University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

(USC Thesis Other)

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EVALUATING THE EFFECTS OF DIVERSITY COURSES AND STUDENT
DIVERSITY EXPERIENCES ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’
DEMOCRATIC VALUES AT A PRIVATE URBAN RESEARCH INSTITUTION

by

Veronica Emily Estrada

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Veronica Emily Estrada
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate my dissertation to my daughter and life’s inspiration, Izabella Ortega.
My daughter was about four years old when I began this program. She went to class,
the library, and study groups with me. I thank her for the motivation and inspiration to
push forward in completing my degree as I juggled my career, the responsibilities of
being a single parent, and endless hours of work as a doctoral student. Izabella kept me
centered and reminded me that life will bring challenges but what I do with those
challenges will mark my character that I model for her. Failure is not an option, and I
refuse to not try but just work harder.
I also want to dedicate my dissertation to my father, Jose Estrada, who taught
me how to dream big and go after what I want. He modeled for me the benefits of
being disciplined and working hard. He came to this country to advance his career and
did not let adversity stop him from going to college and becoming a mechanical
engineer. He taught me the value of education and encouraged me to surpass his
educational attainment. Dad, I did it!

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am blessed to be surrounded by loving friends, family and mentors, whose
dedication, support and encouragement has made completing this doctoral degree
possible. I first would like to acknowledge my two mentors, Dr. Juan Gonzalez and Dr.
Soncia Lilly for writing my letter of recommendation for this doctoral program. Thank
you for your wisdom, love and 20 years of guidance as a Student Affairs Professional. I
would like to also acknowledge my dissertation committee, Dr. Darnell Cole, Dr. Pat
Tobey, and Dr. Melora Sundt. I want to say a special thank you to Dr. Cole for letting
me join his research team and to Dr. Hocevar for investing in my learning, success and
future.
I would like to thank my USC colleagues for their support during this process.
Thank you to Jose Hernandez, Matt Nelson, Kevin Bolen, Mark Pearson, and Sandra
Ochoa. I would like to say a special thank you to Guadalupe Montaño and Gokce Golpe
for investing in me during this long process to successfully complete the dissertation.
Thank you to my family members Alex Esquivel, Elena Fernandez, Laura Estrada-
Shepherd and Jose Estrada for their unconditional love, support, prayers, and faith. And
a special thank you to my mom, Romana Estrada, for helping me care for my daughter,
cooking for me and my USC colleagues during study sessions, and for her faith. Te
adoro madrecita.
Most importantly, I want to acknowledge my best friend, Tim Gilliam. Your
work ethic is contagious and inspired me to work harder to invest the time to build
towards my future and completing this degree. I am a movement by myself but a force
when we are together.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES viii

ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER 1 1
Introduction of the Problem 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 8
Rationale 10
Research Questions 10
Importance of the Study 11
Definition of Terms 12

v
CHAPTER 2 15
Diversity in Higher Education 16
Diversity Requirements in Higher Education 20
Educational Diversity 20
Diversity Requirement 21
The Theory of Diversity and Learning 23
Diversity Courses 25
Typology of Diversity Courses 26
Student Diversity Experiences 26
Theoretical Foundations and Supporting Theories for Diversity Experiences 27
Empirical Studies on Structural Diversity 29
Effects of Campus Racial Climate 29
Broader Perspective 30
Openness to Diversity and Challenge 31
Retention 32
Summary of the effects of Structural Diversity 33
Empirical Studies on Informal Interactional Diversity 34
Complex Thinking 35
Intellectual and Social Self-Concept 36
Citizenship and Social Action Engagement 36
Racial/Cultural Awareness 37
Summary of the Effects of Informal Interactional Diversity 38
Empirical Studies on Diversity Initiatives 38
Social and Cultural Awareness 41
Citizenship Engagement 42
Prejudice Reduction 43
Summary of the Effects of Diversity Course 45
Empirical Studies on Student Diversity Experiences 45
Extracurricular Activities 46
Racial or Cultural Awareness Workshop 47
Study Abroad Program 48
Student Government and Community Service 48
Register to Vote 49
Summary of Effects of Student Diversity Experiences 50
Democratic Values 50
Theory of Participatory Democracy 51
Political socialization and Higher Education 52
Democracy and Higher Education 54
Empathy Democratic Value 56
Liberal Democratic Value 57
Social Democratic Value 58
Leadership Democratic Value 60
Spiritual Democratic Values 60
Summary 61

vi
CHAPTER 3 63
Introduction 63
Sample and Population 65
Site Selection 65
Participant Selection 68
Instrumentation 69
Organizing Framework 69
Data Points 71
Cooperative Research Project 72
Western University Senior Survey 74
Transcripts 76
Data Collection 77
Data Analysis 78
Test-Retest Reliability 79
Factor analysis 79
Reliability tests 80
Validity tests 80
Descriptive statistics 81
ANCOVA 82
Summary 83

CHAPTER 4 84
Analysis of the Data 84
Treatment of Data 84
Descriptive Statistics of Student Characteristics 86
Participant Characteristics 86
Level of Parental Education 87
Summary 88
Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables 88
Pre-Test Input Variables 90
Pre-Test Environmental Variables 91
Results: Democratic Values Post-Test Analysis 93
Results of Post-Test Analysis 94
Results for Research Question 1 95
Results for Research Question 2 102

vii
CHAPTER 5 111
Summary of the Study 111
Methods 114
Findings and Discussion 114
Significant Findings: Effects of Diversity Courses 116
Significant Findings: Effects of Student Diversity Experiences 118
Figure 5.6: Summary of Significant Research Findings 121
Limitations 125
Recommendations for Future Research 126
Summary and Conclusions 128

REFERENCES 132

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Western University Diversity Committee Guidelines for
Designation as a Diversity Course Requirement 140
Appendix B: Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008) 143
Appendix C: 2004 CIRP Survey Instrument 144
Appendix D: 2008 Western University Senior Survey Instrument 148
Appendix E: Western University Committee on Diversity Requirements
Courses (DRC) 157
Appendix F: Diversity Committee Course Review Sheet 158
Appendix G: Role, Mission and Freshman Profile of Western University 159

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Theory of Diversity and Learning (Hurtado, 2007) 28

Table 3.1: I-E-O Model Integrating Conceptual Framework and Data Points 71

Table 3.2: 2004 CIRP Variables for Democratic Values Model 73

Table 3.3: Western University Senior Survey Variables for Democratic Value Model 75

Table 3.4: Transcript Data for Diversity Course(s) Variables 77

Table 3.5: Transcript Data for Student Experience Variables 77

Table 4.1: Descriptive Data of Student Characteristics 88

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics 90

Table 4.3: Pre-Test Analysis 91

Table 4.4: Diversity Courses Analysis 92

Table 4.5: Diversity Experiences Analysis 93

Table 4.6: Democratic Values Post-Test Analysis 94

Table 4.7: Empathy Value by Diversity Course ANCOVAS 96

Table 4.8: Empathy Values by Diversity Course(s) Taken ANCOVAS 97

Table 4.9: Leadership Values by Diversity Course(s) ANCOVAS 97

Table 4.10: Liberal Values by Diversity Course(s) ANCOVAS 98

Table 4.11: Liberal Value means broken down by Number of Diversity Course(s)
and Level of Typology of Diversity Course Taken 99

Table 4.12: Liberal Value mean broken down by Level of Typology of
1
st
Diversity Course Taken 100

Table 4.13: Social Values by Diversity Course(s) ANCOVAS 100

Table 4.14: Spiritual Values by Diversity Course(s) ANCOVAS 101

Table 4.15: Empathy Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS 104
ix
Table 4.16: Leadership Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS 105

Table 4.17: Leadership Values by Community Service and Governance 105

Table 4.18: Liberal Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS 106

Table 4.19: Social Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS 107

Table 4.20: Spirit Values Means Broken Down by Parent Education 108

Table 4.21: Spiritual Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS 108

Table 5.1: Significant Results for Research Question 1 115

Table 5.2: Empathy Value mean broken down by Number of Diversity Courses 115

Table 5.3: Liberal Value by Number of Diversity Courses 115

Table 5.4: Liberal Value Means by Level of Typology of 1
st
Diversity Course
Taken 116

