discussion points that emerge as a result of the findings in this study. First,

among all of the courses and co-curricular experiences students have while in college, the

required diversity course, diversity-related experiences, and student-faculty interactions were

significant toward enhancing students’ civic engagement. The implications for institutional

agents such as student affairs professionals, faculty, and senior-level executives is that formal as

well as informal opportunities for students to interact with and learn about people who are

different from themselves has a positive effect on students’ civic engagement (Pusser et al.,

2007). In the current era of institutional accountability and an increasingly globalized world, it

seems that an alignment with democratic outcomes is both ethical and strategic as institutions

articulate the kind of growth students can expect from their college education (AACU, 2010).

Second, diversity courses are not created equal, in that, diversity courses with distinct

goals and objectives can have a differential effect on students’ educational outcomes. While the

aims and intent of diversity course requirements are still realized through a broad cross-section

of diversity courses, salient differences based on the results in this study suggests that greater

attention must be given to the type of diversity courses students take. Furthermore, such findings

raise the question of whether a single course can capture the aim and intent of the diversity

course requirement, or whether more than one course should be required.

As noted by several scholars, research on diversity courses remains under-examined with

regard to the variation in diversity course content and is in need of theoretically informed inquiry


(Chang, 2002; Engberg, 2007; Zirkle, 2008). In the current study, diversity courses that focused

on developing students’ multicultural competence were the only courses that had a positive

effect across all students. Students of color, however, appear more greatly affected in terms of

their civic engagement by diversity courses that directly address societal issues. Such evidence

suggests that Bennett’s genres of multicultural education offer a useful conceptual framework

toward examining the differential effects of diversity courses on students’ civic engagement.

Given that only three of Bennett’s four genre clusters were represented in AUWC’s

diversity course curriculum, however, future researchers should consider how Bennett’s model

may be modified to further examine the variation in the diversity course curriculum. Bennett’s

fourth cluster—equity pedagogy—did not appear to be a good fit given its emphasis on teaching

and learning strategies. With increasing globalization, however, institutions of higher education

now place a greater emphasis on cross-national perspectives. Given the absence of an

undergraduate teaching major at most institutions and previous research indicating the

differential effects of diversity courses with a global focus on white and students of color (Zhou

et al., 2011), future research should consider modifying Bennett’s framework to include a

content cluster with global and international foci, rather than teaching strategies. Empirically-

based research studies that explore these kinds of questions can create the capacity for framing a

more nuanced approach toward the curricular design and pedagogical goals of diversity courses.

The pursuit of such nuanced research among coursework in post-secondary institutions is long

overdue.

The implications for faculty designing and committees approving such courses are that

the primary goal of exposing students to diversity through curriculum is necessary but

insufficient. Perhaps diversity course objectives should also aim to produce other educationally


productive learning outcomes like civic engagement. This aim would require faculty and

diversity course curriculum committees to carefully consider the content and pedagogical

techniques utilized to foster explicit learning outcomes for different groups of students.!

Likewise, students and/or student affairs administrators should consider which educational

outcomes are desired when deciding which type of diversity course to complete, particularly if

the goals are to educate future leaders who can compete in a diverse society and develop a sense

of commitment to one’s community.

Our third discussion point concerns the need for further interrogation and integration of

multiple theoretical perspectives when considering the cognitive and social processes that white

and students of color may experience. The combined use of Gurin et al.’s framework, SIT, and

SCT, in the current study, allowed us to consider the different processes that white and students

of color experience in diversity courses with distinct foci. These frameworks provide at least two

likely explanations for the differential effects across the two groups of students. First, Gurin and

colleagues argue that white students may be more likely to experiences democratic gains from

taking a diversity course given their limited interactions and exposure to people from different

racial and ethnic backgrounds. Second, SIT and SCT emphasizes the powerful influence of

social identity, the need to maintain a positive self-identity, and the different psychological

processes that majority and minority groups undertake.

Further research is needed to support these interpretations and explain why white students

and students of color may experience different gains as a result of completing the same diversity

course. Although we found that multicultural competence courses had similar effects on white

and students of color, there may be some cases where multicultural competence courses also

incite resistance among white students. Furthermore, the degree to which students identify with


their social group may influence how they experience and respond to diversity courses.

According to SCT (Hornsey, 2008), less self-identified majority members may be more willing

to compromise their high status, compared to those with a greater sense of ethnic identity. Less

self-identified minority members, on the other hand, may be less motivated to enhance their

group status compared to minority students with a greater sense of ethnic identity. In both cases,

students with a lower ethnic identity may be more likely to disassociate themselves from their

social group when threatened. Empirical research is needed to substantiate such claims.