Table 5.5: Summary of findings for Research Question 2 118

Table 5.6: Concept Synthesis Table of Findings 131

x
ABSTRACT
This study extends the findings from previous research on the benefits of
diversity courses and diversity experiences on student democratic outcomes. The
purpose of this study was to evaluate to what extent diversity courses and student
diversity experiences correlated with democratic values. Two research questions
guided the investigation:
1. To what extent do diversity courses correlate with undergraduate students’
democratic values?
1a). To what extent is the number of diversity courses taken
correlated with democratic values?
1b). To what extent is the diversity course typology level correlated
with democratic values?
1c). To what extent does the year student first took diversity course
correlate with democratic values?
2. To what extent do student experience variables correlate with democratic
values?
2a). To what extent does participating in student government correlate
with democratic values?
2b) To what extent does attending a racial/cultural workshop
correlate with democratic values?
2c ). To what extent is studying abroad correlated with democratic
values?
2d). To what extent is community services correlated with democratic
values?
2e). To what extent is registering to vote correlated with democratic
values?
The methodology used for this single institutional investigation was a non-
experimental longitudinal research design utilizing a secondary data analysis of student
transcripts and self-reported data. The secondary data analysis provided detailed pre-
college characteristics (gender, race, parents’ education and pre-test for the outcome
variables) as well as student experiences while attending Western University. Astin’s
(1984, 1993) I-E-O model was used as the organizational frame to investigate pretests
xi
of selected democratic values (empathy values, leadership values, liberal values, social
values, spiritual values), the environment (diversity courses and student diversity
experiences) and the democratic values posttest outcomes (empathy values, leadership
values, liberal values, social values, spiritual values).
The findings from the analysis showed a strong relationship between taking four
or more diversity courses with having higher changes in the empathy and liberal
democratic value scores. Additionally, a typology level 2 or higher for the first
diversity course taken was statistically associated with having more change in the
liberal democratic value scores. These findings were consistent with prior theory and
the research on the association of diversity course work and democratic values.
Moreover, the findings showed a strong relationship between attending a racial
awareness workshop and stronger democratic values in the empathy, liberal, social and
spiritual categories. In addition, participating in community service had a strong
relationship with greater change in leadership democratic value scores, and student
participation in studying abroad programs was related to the endorsement of social
democratic values. Hence, this study showed a greater gain in democratic values for
those students who participated in extracurricular activities, particularly attending a
racial/cultural workshop. The findings of this study contribute in important ways to the
evidence showing a new way to assess the uniqueness of diversity courses as well as
clearly showing the value of diversity initiatives (both co-curricular and curricular)
relative to five important democratic values needed to prepare students to live in a
democratic society.
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction of the Problem
Bikson and Law (1994) suggest that today’s employee must possess skills to
effectively navigate and function in a diverse and global market. American higher
education is viewed as a microcosm of current society and one of the few public spaces
that has the potential as well as the responsibility to shape future leaders’ intellectual
framework (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003), advance social progress
(Bowen, 1977), and prepare students for democratic empowerment as active global
citizens (Jacoby, 2009). But what democratic outcomes are important to support and
enable students to successfully participate in a diverse society?
Because over fifteen million undergraduate students are now enrolled in higher
education (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003) and 32 percent are ethnic
minorities, institutions of higher education should take responsibility for the civic
purposes that prepare students for democratic citizenship in a kaleidoscopic culture
(Boyer, 1987). The American Association of Colleges and Universities (1995) has
recognized the importance of preparing undergraduate students for a diverse democracy
and, therefore, has renewed its mission statement to incorporate diversity to achieve
significant democratic outcomes. As a result, 63 percent of institutions of higher
education now refer to diversity in their mission statement as an educational goal
(AACU, 1995b, Barber, 1997).
The general education (GE) requirement calls for a common undergraduate
academic experience that develops a broad set of civic skills and habits. Accordingly,
about half of higher education institutions nationally have made a commitment to
2
teaching cultural pluralism as an integral component of undergraduate GE requirements
(Humphreys, 1997). Sixty percent of about 500 institutions require some kind of
multicultural class to fulfill the GE requirement (Association of American Colleges and
Universities, 2000; Greens, 2000; Humphreys, 2000). Moreover, to complete the
diversity GE requirement, 58 percent of universities mandate one diversity course and
about 42 percent demand two or more courses. Hence, diversity or cultural pluralism
courses are designed with the intent to present past and current social differences
through curriculum and interaction with diverse peers to promote democratic outcomes
to help develop democratic values as well as more culturally sensitive citizenry.
Hurtado (2007) states that exposure to diversity can help produce responsible
citizens who can act and make ethical decisions by negotiating differences within a
complex world. Integrating diversity into the curriculum in the form of diversity
courses has a positive effect on fostering democratic outcomes. Even though
researchers have stressed the importance of diversity courses on democratic outcomes,
there are challenges in the division of various specialized and fracture diversity
curricula within these courses. As mentioned previously, democratic values have been
broadly defined and there is a lack of interconnection of what values result from each
type of diversity courses and student diverse experiences.
Background of the Problem
Bok’s (1982) and Boyer’s (1994) criticism of contemporary institutions of
higher education noted a priority shift from “education for democracy” (Dewey, 1916)
to excessive individualism, which lacks accountability towards others. Recent studies
have also shown entering undergraduate students reporting an all-time low in political
3
participation and their democratic interests declining as they persist through college
(Checkoway, 2001). Bok (1982) and Boyer (1994) further argue that this political
disengagement, coupled with higher education institutions’ lost sense of civic purpose
leaves graduating students under-prepared to become democratic problem solvers in
today’s diverse society. Therefore, it is time for education institutions to revisit civic
learning as the goal for both liberal and professional education, and, more recently, for a
diverse democracy (Hurtado, 2007). But what then are the important democratic values
for promoting an informed citizenry and how can higher education operationalize
democratic values from democratic outcomes and democratic ideals?
The mission statement of most universities presents principles and ideals of
what that institution values as the educational obligation to educate students for
responsible democratic citizenship. Some of these democratic ideals found in most
mission statements include mutual respect and tolerance, concern for both the rights and
welfare of individuals and community, recognition that each individual is part of a
social fabric, critical self-reflectiveness, and commitment to civil and rational discourse
and procedural impartiality (Galston, 1991; Gutmann, 1987; Macedo, 2000). Research
literature has presented many concepts of democratic ideals based on assumptions and
the term democratic values have yet to be empirically defined. Therefore, higher
education institutions provide an important context and challenge, primarily for faculty,
toward preparing today’s youth for democratic citizenship. Much of the challenge
comes from scholarly disagreements over “the aim, content, and method for preparing
students” (Hahn, 2001) for democratic citizenship, responsible citizenship,
4
differentiated citizenship, democratic engagement, and civic engagement (Laird,
Enberg, & Hurtado, 2005).
Hurtado (2007) states the value of connecting diversity to the education and
civic mission of higher education can help advance social progress of future leaders and
attain greater coherence in undergraduate preparation. Incorporating diversity into the
mission statement and curriculum in both content (i.e. diversity courses) and students’
diverse experiences positively increase complex thinking and student engagement in
current social problems (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). In this study, the
researcher aimed to advance the scientific understanding of diversity experiences of
undergraduate students’ as well as examine the university mission statement
commitment to promoting civic goals associated with developing democratic values
through diversity courses and student diverse experiences in a time when democratic
participation is at an all-time low (Putnam, 2000).
Statement of the Problem
Landmark studies and analysis conducted by Hurtado (1996, 2007) provide
ample information on the educational benefits of diversity content and social interaction
with diverse peers. However, there is limited literature and research in higher education
that strives to predict or investigate the impact of the wide range of diversity courses
and student diversity experiences on democratic values, exposing a gap that needs
further exploration. The following sections integrate the theoretical foundation to
organize the gaps in the literature pertaining to undergraduate students’ experiences
with diversity as embodied by diversity courses and student diverse experiences.
5
Colleges and universities offer a large range of diversity courses that are taught
by various faculty members using different pedagogies and curriculum. Diversity
courses are presented as an unstructured distribution of a wide range of choices that can
be used to fulfill the diversity GE requirement (Colby et al, 2003). Yet, diversity
courses provide opportunities for active thinking and personal development through
structural and informal diversity in a classroom setting that will form or inform
democratic outcomes.
Democratic outcomes are essential because interaction with diverse peers about
complex social issues can greatly contribute to cognitive shifts influencing the degree of
commitment for democratic citizenship (Hurtado, 1996, 2007). Moreover, core values
found in institutions’ mission statements and the implications these values have on
educational programs (i.e. curricula, pedagogy, etc.) are also important, particularly
toward understanding how expected civic goals are integrated into diversity courses and
the student diversity experiences that promote democratic values (Colby et al 2003).
Therefore, diversity courses and student diversity experiences on democratic values are
not fully known and are an important gap in this literature (Hogan & Mallot, 2005).
Affirmative action cases largely influenced college impact studies on the
educational benefits of diversity experiences on students. Affirmative action cases
helped transform the landscape of higher education in terms of racial and ethnic
diversity (or structural diversity) but institutions were not prepared to accommodate the
needs of these new students in terms of educational programs and services (Gurin,
1999). In fact, the structural diversity of faculty, staff, and students has a positive
impact on the college environment in terms of students’ commitment to promoting
6
racial understanding and cultural awareness (Astin, 1993; Chang, 2001; 2002a; 2003;
Chang, Seltzer, & Kim, 2001; Gurin, 1999; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, &
Terenzini, 1996). Yet, structural diversity presents limitations to understanding the
benefits of diversity even though it is associated with increasing the range of students’
opinions, thoughts, and ideas from differing viewpoints (Milem, Chang, & Antonio,
2005).
Liberal education as it extends to the diversity requirement is a subset of college
impact research addressing openness to diversity (Whitt et al, 2001), social action
engagement (Nelson-Larid et al, 2005), and levels of racial prejudice (Chang, 1999,
2002, 2003). Research on diversity courses is yet a developing area with limited results
known about the impact on student outcomes, especially the integration of diversity
content into the curriculum (Astin, 1993; Chang, 2002; Gurin, 1999; Henderson-King &
Kaleta, 2000; Hogan & Mallot, 2005; Hurtado, 1996, 2007), the impact of interaction
with diverse peers (Antonio, 2001; Chang, 2001; Coser, 1975; Gurin, 2002, Langer,
1978; Milem, Chang, & Antonio, & Pettigrew, 1998), and student-faculty contact (Cole,
2007; Cole 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Diversity courses and student diversity experiences are an important way to
understand how the integration of core values found in the mission statement in terms of
civic goals intersects with democratic values. As the goal of liberal education is “to
move students from their provincial worldviews” (Hurtado, 2007, p.189), the role of
diversity courses and student diversity experiences is to provide educational experiences
and interactions with diverse peers to help students become more open and tolerant of
future interactions with diversity. Diversity can be linked to the mission statement in
7
the following ways: 1) recruiting diverse students and faculty contributing to the
structural diversity environment; 2) curricular activities such as diversity courses; and
3) informal interaction such as involvement in extracurricular activities. Diversity
courses and student diversity experiences are an important part of the general education
curriculum and a diversity requirement with the goal of developing global citizens
(Humphreys, 1997) is seen as a crucial first step in fostering democratic values.
In this study, the theory of diversity and higher education by Gurin, Dey,
Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) is used to explore the relationship between students’
experiences with diversity in a college environment and their educational outcomes.
This theory will be used to examine and explain the effects of the following three ways
of exposing students to diversity: 1) structural; 2) informal interactional; and 3)
diversity initiatives. The theories proposed by Coser (1975) and Langer (1978) are also
used to further explore the active thinking that is challenged in such complex social
structures and creates gains in learning and intellectual outcomes. These scholars
suggest racial and ethnic diversity may promote democracy outcomes by exposing
students to new and more complex perspectives and relationships. The aforementioned
theories are used to lay the foundation for what may occur in shaping democratic values
when students enroll in diversity courses.
Furthermore, the typology of diversity courses (Cole & Sundt, 2009) will also
be used to categorize 100 different courses at Western University into levels to examine
intellectual gains of student’s democratic outcomes. A typology of Diversity Courses
(Cole & Sundt, 2008) has been developed based on analysis of syllabi that helped
condense the wide range of diversity courses to four categories (introductory, basic,
8
intermediate, and advanced) based on Western’s diverse course requirement guidelines
for approving course options (see appendix A). It must be noted that the Typology of
Diversity Courses has not yet been used in other studies to examine the impact of
diversity courses on democratic values and the findings could be subject to other
interpretations. What remains unexplored is the specific impact from the wide range of
diversity courses and student diverse experiences on students’ democratic values, which
is the focal point of this study.
In this study, the researcher aims to advance the understanding of the diversity
experiences of undergraduate students in a time where democratic participation is at an
all-time low. There is also a need to understand the aim, content, and method of
preparing students for responsible citizenship. The researcher focuses on defining
democratic values through learning and the democratic outcomes associated with
curricular and co-curricular experiences. Examining the contribution of diversity
courses and student diversity experiences to democratic values is opportune,
considering the overall low level of political and civic participation stemming from the
lack of trust and respect for U.S. democratic process (Putnam, 2000). Therefore, this
study has can elucidate the potential influence of higher education in reinvigorating the
American democratic spirit and helping shape our pluralistic society.
Purpose of the Study
This study is part of a three-year research grant from the Teagle Foundation that
involved the study of the undergraduate general education (GE) diversity course
requirements and student diversity experiences that support intellectual and personal
growth at a large private research university. The purpose of this study was to explore
9
the extent to which diversity courses and diverse student experiences affect students’
democratic values demonstrated by 1) understanding democratic values in a
multicultural society and 2) understanding what values are important to develop
responsible citizenship in a diverse democracy. A second purpose of this study was to
expose and examine gaps in the literature on the impact of diversity courses and student
diversity experiences on democratic outcomes and to help operationalize democratic
values. The literature review establishes and connects diversity courses and student
diversity experiences to the civic goals of higher education, relevant theory, and the
mission at a single institution off the Pacific coast of the United States, Western
University.
This study may serve to advance previous college impact research on diversity
courses (Chang, 1999; 2002; Hogan & Mallot, 2005; Hurtado, 1999; Nelson-Laird et al,
2005) by exploring the impact of diversity courses on democratic values using a socio-
cognitive perspective. The goal of this study is to examine the aim, content and
methods that might influence democratic values in undergraduate higher education.
Gurin’s (1999) three socio-cognitive factors, structural diversity, informal interactional
diversity, and diversity initiatives, will be used to examine diversity courses and
students’ diversity experiences. Specifically, these factors will be used to examine how
the civic goals of a mission statement are integrated into diversity course content and
diversity experiences.
A large part of the population, over fifteen million undergraduates, attends
college for some period of time (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003. During
that time, there is an assumption that institutions’ general education courses can
10
influence the process of civic development, character shaping, and increase sense of
social responsibility.
Rationale
Part of the rationale regarding the general education diversity requirement
(diversity courses) is to raise awareness about differences. Western University’s goal is
“to prepare students through the study of human differences for responsible citizenship
in an increasing pluralistic and diverse society,” (Western University Catalogue,
2009/2010). Therefore, students’ interactions with diverse peers and dialogue about
diverse content can affect democratic values that inform how students interact with
differences (i.e. people, opinions, views, etc.).
Research Questions
This study is based on two assumptions: a) enrolling in just one of the wide
range of diversity courses is linked to democratic values that can be measured by
examining students’ democratic outcomes in terms of involvement levels with social
issues and problems, and b) informal and classroom diverse peer interaction can be
measured and evaluated in terms of the impact these have on the development of
democratic values (i.e. perspective change). Based on these assumptions, the study
investigates the extent to which diversity courses have an impact on undergraduate
students’ democratic values? Specifically, the following research questions were
examined:
1. To what extent do diversity courses correlate with undergraduate students’
democratic values?
1a). To what extent are the numbers of diversity courses taken
correlated with democratic values?
11
1b). To what extent is the diversity course typology level correlate
with democratic values?
1c). To what extent does the year student first took diversity course
correlate with democratic values?
2. To what extent do student experience variables correlate with democratic
values?
2a). To what extent does participating in student government correlate
with democratic values?
2b). To what extent does attending a racial/cultural workshop
correlated with democratic values?
2c ). To what extent is studying abroad correlated with democratic
values?
2d). To what extent is community services correlated with democratic
values?
2e). To what extent is registering to vote correlated with democratic
values?
Importance of the Study
This study adds to the body of knowledge that informs the understanding of
important democratic values based on empirical evidence gained from enrolling in
diversity courses and student diversity experiences. The Typology of Diversity Courses
(Cole & Sundt, 2008, see appendix B) will further help sort the type and level of
diversity courses to examine specific intellectual gains of students’ democratic value
outcomes. Understanding the different learning and democratic outcomes using the
Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008) is a significant way to make sense
of the wide range of diversity courses offered at a single research institution. This
research further establishes a coherent and uniform definition of democratic values that
can help institutions of higher education realign the important factors that prepare
students to live in a diverse democracy. The democratic outcomes from this study will
provide the much needed empirical evidence to clearly identify the definition, aim, and
result of democratic values using diversity courses.
12
This is a quasi-experimental longitudinal study utilizing a single institution
design and using existing self-reported data sources from the 2004 Cooperative Institute
Research Program (CIRP, Appendix C) survey administered at a freshman summer
orientation and 2008 Senior Survey (Appendix D), totaling 551 usable survey
responses. The intentional sampling procedure decreases assumptions in the findings
have limited generalizability.
Definition of Terms
The following are definitions to terms or acronyms used in this study:

AAC& U: Association of American Colleges and Universities

Classroom diversity: Classroom learning about diverse people through content
knowledge and gaining experience by engaging with
diverse peers. (Nelson-Larid, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2002).

CIRP: The CIRP survey is housed at UCLA and is facilitated by
the Higher Education Research. Institute (HERI). (The
CIRP survey uses multi-institutional (about 1300
institutions) data to measure student outcomes in terms of
views and satisfaction (Astin, 1993).

Citizenship Engagement: Student’s involvement and desire to influence political
structure and society as well as participate in community
services (Gurin, 1999).

Compatibility of
Differences: Students’ understanding that common values exist across
racial/cultural groups and differences do not have to
attribute to societal alienation (Gurin, 1999).

Democracy: provides the compass for diversity in which one agrees to
live together as a diverse democratic community (Musil,
C.M., 2003). Constructed out of social difference
(Guarasci et al, 1997).

Democratic Outcome: The way higher education prepares students for active
participation in society (Gurin, 1999).
13
Diversity Requirement: “Designed to provide background knowledge and
analytical skills for undergraduate students to enable them
to understand and respect differences between groups.
Students will gain exposure to analytical framework to
understand and address social, political, cultural, ethical,
and public policy”, as defined by Western University.
(Western University 2009/2010 catalogue).

Diverse Interaction: Student’s interaction with differences and diverse ideas,
information, and peer interactions (Hurtado, Milem,
Clayton-Peterson, & Allen, 1999).

GE: “General Education as defined by Western University to
provide a coherent, integrated introduction to the breadth
of knowledge needed to consider student a well-educated
person in five principle goals teaching: 1) skills to
critically think, write, & read; 2) skills in specific context;
3) apply skills for evaluating; 4) assess values underlying
various critical positions and to articulate own coherence
and integrity; & 5) passion for learning.” (Western
University 2009/2010 catalogue).

I-E-O Model: Input-Environment-Output Model (Astin, 1984).

Informal Interactional
Diversity: Frequency and quality of intergroup interaction for
meaningful diversity experiences during college (Antonio,
1998; Chang, 1996).

Learning Outcomes: Students’ active learning process during college, students’
engagement and motivation, as well as their learning and
refinement of academic and intellectual skills (Gurin,
1999).

Political Socialization: Central values of political cultures transmitted from one
generation to the next (Hyman, 1959).

Racial/Cultural Engagement: Students’ level of cultural awareness and
commitment to promote, appreciate and
participate in racial understanding activities
(Gurin, 1999).

14
Structural Diversity: Characterized by the percentage and proportions
of that is from a racial/ethnic non-white group
(Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Peterson, & Allen,
1999).

Typology of Diversity Courses: is used to group and place diversity courses into
four categories of diversity courses (Introductory,
Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced) (Cole &
Sundt, 2008).

Western University Senior Survey: The Senior Survey was designed by Western
University and formed from the CIRP to measure
student experiences and satisfaction. (Western
University, 2008).