Fourth, researchers should examine the extent to which there are similarities and

differences within different groups of racial and ethnic minority students. Previous research has

indicated differences in the experiences of Asian students compared to underrepresented students

of color such as African American, Latino/a, and Native American students. Although Asian

students are not typically considered an underrepresented student group in college, this is in large

part because most students included in these college-related demographics tend to be

international and tend to include relatively few Hmong, Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese –

some of the most underserved Asian student populations (Teranishi, 2007). The challenge with

disaggregating underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students often is, as in the current

study, their limited representation on highly selective college campuses.

In conclusion, disaggregating diversity course content is critical to assessing the impact

of diversity courses on different groups of students. Future research should further consider (1)

disaggregating racial and ethnic minority students, (2) the pedagogical approaches and racial and

ethnic backgrounds of faculty who teach such courses, (3) the interracial interactions inside

diversity classrooms, (4) how Bennett’s model may be modified to better capture the

undergraduate diversity course curriculum, and (5) integrating multiple theoretical perspectives


to better understand the experiences of students from different backgrounds. These points are

important because course content is only one piece of the puzzle; whether the course content, for

instance, is perceived as threatening or not to certain groups of students is also influenced by

how the content is presented and discussed by the faculty and students in class.


References

Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2010). Civic Engagement VALUE Rubric.

Washington, DC: Author.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational

Research, 71(2), 171-217.

Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1,

3-7.

Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to

racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445-472.

Bowman, N. A. (2010). Dissonance and resolution: The non-linear effects of diversity courses

on well-being and orientations toward diversity. Review of Higher Education, 33, 543–

568.

Bowman, N.A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A meta-analysis of

college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research,

81(1), 29-68.

Brandenberger, J. W., Bowman, N. A., Hill, P. L., & Lapsley, D. K. (2010). How long do

the effects of college diversity experiences last? Social concerns and wellbeing 13 years

after graduation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Denver, CO.

Chang, M.J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on students’

racial views and attitudes. The Journal of General Education, 51 (1).


Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement

or partial credit. Psychological bulletin, 70(4), 213.

Cole, E.R., Case, K.A., Rios, D., & Curtin, N. (2011). Understanding what students bring to the

classroom: Moderators of the effects of diversity courses on student attitudes. Cultural

Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(4), 397-405.

Cole, D., & Zhou, J. (2013). Do diversity experiences help college students become more

civically minded? Applying Banks’ multicultural education framework. Innovative

Higher Education.

Coser, R. (1975). The complexity of roles as a seedbed of individual autonomy. In L. A. Coser

(Ed .), The idea of social structure : Papers in honor of Robert K. Merton (pp . 85-102).

New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of "we": Social

attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 3-20.

Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. New York, NY: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Engberg, M. E. (2007). Educating the workforce for the 21st century: A cross-disciplinary

analysis of the impact of the undergraduate experience on students’ development of

a pluralistic orientation. Research in Higher Education, 48, 283–317.

Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher education: A critical

examination of the influence of educational interventions on racial bias. Review of

Educational Research, 74, 473–524.

Engberg, M. E., & Mayhew, M. J. (2007). The influence of first-year “success” courses on

student learning and democratic outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 48,

241–258.


Fish, S.(2008). Save the world on your own time. NY: Oxford University Press.

Gurin, P. (1999). Selections from the compelling need for diversity in higher education, expert

reports in defense of the University of Michigan. Equity & Excellence in Education,

32(2), 36-62.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory

and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–366

Gurin, P., Nagda, B., & Lopez G.E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education democratic

citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 6 (1), 17-34.

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self!categorization Theory: A Historical

Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222.

Humphreys, D. (2000). National survey finds diversity requirements common around the

country. Diversity Digest, 5(1).

Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the

classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity

challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action (pp. 187-203). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Education Publishing Group.

Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup mediation research. Journal

of Social Issues, 61 (3), 595-610.

Jayakumar, U. M. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and

global society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforce competencies. Harvard

Educational Review, 78, 615–651.

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity.

Journal of college student development, 46(6), 571-592.

Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes,


& R. Kiss (Eds .), New Directions in Attribution Research (vol. 3, pp . 35–38). Hillsdale,

NJ : Erlbaum.

Lopez, G. E. (2004). Interethnic contact, curriculum, and attitudes in the first year of college.