15
CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature

There is an assumption that higher education plays a critical role in influencing
student’s lifelong process of civic development, character shaping, and increasing sense
of social responsibility (Colby et al., 2003). Historically, higher education has played a
role in providing knowledge development and practical skills for public participation;
yet, contemporary American higher education has moved away from preparing students
for public participation. Currently, higher education is viewed as excessively
individualistic (Putnam, 2000) and a factor in the decline in civic and political
participation of entering undergraduate students during the college years and into
graduate education (Halstead, 1999). Scholars have lamented the loss of civic interest
among this group (Shah, 2008). This growing political disaffection has also been
detected in today’s American young adults, irrespective of whether they are
matriculated college students or not, that make up more than fifteen million (Putnam,
1995). This generation deemphasizes the importance of citizenship and national
identity while distrusting established political and government institutions (Halstead,
1999).
So, then, is civic engagement the responsibility of the individual, family or
institutions of higher education? Despite the inability to assign accountability for civic
engagement preparation, it is time to revisit the public purposes of higher education as
presented in institutions’ mission statements. It is important to re-examine the scope
and quality of academic-based knowledge and the skills it provides to understand why
American students living in a racially and ethnically diverse nation are disinterested in
16
civic and/or democratic responsibilities during a time of global interdependence
(Checkoway, 2001). Additionally, investigating the effects of diversity in higher
education is also important to help explain the nuances of the skills and competencies
connected with democratic values that are needed to live in a global society.
Diversity in Higher Education
The central mission of higher education is to enhance learning. The
environmental expectation for student learning influences the type of learning taking
place in the classroom and campus (Komives, Woodward, & Associates, 1996). The
mission statement describes distinct institutional values and goals to which the
university is expected to adhere (Morphew & Taylor, 2009). Mission statements carry
connotations of institutional legitimacy and state what is important about the institution
and its environment: faith based, Historically Black, Ivy League, Research I, NCAA,
extracurricular activities, etc. It is important to note that institutions of higher education
not based in democratic principles cannot expect student democratic outcomes to be
significant. One way to achieve significant student democratic outcomes is to
incorporate diversity. Institutional mission statements that affirm the role of diversity in
achieving an educated and involved citizenry apply that commitment through increasing
structural diversity, implementing diversity course requirements, and fostering diverse
student interaction (Gurin, 1999; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, and Allen, 1998,
1999). Therefore, the benefits of linking diversity to the educational and civic mission
of higher education can: “1) better position the next generation of leaders for the project
of advancing social progress, and 2) to achieve greater coherence in undergraduate
preparation” (Hurtado, 2007, p.186).
17
Currently, sixty three percent of colleges and universities refer to diversity in
their mission statements (AACU, 1995b). Defining diversity is important to further
understand the ways such diversity can benefit educational outcomes. There are three
primary types of diversity: 1) structural diversity; 2) diversity requirement (i.e. diversity
courses); and 3) diverse interaction. The first, structural diversity, is characterized by
the percentage and proportions of students from a racial/ethnic non-white group
(Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, and Allen, 1998, 1999). The second, diversity
requirement, “requests students to study differences – between people of different races,
sexes, religions, abilities, and sexual orientations – with the expectations that study will
improve students cognitive skills and their respect for those different from themselves”
(Cole & Sundt, 2009, p. 5). And lastly, diverse interactions are defined by students’
interactions with differences and diverse ideas, information, and peer interactions
(Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, and Allen, 1998, 1999). The impact of each
diversity type is increased by the presence of the others. According to Gurin (1999),
structural diversity is needed for diverse interaction opportunities. Diverse ideas and
information enter higher education environments through diverse people (Hurtado,
Milem, Clayton-Pederson, and Allen, 1998, 1999).
Milem (1998) suggests that a racially and ethnically diverse student body has
educational benefits that greatly influence individuals, institutions, and our society. The
educational benefit to individuals refers to the educational experiences and outcomes
enhanced by campus diversity. The educational benefit to institutions refers to the ways
in which diversity improves the effectiveness of an institution. Additionally, the
educational benefit to society achieved through diversity in college and universities is
18
the impact on the quality of life within a larger society and the achievement of the
democratic ideals of fairness, equity, and equality by matriculated students. Educating
students on a diverse campus, in diverse classrooms, through diversity courses, and
interacting with diverse peers provides educational benefits in both learning and
democratic outcomes.
Diverse college environments provide conditions for intellectual and cognitive
growth through diverse peer interaction, fostering and improving active engagement in
learning outcomes. Diverse campus environments and diverse classrooms contribute to
active thinking about different point of view and, thus, to citizenship preparation in a
diverse democracy. Classroom diversity is defined as the exposure to knowledge about
race and ethnicity in the formal classroom (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). To
do civic work with truthfulness and have an impact, students require knowledge about
cultures and communities with which they will interact and an understanding of the
historic and current inequalities that have defined social locations and opportunities
(Musil, 2006). A rational for diversity courses as a general education requirement is to
facilitate a forum to provide interactions, discussions, and learning opportunities with
diverse peers about diversity-related content. Therefore, classroom diversity and
diversity courses can help students understand how knowledge is constructed by others
and their own personal assumptions, positions, and experiences (Banks, 1993).
Additionally, there is also a need to investigate undergraduate level diversity courses to
understand the extent to which they affect democratic values.
Democratic outcomes are influenced by campus diversity (Algers, 1997) and
help categorize democratic values. Democratic outcomes are different from democratic
19
values. Democratic outcomes refer to the way higher education prepares students for
active participation in society (Gurin, 1999). Gurin (1999) suggests there are three
types of student democratic outcomes: 1) citizen engagement; 2) racial/cultural
engagement; and 3) compatibility of differences. Citizen engagement is described by
students’ involvement and desire to influence political structure and society as well as
participate in community services. Racial/cultural engagement is characterized by
students’ levels of cultural awareness and commitment to promote, appreciate and
participate in racial understanding activities. Compatibility of differences is defined by
students’ understanding that common values exist across racial/ethnic groups, that
appropriate group conflict can be constructive, and that differences do not have to lead
to societal alienation. Diverse campus environments, diverse classrooms, and diversity
courses contribute to attitudes and skills crucial for citizenship and leadership in a
diverse democracy.
Chapter two examines the historic development of diversity courses and
discusses the relevant theories about the role diversity courses and diverse student
experiences play in the democratic value development and civic engagement of young
adults. Empirical studies that examine the impacts of diversity curriculum and diverse
student experiences on student outcomes will also be reviewed. The importance of
diversity is organized into eight sections: diversity requirements in higher education,
educational diversity, diversity requirement, theory of diversity and learning, diversity
courses, typology of diversity courses, student diversity experiences and theoretical
foundations and supporting theories of diversities. Empirical studies on structural
diversity, informal interactional diversity, and diversity initiatives are reviewed to
20
classify democratic outcomes. Gaps in the literature are also identified. Socio-
cognitive theories are used as a lens to analyze the importance of diversity
environments in higher education as they relate to significant factors from various
empirical studies. Additionally, the democratic outcomes discussed are categorized into
democratic values.
Diversity Requirements in Higher Education
This section of chapter two examines the important development of diversity,
the added-value of diversity to educational outcomes, and the integration of the
diversity requirements. The diversity requirement in Higher Education institutions and
the effects diversity courses have on students’ democratic outcomes are also examined
using Theory of Diversity and Learning (Hurtado 2007; Gurin, et. al), and supporting
theories from Langer (1978) and Coser (1975) that examine active thinking learning
outcomes. The relationship between diversity initiatives (diversity courses and student
diversity experiences) and democratic outcomes were examined and organized using the
Theory of Participatory Democracy (Pateman, 1970) to define democratic values.
Educational Diversity
The University of Michigan affirmative action cases (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539
U.S. 306, 2003) have greatly contributed to informing college impact research on
quantifying the theoretical links to diversity, learning and democratic outcomes. The
affirmative action cases were instrumental opportunities for institutions of higher
education to defend the diversity rationale as a “strong basis in evidence” supporting an
institutional interest in educational diversity (Liu, 1998). Additionally, the affirmative
action cases developed a movement for researchers to examine a new body of research
21
to defend the educational benefits of diversity, resulting in the development of new
college impact theories (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Hurtado, 2007). This
area of college impact research on diversity has generated diverse institutional findings
that identified the educational outcomes of diversity. The added-value of diversity was
identified as the central component in fostering academic, social, and cognitive growth
in undergraduate students. Thus, diversity is a compelling interest for some institutions
of higher education and for today’s multicultural society, where economic, racial and
religious differences are dominant factors.
Liu (1998) suggests that “to establish a compelling interest in educational
diversity, a university must demonstrate clear, consistent internal policies and practices
designed to facilitate interracial contact, dialogue, and understanding on campus” (p.
439). Increasing the structural diversity in terms of numerical representation of a
racially/ethnically diverse student body alone is not adequate to attain desired
educational outcomes. Chang (1999) states that actualizing the added-value of diversity
to attain educational outcomes involves active engagement in institutional reform and in
how diversity is managed by institutional leaders. Furthermore, remarkable
transformative and innovative change can be achieved through the general education
diversity course requirement.
Diversity Requirement
Many Colleges and Universities have implemented the diversity requirement as
a response to preparing students to live in a diverse future. The American Association
of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) is a national organization concerned with
undergraduate liberal education reform and provides data on diversity requirements. A
22
study conducted by the AAC&U indicated 94% of national public opinion agreed that
understanding those who are different is important because of the diverse population of
the United States (Humphreys, 2000).
Currently, 63 % of colleges and universities have some type of diversity
requirement or are developing such requirements as a means to educate undergraduate
students for the workforce (Humphreys, 2000). Fifty eight percent of universities
require at least one diversity course and 42% of universities require two (Humphreys,
2000). These statistics show that the majority of American institutions consider the
diversity requirement an important part of their college education and each institution
creates its own purpose and rationale for the diversity requirement. Furthermore, the
goal of diversity courses, as described by the AAC&U, is to create opportunities for
undergraduate students to learn about U.S. pluralism, which is defined as many
different and complex cultural and individual identities (Humphreys, 1997). The
following is a quote about the purpose and rationale for institutionalizing the diversity
requirement which espouses the goal of the diversity courses as suggested by the
AAC&U:
The Diversity Course Requirement is designed to meet an important
educational need of undergraduates. The current generation of
undergraduate, and those for some years to come, will increasingly be
faced with issues arising from the diversity of the human condition. These
issues, for example, about equity and equality between men and women,
about racial and other biases and their social and cultural consequences,
will have important ramifications for students’ personal, professional, and
intellectual lives. We must equip our students with the background
knowledge and analytical skills which will enable them to understand and
respect differences so they may view unfamiliar customs and perspectives
not with suspicion born of ignorance, but with an understanding of the
opportunities this diversity makes possible for our private and public
aspirations (Western University, 2009).
23
Originally, liberal education had been committed to the goal of civic
development, but contemporary higher education has moved civic concerns to the
margins (Orrill, 1997). Thus, there is an additional need to reclaim strategies for best
practices to reinvigorate the American democratic spirit through the diversity
requirement. Furthermore, it is important to incorporate campus diversity and diverse
peer interaction with diversity courses to prepare students to live in a democratic
society.
The Theory of Diversity and Learning
As previously mentioned, diversity in higher education has been categorized
into different types of diversity tied to various educational benefits. Hurtado’s (2007)
Theory of Diversity and Learning (Table 2.1) is an organizing theory that provides a
link between diversity in higher education and learning and democratic outcomes. The
theory was created during the University of Michigan affirmative action cases to defend
the educational benefits of diversity (Hurtado, 2007). The basis of the theory is that:
Diversity in the student body provides the kind of experience base and
discontinuity needed to evince more active thinking processes among
students, moving them from their own embedded worldviews to consider
those of another (or those of their diverse peers) (Hurtado, 2007, p. 189).
The Theory of Diversity and Learning classifies and defines three different types
of undergraduate student diversity experiences on campus: structural diversity, informal
interactional diversity, and diversity initiative (both curricular and co-corricular) (Gurin
et al., 2002). The following section expands on the aforementioned types of diversity
experiences.
24
Structural diversity in terms of campus racial climate increases the probability that
students will encounter students from other diverse backgrounds and creates conditions
for stronger diversity experiences not found in a homogeneous student body (Winston,
Creamer, Miller, & Assoc., 2001). Structural diversity has two major effects: 1) it
makes diversity experiences possible and 2) it increases the range of student viewpoints
to foster intellectual diversity (Chang, Seltzer, and Kim, 2002). Among a number of
other important objectives, increasing racial/ethnic enrollment presents major gains in
new knowledge production of intellectual and social movements (Orfield, 2001).
Students’ pre-college experiences with racial/ethnic diversity present different levels of
diversity exposure (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). Structural diversity increases
opportunities for classroom diversity for students to build skills to bridge cultural
differences (Hurtado, 2001). Yet, structural diversity does not guarantee meaningful
intergroup interaction, and, therefore, situations that provide meaningful engagement
with diversity are imperative (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). Numerical
representation of diverse students is necessary but does not present the conditions to
maximize educational benefits. Maximum educational benefits stem from student
engagement with diverse peers in informal discussions and classroom settings
Informal interactional diversity provides meaningful diversity experiences during
college. Informal interactional diversity is based on the quality and frequency of
positive and negative diverse peer interaction outside of the classroom that influence
active thinking and citizenship engagement (Gurin, 1999). College students can interact
with diverse peers in informal discussions, residence halls, social outings, and campus
events (Antonio, 1998; Change, 1996). Interacting with diverse peer groups fosters
25
civic engagement, critical thinking, and problem solving skills (Orfield, 2001).
Interaction with diverse peers and engagement in extracurricular activities can also have
a positive effect on developing important job skills to function in a diverse society.
Diversity initiatives in terms of diversity courses and other student diversity
experiences offer potential chances for students to navigate, engage and communicate
across differences, work with diverse groups, and learn about diversity in the
curriculum as well as interact with diverse peers (Nelson Larid, Engberg, & Hurtado,
2002). Additionally, diversity initiatives include learning with and about diverse people
in courses, workshops and residence halls (Gurin et. al., 2002).
Diversity Courses
Diversity initiatives in terms of diversity courses are intended to expose students
to multiple perspectives on complex issues, engaging them in social issues, and
encourage complex thinking (Adams & Zhou-McGovern, 1994). Diversity courses as
undergraduate requirements are intended to be inclusive of the diversity that is found in
today’s society and to study differences in terms of race, sex, religions, abilities, and
sexual orientations (Hurtado, 2007). Diversity courses may contain both structural and
interactional diversity, depending on the racial/ethnic representation and course content.
Pedagogy and curriculum from diversity courses may allow formal and informal
opportunities for diverse peer interactions. Furthermore, Banks (1993) argues that the
formal and informal goal of multicultural curriculum is:
to help students understand how knowledge is constructed. Students
should be given the opportunity to investigate and determine how
cultural assumptions, frames of references, perspectives, and the biases
within a discipline influence the ways the knowledge is constructed.
Students should also be given opportunities to create knowledge
26
themselves and identify ways in which the knowledge they construct is
influenced and limited by their personal assumptions, positions, and
experiences (p. 11).

Typology of Diversity Courses
Diversity courses are viewed as an unstructured distribution of a wide range of
courses that are taught by faculty from various departments who use different
pedagogies and curriculum. Hence, there is a gray area when it comes to categorizing
diversity courses in terms of learning outcomes by the courses’ level to gauge the true
impact these have in preparing students to meet the general education requirement.
What remain uncharted are the effects of these variations in diversity requirements,
which present a need to explore diversity courses’ impact on student learning outcomes.
To control for the aforementioned variability, Cole and Sundt (2009) created a
Typology of Diversity Courses to classify diversity courses by assessing the course
potential in fulfilling the diversity requirement. Typology is used as a way to compare
student outcome data among all diversity course requirements based on the
recommendation of the committee on diversity requirement courses (see appendix E).
Diversity course syllabi were used to create a rubric to place diversity course within the
Typology of Diversity Course model using the diversity committee course review sheet
(see appendix F). The model categorizes diversity courses into four types: introductory,
basic, intermediate, and advanced (Cole & Sundt, 2009).
Student Diversity Experiences
It is important to study diversity initiatives in terms of student diversity
experiences concurrently with diversity courses to examine the potential overlap of
effects on student learning outcomes. College campuses with structural diversity
27
present higher opportunities for diverse student engagement when participating in non-
academic activities or events (Winston, Creamer, Miller, & Assoc., 2001). Informal
interactional diversity is defined as the quality and frequency of positive and negative
interaction with diverse peers on campus (Gurin, 1999). Maximum educational benefits
branch from informal discussions with diverse peer interaction, promoting the active
thinking which can be more powerful than classroom diversity (Gurin, 1999).
Diverse peer interactions refers to the formal and informal interaction with
students from differing races, ethnicities, religions, abilities and sexual orientations
(Hurtado, 2007). Diversity initiatives in terms of extracurricular activities offer
students the potential to navigate, engage, communicate, work and learn from diverse
peers (Nelson Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2002). College campuses provide ample
activities, events, programs and socials where students can interact with diverse peers.
Students engaging in extracurricular activities (i.e. attending a racial/cultural awareness
workshop, studying aboard, participating in student government, community service
involvement, and being a registered voter) have positive effects on developing
important social and job skills. Additionally, extracurricular activities also have
positive effects in fostering the democratic values of undergraduate students that help
them to function in a diverse society.
Theoretical Foundations and Supporting Theories for Diversity Experiences
The theory of diversity and learning (Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2007) is the
main conceptual lens used to examine and organize the empirical literature connecting
diversity experiences in college to the educational purpose and benefits of diversity
courses and student extracurricular experiences. Hurtado’s (2007) theory of diversity
28
and learning is also used here to define the three dimensions of diversity in structural,
informal interactional and diversity initiatives, as shown in Table 2.1, along with their
student learning and democratic outcomes.

Table 2.1: Theory of Diversity and Learning (Hurtado, 2007)
Structural Diversity Informal Interactional Diversity Diversity Initiatives

 Campus racial
climate
 Class composition
in diversity course
 Diverse peer interaction
 Frequency and quality of
interaction
 Diversity course
 Typology of
diversity course
 Extracurricular
activies
This section of chapter two defines the three different types of diversity
(structural, informal interactional, and diversity initiatives) and ties empirical studies
focusing on each diversity type to learning and democratic outcomes. Learning
outcomes refers to students’ active learning process during college, the students’
engagement and motivation, as well as their learning and refinement of academic and
intellectual skills (Gurin, 1999). Democratic learning outcomes refer to the ways higher
education prepares students to be involved as active participants in society (Gurin,
1999). Gurin (1999) also suggests three important democratic categories associated
with democratic outcomes: 1) citizen engagement; 2) racial/cultural engagement; and 3)
compatibility of differences. Citizenship engagement defines students’ interest in
influencing society in terms of political structure, community participation, and
volunteer service (Gurin, 1999). Racial/cultural engagement is characterized by the
student’s level of cultural awareness, appreciation, and commitment to help promoting
racial understanding activities (Gurin, 1999). Compatibility of differences is defined by
student’s understanding that common values exist across racial/ethnic groups,
29
appropriate group conflict can be constructive, and differences do not have to attribute
to societal alienation. The three democratic outcomes are used to link the educational
benefit of diversity to define democratic values.
Empirical Studies on Structural Diversity
The theory of diversity and learning (Gurin., et al, 2002) states that structural
diversity is defined in terms of students’ diverse backgrounds in terms of race, ethnicity,
religion, and sexual orientation that can make up both campus racial climate and
classroom composition. Structural diversity refers to the numerical and proportional
representation of students from different racial and ethnic groups in the student body of
an institution (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998, 1999). The rise in
minority enrollment that creates campus diversity has been correlated with major
intellectual, social, and knowledge gains on student outcomes that are indirect and
complex. College classrooms afford opportunities for students to dialogue, interact, and
study with diverse peers that may lead to student development and cognitive growth
outcomes.The following empirical studies present the effect a diverse campus and
classroom composition has on student learning outcomes (active thinking) and
democratic learning outcomes (exposure to a broader perspective, openness to diversity
and challenge, and retention). Pre-college and environmental variables are identified to
understand the positive effects and challenges structural diversity can present on
campus and classroom environments.
Effects of Campus Racial Climate
Researchers’ study of college impact show that one effect of a diverse campus
and classroom is the learning outcome of active thinking (Astin, 1993; Gurin, Dey,
30
Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Hurtado, 2007). According to Langer (1978), active thinking
occurs when people encounter certain conditions that are novel but not entirely familiar
that trigger alertness and greater mental activity. Astin’s (1993) multi-institutional
study (217 four-year colleges) analyzed 25,000 student experiences with campus
diversity and multiculturalism and found that increased diversity has a strong effect on
cognitive and affective development. Similarly, Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002)
suggested students exposed to diversity during college years had a positive association
with participating in an increasingly heterogeneous democracy. Diversity enables
students to understand the difference both within groups and between groups,
suggesting that various groups are needed in the classroom. Students exposed to
campus diversity and diverse ideas reported higher levels of active thinking (Gurin et.
al., 2002). The results reported in this study support the continued efforts of affirmative
action and the increase of numerical access for diverse students. Hurtado, Dey, Gurin,
& Gurin (2003) suggest that structural diversity provides increased experiences of
discontinuity with diverse peers which are needed to trigger more active thinking about
differing worldviews.
Broader Perspective
Empirical studies show that another effect of a diverse campus is increased
exposure to a broader perspective of thoughts and ideas that make an intellectual
environment better to prepare students for democratic participation (Chang, 1999;
Chang 2003; Chang 2002a, Seltzer, & Kim, 2001). In line with this idea, a study
conducted by Chang (1999) discovered that compositional diversity increases the
likelihood of students’ engaging with students from different background. Racial and
31
ethnic campus communities play a significant role in creating a varied educational
experience through the presence of individuals with statistically significant differences
in opinion and viewpoints, thus increasing exposure to broader perspectives.
Studies investigating the differences in student’s opinions based on racial
composition affirmed a statistical significant difference opinion on political and social
issues among racial groups (Chang, 2003; Chang 2002a, Seltzer, & Kim, 2001).
Chang’s (2003) study examined differing viewpoints of racially and ethnically diverse
entering undergraduates to confirm that increased campus racial composition has a
positive effect on providing a wide range of opinions, thoughts, and ideas. Campus
diversity positively increases student exposure to broader perspectives. These
statistically significant effects were found in both public and private institutions despite
holding variables (parental level of education, institutional size, and hours worked) that
might affect minority enrollment constant.
Openness to Diversity and Challenge
Additional research supporting the effects of a racially diverse campus climate is
student openness to diversity and challenge. Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and
Terenzini’s (1996) quantitative study examined first-year college students’ openness to
diversity in racial, cultural, and value terms. The majority of student participants were
18 year old white females (14% Hispanic, 8% Black, and 45% male). The pre-college
variables used include: pre-college openness to diversity/challenge, academic ability,
gender, ethnicity, age, and precollege academic motivation (Pascarella et al., 1996, p.
179). Of all the environmental variables, “the extent to which an institution’s
environment was perceived as racially nondiscriminatory” (Pascarella, et al., 1996, p.
32
185) had a statistically positive effect on openness to diversity and challenge. Non-
white students who work during college and have lower levels of pre-college
preparation had negative effects on openness to diversity and challenge. In an extension
of this study, Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Nora (1998) examined factors
that predicted openness to diversity and challenge for second and third year college
students. A higher level of participation in campus clubs and organizations was a
positive predictor of openness to diversity for women but not a negative predictor for
men. Perceptions of a nondiscriminatory campus racial environment were strong
predictors of openness to diversity for both white and non-white students.
This study is similar to Astin’s (1993) quantitative research investigation of
campus diversity and multiculturalism on 3,331 first year students from 18 institutions.
Both studies’ support campus diversity effects on student openness to diversity and
challenge. Astin’s (1993) conducted a pre-test of entering freshmen and a post-test four
years later on the same sample to determine whether there was a change in student
outcomes using three environmental measures associated with diversity (Institutional
Diversity Emphasis, Faculty Diversity Emphasis, and Student Diversity Emphasis).
Astin’s (1993) study found a college environment with both faculty and student
diversity had a positive impact on students’ commitment to promoting racial
understanding and cultural awareness among students that increases liberalism and
citizenship.
Retention
A final effect a diverse campus has on student outcomes is strong student
satisfaction with college experiences that had a positive impact on retention. Chang
33
(2001) conducted a multi-institutional study using the Cooperative Institutional
Research Program (CIRP) and Astin’s (1991) Input-Environment-Outcome (I-E-O)
methodological model to assess college environmental variables and student outcomes.
Chang’s (2001) study examined the link between racial diversity on college campuses
and positive educational outcomes. Two outcomes from students’ initial attitudes
(development of interracial friendships and the frequency of discussing racial issues)
were examined with the following variables: 1) student background characteristics, 2)
campus racial diversity measure, 3) other campus characteristics, and 4) intermediate
outcomes (i.e. college experiences). Several environmental variables (institution size,
location, type, religious affiliation, and selectivity) were considered to understand the
racial climate on campus. The findings from this study suggest that college climates
with large numerical representation of campus diversity increase the likelihood of
interaction and conversations that positively affect “retention, overall campus
satisfaction, and intellectual and social self-confidence among all students” (Chang,
2001, p.183). This study suggests a small but significant statistical correlation
conferring affirmative action results on campus diversity does benefit student retention.
Astin’s (1993) study also found that increased campus diversity had a strong positive
effect on student satisfaction with college experiences (facilities and student life) but a
negative effect on the assumption that racial discrimination is not a problem in the
United States.
Summary of the effects of Structural Diversity
Campus racial diversity in the student body increases the likelihood students
will interact with people from different ethnic backgrounds. Also, exposure to different
34
opinions, viewpoints, and experiences, as well as participating in discussing complex
social issues, result in a positive exposure to a broader perspective (Chang, 1999; Chang
2003; Chang 2002a, Seltzer, & Kim, 2001). Institutions of higher education that
promote increased campus and classroom diversity provide opportunities for intellectual
and social environments different from a student’s familiar community. Such
intellectual and social environments may cause discontinuity in which students may
explore new social roles and, thus, become more open to diversity and challenge
(Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and Terenzini, 1996; Astin, 1993). Racial campus
and classroom diversity also exposes students to different ideas to help them understand
between and within group difference to positively affect active thinking (Astin, 1993;
Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Hurtado, Dey, Gurin, & Gurin ,2003 ). Moreover,
exposure to a diverse student body was linked to increased student satisfaction with
college experiences that positively increase retention rates (Astin, 1993;Chang, 2001).
Structural diversity is the first step to creating a diverse learning environment but
numerical diversity alone is inadequate and presents limitations in understanding
diversity in terms of numbers (Milem, Chang, & Antonio, 2005).
Empirical Studies on Informal Interactional Diversity
The theory of diversity and learning (Gurin., et al, 2002) states that informal
interactional diversity is based on the quality and frequency of positive and negative
diverse peer interaction. Informal interactional diversity is characterized by the
interaction that students have with diverse people, diverse ideas and diverse
information. University students are frequently exposed to diverse information and
ideas through interaction with diverse people. Most of these diverse ideas and
35
information have entered universities through the presence of diverse people (Gurin,
1999, Hurtado, 1997, Milem, 1997, 1999). Diverse peer interaction can be both formal
(classroom) and informal (extracurricular activities) with students from differing races,
ethnicities, religions, abilities and sexual orientations (Hurtado, 2007). The following
empirical studies present the effects diverse peer interaction has on student learning
outcomes (complex thinking, intellectual and social self-concept) and democratic
learning outcomes (citizenship and social action engagement, and racial/cultural
awareness).
Complex Thinking
One effect informal interactional diversity has on student outcomes is active
thinking. Hurtado’s (2006) study noted informal peer interaction with diverse groups
has a positive effect on complex thinking about “people and their behavior, cultural and
social awareness, and perspective-taking skills as in the ability to see the world from
someone else’s point of view” (p. 191). An extension of that study, Hurtado (2007)
conducted another study that involved the monitoring of undergraduate students’
behavior at ten public institutions. Hurtado’s (2007) study showed that interaction with
diverse peers also has positive effects on complex thinking. In line with this idea,
Gurin’s (1999) study on classroom diversity and interaction noted diverse peer
interaction also encourages active thinking in “pluralistic and complex ways” to help
commit students to civic action. In the same line of thought, a National Study of
Student Learning suggested cognitive complexity measures are significantly associated
with interaction variables and a variety of exposure after the first year of college
(Pascarella et. al., 1996) and into the second and third year of college (Whitt et. al,
36
1998). Moreover, Hurtado’s (2001) study using the CIRP national sample found that
students who study frequently with students that are ethnically/racially different
reported more growth in critical thinking and general knowledge. Kuh’s (2003) study
using data from the National Survey of Student engagement documented similar kinds
of effects and showed students were more involved with active and collaborative
learning when exposed to diversity.
Intellectual and Social Self-Concept
Chang’s (2001) study examining campus racial diversity and educational
outcomes shows that interacting with someone from a different racial group has a
statistically positive effect on intellectual self-concept and social self-concept after