Journal of Social Issues, 60, 75–94.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 Fast Facts

U.S. Department of Education.

Nelson-Laird, T.F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on

academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking.

Research in Higher Education, 46 (4).

Nelson-Laird, T.F, Engberg, M.E., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects:

Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement. The

Journal of Higher Education, 76 (4), 448-476.

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual

development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1975).

Pusser, B., Breneman, D. W., Gansneder, B. M., Kohl, K. J., Levin, J. S., Milam, J. H., et al.

(2007). Returning to learning: Adults’ success in college is key to America’s future.

Indianapolis: Lumina Foundation for Education.

Schneider, C.G. (2008). “Liberal Education Takes a New Turn”. National Education Association

Almanac of Higher Education, pp. 29–40.

Tajfel, H. & J. C. Turner (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &

W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson.

Tapanes, M. A., Smith, G. G., & White, J. A. (2009). Cultural diversity in online learning: A

study of the perceived effects of dissonance in levels of individualism/collectivism and

tolerance of ambiguity. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 26-34.


Teranishi, R. T. (2007). Race, ethnicity, and higher education policy: The use of critical

quantitative research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 37-49.

Robinson, C., & Schumacker, R. E. (2009). Interaction effects: centering, variance inflation

factor, and interpretation issues. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 35(1), 6-11.

Wilhite, S. C., & Silver, P. T. (2005). A false dichotomy for higher education: Educating citizens

vs. educating technicians. National Civic Review, 94, 46-54.

Zhou, J., Cole, D., Castellanos, M., & Manson, S. (2011). Beyond domestic diversity: Examining

the impact of global diversity courses on students’ civic engagement. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC.

Zuniga, X., Williams, E. A., & Berger, J. B. (2005). Action-oriented democratic outcomes:

The impact of student involvement with campus diversity. Journal of College Student

Development, 46, 660–678.


Appendix A

Summary of Variables and Indices in the Research Model

Variable name Measures Scale

Gender Male, Female 1-2

Parental Education 1= H.S. diploma or less 2= College degree or less 3= Graduate degree or less

1-3

Average High School Grades 1=D 2=C

3=C+ 4=B-

5=B 6=B+

7=A- 8=A

1-8

Interracial Interactions (pre and post) Socialized with different racial/ethnic groups

1= Not at All 2= Occasionally 3= Frequently

1-3

Race White, Student of Color 0-1

Civic Engagement (pre and post): Importance placed on… influencing social values; helping others who are in difficulty; participating in community action programs promoting racial understanding; becoming a community leader; keeping up to date with third world issues

6= Lowest 24= Highest

1-24

College GPA 1=F 2=D- 3=D

4=D+ 5=C- 6=C

7=C+ 8=B- 9=B

10=B+ 11=A- 12=A

1-12

College Major 1=Arts and Humanities, 2=Biological/Physical Science, 3=Business, 4=Education, 5=Engineering, 6=Social Science 7=Other

1-7

Racial Awareness Workshops No, Yes 0-1

Studied Abroad No, Yes 0-1

Community Service No, Yes 0-1

Student-Faculty Interactions 1-14=Not at all 15-28=Occasionally 29-42=Frequently

1-42

Total Diversity Courses taken (Multicultural Competence; Social Equity Diversity; Curriculum Reform)

0=0, 1=1, 2=2, 3= 3, 4= 4

0-4


Figure 1. Research genres of diversity course content (Adapted from Bennett, 2001).

!

Ethnic Identity Development

Prejudice Reduction

Ethnic Group Culture

School & Classroom

Climate

Student Achievement

Cultural Styles in Teaching &

Learning

Social Action Demographics

Culture & Race in Popular Culture

Curriculum Theory

Historical Inquiry

Detecting Bias

Societal Equity

Multicultural Competence

Curriculum

Reform

Equity Pedagogy

Genres of Research in Multicultural Education

Assumptions:

1. Eurocentric curriculum is a tool for cultural hegemony

2. Knowledge is constructed and contested

Assumptions:

1. Broad societal change is necessary for equity in educational access, participation, and achievement

2. Change is not only possible but a basic democratic value

2.

Assumptions:

1. The reduction of cultural and racial prejudice is possible and desirable

2. Individuals do not need to reject their identity or cultural worldview in order to function comfortably in another cultural environment.

2.

Assumptions:

1. All students have special talents and the ability to learn

2. The goal of public education is to enable all students to reach their full potential

3. Teacher and student cultural socialization influence teaching and learning.

2.