controlling for variables (institutional, peer and faculty). Chang’s study also suggests
that diverse peer interactions in terms of talking about racial issues show a significantly
positive effect on intellectual and social self-concept after controlling for student
background and college environmental variables.
Citizenship and Social Action Engagement
An additional effect of diverse and frequent peer interaction is the student
learning outcome of citizenship and social action engagement. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado,
and Gurin’s (2002) national study links diverse peer interaction with positively
significant associations with citizenship engagement. This study also suggests informal
interaction is the key to fostering democracy outcomes as well as helping to understand
that difference and democracy can be compatible. Additionally, informal interactional
diversity is more influential than classroom diversity in this study and suggests
education can be enhanced by meaningful informal interactional diversity dependent on
37
the presence of significant diverse student bodies. Hurtado’s (2006) study on informal
peer interaction with group differences also showed a strong positive association with
increased student interest in public good and poverty issues. Students who had negative
encounters with diverse peers had low inter-group interaction skills, difficulty solving
inter-group conflicts and had limited understanding on how to function in a global
world. Lopez’s (1993) study observed a link between interacting with diverse peers and
facilitating awareness with inequality and commitment to social action engagement to
end social injustices (Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005). These studies promote citizen
engagement and social action engagement. Citizen engagement motivates students to
participate in activities with political impact, and social action engagement reflects the
importance students assign to speaking against social injustices.
Racial/Cultural Awareness
Diverse and frequent peer interaction is positively associated with racial and
cultural awareness learning outcomes. Antoino’s (2001a; 2001b, 2004a) longitudinal
study examined interracial friendships on a racially diverse campus, specifically UCLA.
Findings indicated students with more diverse sets of friends have more significantly
positive engagements with conversations concerning diversity and differences,
including political and social views, racism and discrimination, women’s rights, and
national politics. Educational learning outcomes associated with interracial friendships
showed positive gains in commitment to racial understanding and cultural awareness.
Milem (1992, 1994) also found that students who participated more frequently in
racial/ethnic issues and who dialogued with someone from another racial/ethnic group
were more likely to report increased levels of racial and cultural awareness. Gurin, Dey,
38
Hurtado, and Gurin’s (2002) national study found positively significant associations
between citizenship and racial/cultural awareness.
Summary of the Effects of Informal Interactional Diversity
Informal interactional diversity and frequency of peer interaction is more
influential than classroom diversity and is positively associated with the student
learning outcomes of complex thinking and democratic outcomes of citizenship, social
action awareness, racial and cultural awareness, and intellectual and social self-concept
(Antonio, 2001a; 2001b, 2004a; Gurin, 1999; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin’s , 2002;
Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005; Lopez, 1993; Hurtado, 2001; Hurtado, 2006;
Hurtado, 2007). Informal interaction between peers and interracial friendships enhance
education outcomes in terms of complex thinking about people’s behavior; commitment
to cultural and social awareness; commitment to racial awareness; and intellectual and
social self-concepts (Antonio, 2001a; Chang, 2001; Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2006).
Empirical Studies on Diversity Initiatives
The theory of diversity and learning (Gurin., et al, 2002) states that diversity
initiatives (i.e. diversity courses as an undergraduate general education requirement and
extracurricular diversity experiences) offer students potential chances to navigate,
engage and communicate across differences, work with diverse groups, and learn about
diversity in curriculum (Nelson, Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2002). As stated
previously, institutions of higher education provide students with meaningful diverse
peer interactions as well as academic knowledge through the required diversity
course(s). Most colleges and universities understand the pivotal role diversity courses
can play in improving and closing the race relations gap which has been a national topic
39
for decades. Diversity courses as a general education requirement are common in most
colleges and universities (Humphreys, 1997). The diversity requirement is a direct
solution to filling the need to prepare undergraduate students in terms of democratic
values. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) describes
the goal of diversity courses as the opportunities to create student learning about U.S.
pluralism. The United States is comprised of many distinct cultures and individuals. Its
identity is complex, and this defines the notion of pluralism.
Diversity initiatives in terms of diversity courses are intended to expose students
to multiple perspectives on complex issues, engaging them in social issues, and
encouraging complex thinking (Adams &Shou-McGovern, 1994). The following
empirical studies investigate the effects diversity courses have on student learning
outcomes (complex thinking) and democratic learning outcomes (social and cultural
awareness, citizenship engagement, and prejudice reduction). Additionally, empirical
literature is presented below on student diversity experiences with extracurricular
activities (study aboard program, student government, community service and
registered to vote).
Complex Thinking
Research on diversity course enrollment and its effects on knowledge about race
and ethnicity is limited. The following studies examine the curricular approach to
include diverse content and perspectives in higher education that have a positive
relationship to increased complex thinking. Milem and Hakuta (2002) evaluated the
effects of college courses that infused a diversity perspective in their quantitative and
qualitative study. Their findings showed diversity courses help students develop
40
increased critical thinking skills and decreased their levels of ethnocentrism. In line
with this study, MacPhee, Kreutzer, and Fritz (1994) also evaluated efforts of infusing
multicultural content into courses. This study additionally confirms that repeated
exposure to diverse ideas and information yields a positive increase in student openness
to diversity and critical thinking skills. Gurin’s (1999) study further provided additional
information on the relationship between the educational experiences of students
enrolled in ethnic studies courses and increased measures of student critical thinking.
Gurin’s (1999) study reported students that had greater exposure to diversity are more
likely to show higher levels of intellectual engagement, motivation, and growth in
active thinking processes. Additionally, Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin’s (2002) study
also suggests integrating diversity into the course content along with diverse peer
interaction positively increases complex thinking. All four studies did not examine the
effects of the diversity courses requirement but, rather, the educational experiences of
students enrolled in a course that integrated diversity perspectives.
Diversity courses were created to make education more diverse and inclusive, to
foster critical thinking, and to guide engagement with differences (Chang, 2002).
Chang (2002) conducted a study that analyzed student’s comfort level with diverse peer
interactions. His findings reported that students will persist through interaction with
students different than themselves if they have taken a diversity course. Humphreys
(1998) found that diversity courses challenged students to think in complex ways and to
evade cultural stereotyping by presenting diverse ideas and information. Hurtado
(2007) conducted a study that involved 10 public universities which showed that
students’ enrollment in diversity courses leads to a positive increase in complex
41
thinking. Similar research on the impact of diversity courses found that diversity
courses increased student complexity of thought and engagement in social problems
(Gurin, 1999). Furthermore, diversity courses give students skills and competencies in
“listening, empathy, fairness, dialogue, intercultural communication, conflict resolution,
and collective problem solving” (Humphrey, 1998, p.2). These are needed skills to live
in a diverse democracy.
Social and Cultural Awareness
Broad research that examines how curricular diversity initiatives in
undergraduate education affect students’ social awareness found a positive increase in
the democratic outcomes of “interest in poverty issues, concern for public good and
belief in social equality” (Hurtado, 2007, p. 192). Similar studies conducted on women
studies courses also showed positive effects on sociopolitical views, feelings about
various groups and new ways of thinking about human differences (Henderson-King &
Stewart, 1999; Musil, 1992). Additionally, Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin’s (2002)
study suggest that diversity courses and diverse peer interaction positively increase
student engagement in social problems. The sample examined in Gurin et al.’s (2002)
study was composed of undergraduate seniors who had taken a diversity course to meet
the Race and Ethnicity requirements. This study concluded curricular initiatives
facilitated by diverse students and a pedagogy facilitating learning is successful in a
diverse environment.
Research that examines how diversity courses affect students’ cultural
awareness report consistent positive effects on student openness to cultural awareness,
interest in racial understanding, and greater appreciation of multiple cultures (Astin,
42
1993; Hurtado, 1996; Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991; Villalpando,
1994). Pascarella et al. (1996) provide evidence that “during college, students tend to
change in the direction of greater openness and tolerance (p. 175). In line with this
finding, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reported positive increases in political attitudes
towards racial equality and tolerance and an increase in awareness and understanding of
racial/ethnic and cultural differences. An extension of the Pascarella and Tereszini
(2005) study, Astin (1993) study found that the number of undergraduate diversity
courses had a positive impact in increasing individual social and cultural awareness,
their obligation to promote racial understanding, and maintaining a clean environment.
Citizenship Engagement
The University of Michigan study conducted by Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin
(2002) suggest that White, African American, Asian American and Latino students who
had more curricular and co-curricular exposure to diversity were engaged in various
citizenship activities. These students showed greater commitment to “influencing the
political structure,” “influencing social values,” helping others in difficulty,” “being
involved in programs to clean up environments,” and “participating in community
action programs.” Chang and colleagues’ college impact research (2002) further
documented the link between diversity courses and peer interactions with cultural
competence. One specific study conducted by Chang, Astin, and Kim (2004) found that
students who had frequent diverse peer interactions reported growth in their ability to
get along with people of different cultures and were more likely to volunteer, vote and
participate in community action programs. In line with those studies, Hurtado’s (2007)
quantitative study on diversity courses and peer interaction reported increased belief
43
that making a civic contribution is important. Hurtado’s (2007) study showed a positive
association between enrollment in diversity courses and voting behaviors. Freshmen
and sophomores enrolled in diversity courses were more likely to vote in federal and
state elections. This study also reported a positive relationship between enrollment in
diversity courses and other civic engagement outcomes that include interest in issues
regarding poverty, concern for public good, belief in social equality and engaging in the
civic mission. Hurtado (2007) reported that diversity courses provided a forum for
students to exchange in civic dialogue on social issues to positively engage students to
be good citizens. Hurtado’s (2007) study reinforces the importance of campus diversity
initiatives as the central mission for teaching and learning of students in a complex and
diverse world.
Prejudice Reduction
Diversity courses affect students’ prejudice regarding African Americans. For
example, Chang’s (2002) quantitative study examined diversity courses to understand
whether they actually improve racial attitudes of undergraduate students who just
started diversity courses and of those who were about to complete them. Chang’s
(2002) study indicates that students who have completed a diversity course made
significantly more favorable inferences of African Americans and had lower levels of
prejudice compared to those students began diversity courses. Similarly, Hogan and
Mallott (2005) conducted a quantitative comparison study using the Modern Racism
Scale (MRS) to measure the levels of racism towards African Americans for students
who completed, were in progress of, or had not taken a diversity course. Hogan and
Mallot (2005) described three core characteristics of racism: denial, resentment, and
44
antagonism. This study is in line with Chang’s (2002) results that also showed
significant prejudice reduction towards African Americans after completing a diversity
course. Hogan and Mallot’s (2005) study showed significant reduction in denial
because it is primarily caused by ignorance. However, only a temporary reduction
occurred in the resentment and antagonism components of the Modern Racism Scale.
Additionally, Chang’s (1999) study of the impact of undergraduate diversity course
requirements found different results. Chang’s (1999) study reported that students who
completed one diversity course and enrolled in additional diversity courses started with
lower levels of prejudice than those students who were completing their first diversity
course. Chang’s (1999) study suggests that students who enrolled in additional
diversity courses had sustained racial attitudes and views instead of improved racial
attitudes and views. Thus, diversity courses significantly increase students’ awareness
on the existing racism in today’s society and are effective platforms in advancing
intergroup tolerance.
A longitudinal study by Lopez (2004) examined intergroup attitudes of racial
inequalities in the United States. Social economic status and political ideology were
used as the background characteristics of the participants to examine intergroup
attitudes. African American students showed a greater awareness of U.S. racial
inequality and were the most supportive of educational equality out of the three groups
studied. Asian American students followed in racial inequality awareness and
educational equality. European American students showed the lowest awareness and
support. Attitudes at the beginning of the academic year were strong indicators of the
attitudes for the end of freshman year. African American students who took a diversity
45
course showed a strong association supporting educational equality. European
American students with the highest SES had the highest awareness of inequality at the
start of college and the most politically conservative students had the lowest racial
inequality awareness and support for educational policies. European American students
enrolled in diversity courses and who had learned about race/ethnicity in the curriculum
showed greater awareness of inequality than those who were not enrolled in these
courses, and showed significant support of policies aimed at educational equality.
Summary of the Effects of Diversity Course
Diversity course(s) are intended to expose students to multiple perspectives on
social issues and encourage active thinking (Adams & Zhou-McGovern; 1994). The
effect of enrolling in diversity courses on student learning outcomes is positively
associated with complex thinking (Astin, 1993; Gurin et al., 2002). The effects of
enrolling in diversity courses are the democratic learning outcomes positively
associated with increased social and cultural awareness, citizenship engagement and
prejudice reduction (Astin, 1993, Chang, 2002; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002;
Hogan & Mallott, 2005; Hurtado, 1996, Hurtado 2007, Lopez, 2004). Completing a
diversity course is statistically positively correlated with increasing awareness of racism
and inequality (Chang, 2002; Lopez, 2004). Additionally, taking more than one
diversity course is positively associated with sustaining racial attitudes and assumptions
of other diverse groups (Chang, 2002).
Empirical Studies on Student Diversity Experiences
The theory of diversity and learning (Gurin., et al, 2002) states that diversity
initiatives in terms of extracurricular activities offer students the potential to navigate,
46
engage, communicate, work and learn alongside diverse peers (Nelson Laird, Engberg,
& Hurtado, 2002). College campuses provide ample activities, events, programs, and
socials where students can interact with diverse peers. Engaging in extracurricular
activities has a positive effect on developing social and job skills undergraduate
students need to function in a diverse society (Orfield, 2001). The following empirical
studies investigate the effects of extracurricular activities, specifically attending a
racial/cultural awareness workshop, studying abroad, participating in student
government, community service involvement, and being a registered voter on student
democratic learning outcomes.
Extracurricular Activities
Astin’s (1993) findings in a study examining the value of diversity opportunities
show these are beneficial to the cognitive and effective development of undergraduate
students. The effects of participating in extracurricular activities and interacting with
diverse peers are increased cultural awareness, commitment to environment, political
liberalism, and meaningful life philosophy. Similarly, Hurtado (2007) reported
extracurricular activities promote students’ ability to work with diverse people and
viewpoints, to build self-efficacy for change, and to move from self-interest to adopting
broader notions of public good democratic outcomes. Additionally, Pascarella’s et al.’s
(1996) quantitative study suggests students who reside in residence halls, study the
most, and are more engaged with their peers tend to have the highest openness to
diversity/challenge at the end of their first year in college. Pascarella et al.’s study also
found a negative effect to openness to diversity/challenge for white students who
belonged to fraternities and sororities and a small positive effect for non-white students.
47
Furthermore, high levels of participation in clubs and organizations provide a positive
predictor for openness to diversity in women but a negative predictor to openness to
diversity in men.
Racial or Cultural Awareness Workshop
A specific extracurricular activity is attending racial or cultural awareness
workshops. Milem’s (1992, 1994) study found that students who attended racial
awareness workshops reported increased levels of racial and cultural awareness, a
stronger commitment to supporting racial understanding and increased liberal racial
attitudes. In line with those results, a study conducted by Pascarella, Whitt, Nora,
Edicon, Hagedorn, and Terenzini (1996) suggested a positive relationship between
attending racial/cultural awareness workshops and students’ increased openness to
racial, cultural, and value diversity. Their research provides evidence that racial and
cultural workshops positively influence students’ views on the value of campus
diversity. Furthermore, a related finding reported that encouraging student participation
in these workshops is likely to improve the campus diversity climate. Additionally,
Pascarella et al. (1996) and Astin’s (1993) studies both reported evidence of increased
measurable gains in students’ critical thinking for those students who participated in
racial and cultural awareness workshops. Astin (1993) further reported a positive
relationship between attending those workshops and social activism, participation in
campus protest, increased public speaking, and increased personal empowerment to
effect social change. Participation in campus protest has a positive influence with
commitment to racial understanding, political liberalism, cultural awareness, and
developing deep life philosophy. Astin’s (1993) study suggests participation in a
48
racial/cultural awareness workshop is negatively associated with the materialistic value.
There was also a negative effect on two beliefs: individuals have limited effect in
changing society and discrimination based on race is not a current social problem.
Study Abroad Program
Study abroad programs have shown to be an effective way for students to learn
about different cultures and ways of life across societies. For example, Kitsantas’
(2004) empirical research showed that participation in a study aboard program as an
undergraduate positively impacts students’ cross-cultural skills and global
understanding. Black and Duhon’s (2006) quasi-experimental study examined the
effects of study abroad programs that confirmed significantly higher levels of tolerance,
self-confidence, and openness among those students who participated in a study abroad
program than among those who did not. Other empirical studies have confirmed the
important benefits of studying abroad to enhance the following student learning
outcomes: academic development, cultural connection, appreciation of cultural
differences and openness to a new world (Carlson, Burn, Ussem, &Yachimowicz, 1990;
Kaufman, Martin, Weaver & Weaver, 1992; Talbert & Stuart,1999). Paige, Stallman,
and Josíc (2008), elucidated that students that participated in studying abroad become
globally engaged and or global citizens.
Student Government and Community Service
Campus involvement as a leader or member of student government has been
linked to positive attitudes towards community service and future community volunteer
work. Community service is a popular diversity related experience. Research has
shown that undergraduate students who participate in community service promote
49
altruistic values and strong commitment to partake in community action programs. The
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA studied the short-term and long-
term effects of participating in service learning. For students who participated in
community service short-term, outcomes were “increased critical thinking skills,
interest in graduate school, stronger leadership skills, and had a commitment to
promoting racial understanding” (Astin, 1996, P. 16). The post-graduate benefits of
participating in college community service programs were identified as “commitment to
participating in community action programs, assisting others in difficulty, joining
environmental clean-up programs, and advocating racial understanding” (Astin, 1996,
p.17).
Register to Vote
Registering students to vote on a college or university has become part of a
project designed to specifically increase students’ political knowledge and engagement.
Registering college students as voters on campus emphasizes student civic engagement.
College can be the best predictor of civic participation in terms of voting because it may
foster civic skills and political knowledge (Hurtado, 2007). Scholars have commonly
lamented the alarmingly low youth voting rates of American citizens (as cited in Shah,
2008). Many scholars have further argued that an important part of a strong democratic
system is electoral engagement and that the youth disengagement is harming the
American nation (Lijphart, 2009; Arenct, 1958; Barber, 1984; Pateman, 1970). In the
2008 presidential elections, college and university students who registered to vote at
campus voter registration drives voted at a higher rate than similar young people
nationwide (Ulbig & Waggener, 2011). Additionally, peer to peer interaction has been
50
linked to increased registration of students to vote and to an increase in the likelihood of
them voting (Bennion, 2005). Hurtado’s (2007) study reported that taking a diversity
course was positively associated with students’ likelihood of voting in state and federal
elections. Additionally, her study showed participation with extracurricular activities
that involve diversity was positively associated with voting in student elections and with
increased leadership skills.
Summary of Effects of Student Diversity Experiences
Scholars argue that diversity exposure and diversity experiences are associated
with different benefits, such as learning and democratic outcomes (Astin, 1993; Gurin
et. al., 2002; Hurtado, 2007; Milem, 1992, 1994; Pascarella et. al., 1996). Diverse
student experiencesgained through participation in extracurricular activities such as
attending cultural awareness workshop, studying abroad, student government,
community service, and registering to vote have positively strong associations with
openness to diversity, enhancing racial understanding, social activism, cultural
awareness, global understanding and engagement (Astin, 1996; Black & Duhon, 2006;
Carlson, Burn, Ussem, &Yachimowicz, 1990; Hurtado, 2007; Kaufman, Martin,
Weaver & Weaver, 1992; Kitsantas, 2004; Milem, 1992, 1994; Pasquerella et al, 1996;
Talbert & Stuart,1999). Identifying the benefits of diversity experiences through
democratic outcomes help categorize them into important democratic values.
Democratic Values
As previously stated, the benefits of educating students in diverse classrooms and
in informal settings on campus are higher learning and democratic outcomes. The
Theory of Participatory Democracy (Pateman, 1970) is used here as the main
51
conceptual lens to examine and organize the empirical literature to identify the
relationship between diversity initiatives and democratic outcomes to define five
democratic values. Carole Pateman’s (1970) theory of participatory democracy
causally links the relationships between institutions, individuals and democratic
practices to diversity course and extracurricular engagement that can be further
translated into other important forms of community and political participation.
This section of chapter two focuses on democracy, the role higher education plays
in citizenship formation, and on defining democratic values within a diverse democracy.
Additionally, the concept of political socialization is discussed to support Pateman’s
theory of participatory democracy.
Theory of Participatory Democracy
Carole Pateman’s (1970) Theory of Participatory Democracy is the intellectual
framework guiding this exploration of democratic values. Pateman’s (1970) theory
suggests that an individual’s beliefs, perceptions and behaviors are learned or
conditioned by the institutional milieu in which he/she lives, learns, or works in.
Pateman further expands by stating that individuals’ beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors
are conditioned by institutional environments, such as college and universities, which
provide social and cultural milieus in which learning occurs for many individuals.
Hurtado, Dey, and Gurin (2003) examined different beliefs regarding the interaction
between behavior and environment. They first examined how behavior indicates the
environment a person is immersed in. Second, they observed students’ exposure to the
following that helped inform student’s behavior to the physical environment: exposure
to the structural diversity of college campus and the organizational culture. As Pateman
52
(1970) suggests, the beliefs, perceptions and behaviors of an individual are conditioned
by the his/her institutional environment.
Pateman’s (1970) theory also denotes an informal association connecting
institutions, individuals, and democratic practice. This theory suggests that student
civic disengagement is not just attributable to student characteristics but also to
structural effects of institutional values influencing behavioral traits. Taking this theory
into consideration, democratic values can be simply explained as products of
institutional values. If an institution is based in democratic principles, the expectation is
that students be socialized with democratic skills and practices. Therefore, the
behaviors of students who are disengaged civically can be attributed to the structural
effects of that specific university. Thus, Pateman’s (1970) theory proposes that the
causal relationship linking institution, individual and democratic practices are practical
steps to promote engaged citizenship. If a university does not promote democratic
principles institutional values, then that institution cannot expect to have positive results
in socializing students with democratic practices. Therefore, it is important categorize
the existing democratic outcomes that result from the benefits of diversity and develop
democratic values. Such democratic values can be used to close the gaps of structural
effects specific to the institution in terms of civically disengaged students due a lack of
democratic practices.
Political socialization and Higher Education
Central values of political cultures are transmitted from one generation to the