Figure 2. Methodological framework for assessing students’ civic engagement (n=404).

COLLEGE EXPERIENCES:

Diversity-related Experiences

Racial awareness workshops Interracial interactions

Community service Study abroad

Academic College Experiences

College major College GPA

Student-faculty interactions (8-items, std. α =.819)

Diversity Course Clusters Curriculum reform

Social equity Multicultural competence

OUTPUT:

Civic Engagement (6-items, std. α=.846)

STUDENT INPUT:

Student Background Characteristics Pre-college civic

engagement (6-items, std. α=.799)

Gender Race

Parental education Average high school GPA

Interracial interactions (pre-college)

!


Table 1

Factor Analysis and Cronbach Alphas

Variablesa

Factor Loading

Alpha if Item

Deleted Pre-College Civic Engagement Importance placed on influencing social values .652 .779 Importance placed on helping others who are in difficulty .681 .773 Importance placed on participating in a community action program .749 .756 Importance placed on helping to promote racial understanding .741 .758 Importance placed on understanding different countries and cultures .715 .765 Importance placed on becoming a community leader .696 .769 Reliability Coefficients (6-items) .798 Standardized (std) item alpha .799 Post-College Civic Engagement Importance placed on influencing social values .731 .823 Importance placed on helping others who are in difficulty .771 .816 Importance placed on participating in a community action program .785 .811 Importance placed on helping to promote racial understanding .714 .826 Importance placed on understanding different countries and cultures .764 .816 Importance placed on becoming a community leader .745 .821 Reliability Coefficients (6-items) .844 Standardized (std) item alpha .846 Student-Faculty Interactions

Professor provided encouragement to pursue graduate/professional Study

.563 .808

Professor provided advice and guidance about your educational program

.690 .790

Professor provided respect (treated you like a colleague/peer) .676 .795 Professor provided emotional support and encouragement .686 .791 Professor provided a letter of recommendation .567 .808 Professor provided intellectual challenge and stimulation .633 .801 Professor provided an opportunity to discuss your coursework outside of class

.704 .791

Professor provided help in achieving your professional goals .790 .773 Reliability Coefficients (8-items) .816 Standardized (std) item alpha .819 a Data collected in 2004 and 2008.


Table 2 Descriptive Data of Student Participants Independent Variables

All Students (n=404)

M SD Student Background Characteristics Students’ Gender 1.63 — Parents Education 2.46 .62 Average High School Grades 7.35 .83 Socialized with members of a different racial/ethnic group (pre-college) 2.83 .40 Race (white, student of color) .28 .45 Pre-civic engagement (composite) 14.38 3.59 Diversity Experiences Outside of the Classroom: Racial Awareness Workshops .28 .45 Studied Abroad .34 .48 Socialized with members of a different racial/ethnic group 2.83 .39 Community Service .44 .50 Academic College Experiences College Major 4.09 2.33 College GPA 8.75 1.11 Student-Faculty Interactions (composite) 18.18 3.33 Diversity Courses Typology: Multicultural Competence .07 .62 Multicultural Competence * Race .05 .41 Social Equity .10 .64 Social Equity* Race .04 .35 Curriculum Reform .17 .82 Curriculum Reform* Race .02 .46


Table 3 Regression Table for Civic Engagement Independent Variables

n= 404 Standardized β

Student Background Characteristics Gender (female) .052 Parents Education .034 Average High School Grades .099** Socialized with members of a different racial/ethnic group (pre-college) .040 Race (white, student of color) .119* Pre-civic engagement (composite) .405***

R2 .221 Diversity Experiences Outside of the Classroom: Racial Awareness Workshops .093* Studied Abroad .049 Socialized with members of a different racial/ethnic group .177*** Community Service .035 Academic College Experiences: College Major -.009 College GPA .001 Student-Faculty Interactions (composite) .186*** Diversity Courses Typology: Multicultural Competence .116* Multicultural Competence * Race -.031 Social Equity -.017 Social Equity* Race .136* Curriculum Reform .030 Curriculum Reform* Race .001

R2 .339 Adjusted R2 .307

Note: Separate regression analyses were run for the curriculum reform and social equity clusters, however, findings were not significant. Standardized coefficients are reported. * p ≤.05, ** p ≤.01, *** p ≤ .001.

!

Disentangling the Impact of Diversity Courses: Michelle...

Documents

Transcript of Disentangling the Impact of Diversity Courses: Michelle...