next through a process called political socialization, which was a popular topic in the
1950’s. Hyman (1959) defines political socialization as a “learning of social patterns
53
corresponding to social patterns as mediated through various agencies of society” (p.
25). Dawson and Prewitt (1969) summarize political socialization as a rough
conceptualization in the pattern influencing members of a political community into a
political culture. Literature on political socialization indicates that educational
institutions play a central role in formative experiences of children (Jacoby, 2009).
Political socialization is also viewed as a lifelong process by which individuals form
and acquire their ideas about politics and political values from agents of socialization in
terms of family, school, peers, and mass media (Jennings & Niemi, 1968; Hyman, 1959;
& Langton, 1967).
Political socialization can be viewed as the starting point or rather the driving
factor for political participation and political engagement. Forms of political
socialization are voting, campaign activity, political attitude, knowledge and
participation in civic engagement work (Archen, 2002). Past studies have shown
factors that contribute to political engagement of white Americans are socioeconomic
status, education, income, and occupation as best predicators of whether or not an
individual will vote (Verba & Nie, 1972; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995).
Predicting the political behavior of African American, Latino, and Asian was more
different when socioeconomic status was used as a factor (Tate, 1993; Dawson, 1994).
Yet, low socioeconomic groups were less likely to be civic participates and also less
likely to engage in extracurricular activities (Sigel & Hoskin, 1981).
Political socialization is now often called civic engagement and its resurgence in
research was driven as a response to decreased levels of political engagement of
American youth. Civic engagement refers to student’s motivation to participate in
54
activities with a social or political impact such as community service, political
participation, or community organizing (Zuniga, Williams, & Berger, 2005). There are
growing numbers of studies that have shown college influences that support and enable
the development of engaged citizens but there are few empirical studies that identify
which student experiences in colleges have these effects (Gurin, 1999: Hurtado et al,
2002).
Democracy and Higher Education
Emphasis on the role of the individual in government is what makes American
democracy different from other forms of government concurrent with the unique
mixture of citizenship and political action (Skocpol & Fiornia, 1999). Democracy has
been historically defined as a form of government giving power to the people.
Tocqueville’s (1840) Democracy in America identified “equality of conditions” as the
common center of a democratic society principled with “sovereignty of the people” that
may shape laws and influence government. Daly, Trugh, and Constanza (2000) define
a strong democracy as “Politics understood as the creation of a vision that can respond
to and change with the changing world” (p.11). The American political culture can be
described through common social norms defining citizenship in terms of attitudes
toward the individual in a political system in the following expectation statement for
American citizens:
The democratic citizen is expected to be active in politics and to be
involved. Furthermore, he is supposed to be rational in his approach to
politics, guided by reason, and not by emotion. He is supposed to be well
informed and to make decisions (Almond & Verba, 1963).
55
According to Thomas Jefferson, democracy is forecasted upon an educated
citizenry that is socially homogeneous with a common identity (Dey, Gurin, & Hurtado,
2004). Thomas Jefferson was the critical figure that modernized the role of higher
education as the key to civic preparation, strongly believing that citizens were made.
Democratic education uses education as the instrument to produce the democratic
individual. Richard Morrill (1982) states that education for democratic citizenship
involves human capacities relating to judgment, to choice, and above all, to action.
According to Morrill (1982), “to be literate as a citizen requires more than knowledge
and information; it includes the exercise of personal responsibilities, active
participation, and personal commitment to a set of values” (p. 365). The traditional
role of higher education as a place to prepare students for democracy did not
incorporate social complexity and diversity into account. Diversity in college
environments prepares students to participate in both a pluralistic environment and the
democratic process that help form democratic outcomes, but what are those set of
democratic values?
The Theory of Diversity and Learning (Hurtado, 2007) categorized diversity
into three types (structural diversity, information interactional diversity, and diversity
initiatives) and provided a link between diversity and democratic outcomes. As
previously mentioned, democratic outcomes are influenced by the way higher education
prepares students for active participation in society (Gurin, 1999). Citizen engagement,
racial and cultural engagement, and compatibilities of differences were three types of
student democratic outcomes suggested by Gurin (1999) along with other democratic
outcomes that were discussed. Milem (1998) extended that the educational benefit of
56
society defines diversity as the achievement of democratic ideals of fairness, equity, and
equality by matriculated students. But what is meant by the democratic ideals of
fairness, equity and equality in a democracy? The following quote may provide an
answer to the question:
a decision process is fair to the extent to which all those concerned are
well informed, and have their interests and perspectives expressed with
equal force and effectiveness. It is fair to the extent that what counts as a
good argument does not depend on the social identity of the person
making it. And it is fair to the extent that it aims at consensus where
possible, and where consensus is not possible it treats everybody equally
(Barry, 1995, p 110).
This section of chapter two organizes and expands on aforementioned
democratic outcomes that were influenced by the three types of diversity to help
identify and define democratic values. Defining democratic values is an important step
to help institutions of higher education incorporate these into their mission statement
that may help contribute and prepare undergraduate students to live in a diverse
democracy.
Empathy Democratic Value
Campus diversity and peer interaction contribute to students’ experiences of
discontinuity needed to trigger the democratic outcomes of active thinking about
differing worldviews, increased perspective-taking skills, greater awareness of
inequality, and providing a wide range of opinions, thoughts, and ideas. (Chang, 2003;
Hurtado et. al., 2003; Hurtado, 2006). Students with interracial friendships have more
positive engagements in discussing diversity and differences (Antonio, 2001a).
Students who participated in study abroad programs were more likely to gain the
democratic outcomes of cross-cultural skills and global understanding, cultural
57
connection, appreciation of cultural differences and openness to a new world. Students
enrolled in diversity courses had democratic outcomes that increased interest in racial
understanding, lower levels of prejudice, increased skills in listening and empathy
(Humphrey, 1998). Hence, Gurin’s (1999) democratic category associated with these
democratic outcomes are labeled as compatibility of differences, which is defined by
the student’s understanding that common values exists across racial and ethnic groups.
Furthermore, these democratic outcomes incorporate the traits of empathy. According
to Barr and Higgins-D’Lessando (2007), empathy can be defined as:
an affective response that stems from the apprehension or
comprehension of another's emotional state or condition, feeling similar
to what the other person is feeling or would be expected to feel
(Eisenberg & Fabes, 1999). Empathy is an integral means of knowing
and relating to others (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989) and adds to the
quality of life and the richness of social interactions (Hoffman, 2000).
Empathy seems to play a key role in the development of social
understanding and positive social behaviors (Schultz, Selman, &
LaRusso, 2003) and serves as the foundation for relationships and also
provides a basis for coping with stress and resolving conflict (Kremer &
Dietzen, 1991) (Barr & Higgins-D’Lessandro, 2007, p.231).
Therefore, the aforementioned democratic category and outcomes outline define a
person with the democratic value of empathy.
Liberal Democratic Value
Campus diversity positively contributes to increasing student exposure to a
broader perspective of thoughts and ideas, openness to diversity and challenge (Chang,
1999; Chang, 2003; Chang, 2002a; Pascarella et.al., 1996; Seltzer, & Kim, 2001).
There is a positive relationship between college environments with both faculty and
student diversity and students’ commitment to cultural awareness that increases student
liberalism (Astin, 1993). Students who participate frequently in racial and ethnic issues
58
and dialogue with those from another race or ethnicity report increased levels of racial
and cultural awareness (Gurin, et. al., 2002, Milem, 1992, 1994). Diversity courses
provide a platform to engage and dialogue with those who are racially and ethnically
different (Chang, 2002) and students who participated in racial or cultural awareness
workshops report increased liberal racial attitudes. Additionally, there is a positive
relationship between students who attend racial/ethnic workshops and political
liberalism. Gurin’s (1999) democratic category associated with these democratic
outcomes are labeled as racial and cultural engagement, characterized by the student’s
level of cultural awareness, appreciation, and commitment to help promote racial
understanding activities. These democratic outcomes are in line with the characteristics
of a person who is liberal. Merriam-Weber defines liberal as “broad-minded;
especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.” Therefore,
the democratic category of racial and cultural engagement, along with the previously
outlined democratic outcomes, describes a person with the democratic outcome of
liberal.
Social Democratic Value
Frequent interaction with diverse peers fosters the democratic outcomes of civic
engagement, ability to get along with people of different cultures, voting, and
volunteerism (Orfield, 2001; Gurin, et. al., 2002; Chang, Astin, and Kim, 2004).
Student exposure to differences in cultural opinions influences social issues, social
awareness among racial groups, and engagement in social problems (Astin, 1993;
Chang, 2003; Chang, 2002a; Seltzer & Kim, 2001; Gurin, et. al., 2002). Diverse peer
interaction contributes to active thinking in pluralistic and complex ways that influence
59
students’ commitment to civic action and public good (Gurin, 1999). Campus diversity
in both faculty and students had a positive impact on students’ interest and commitment
to promote racial understanding that increases student’s citizenship (Astin, 1993;
Hurtado, 2006). Additionally, diverse peer interaction increases students’ social action
engagement to end social injustices (Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005). Social action
engagement mirrors the importance students allocate to speaking against social
injustices (Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005).
Enrolling in a diversity course increases students’ commitment to engagement in
social issues like influencing political structure, influencing social values, helping
others in difficulty, being concerned with poverty issues, maintaining a clean
environment, participating in community action programs and voting (Adams & Zhou-
McGovern, 1994; Gurin, et. al., 2002; Bennion, 2005). Students who participated in
community service had a stronger commitment to participating in community action
programs and promoting racial understanding (Astin, 1996). Students who studied
abroad reported higher global engagement and being a more committed global citizen
(Paige, Stallman, & Josic, 2008). Gurin (1999) suggests the democratic category
associated with these democratic outcomes to citizen engagement which is the student’s
involvement and desire to influence political structure and society as well as participate
in community services. Citizen engagement motivates students to actively participate in
activities with political impact. These preceding democratic outcomes reflect a person
with social qualities. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, social is defined “of or
relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare
of human beings as members of society.” Hence, the democratic category of citizenship
60
engagement and the previous democratic outcomes describe a person with social
democratic values.
Leadership Democratic Value
Interacting with diverse peers has a statistically positive impact on student’s
intellectual self-concept, social self-concept, social self-confidence (Chang, 2001).
Students’ who attended a racial or cultural workshop showed an increase in public
speaking as well as an increase in personal empowerment (Astin, 1993). Students’ that
participated in study aboard program reported an increase in their self-confidence
(Black & Duhon, 2006). Students’ that participated in community service showed
stronger leadership skills (Astin, 1996) and those students that vote had increased
leadership skills (Hurtado, 2007). These democratic outcomes mirror a person with
leadership. Astin and Astin (2002) believe leadership should:
Be to enhance equity, social justice, and the quality of life; to expand access and
opportunity; to encourage respect for differences and diversity, to strengthen
democracy, civic life, and civic responsibility; and to promote cultural
enrichment, creative expression, intellectual honesty, the advancement of
knowledge, and personal freedom coupled with social responsibility (p. 11)
Thus, these democratic outcomes are characteristics of a person that exhibit the
leadership democratic value.
Spiritual Democratic Values
Diverse peer interaction can increase exposure with students from different
religious and spiritual beliefs. Students who study abroad show increased cultural
connection (Talbert & Stuart, 1999). Studying abroad also enhances students’
spirituality through exposure to diverse ideas, cultures, and people (Astin, Astin, &
Lindholm, 2011). Students who attend a racial and cultural awareness workshop
61
develop a deep life philosophy (Astin, 1993). Students who participated in community
service promoted higher altruistic values and promoted the development of spiritual
qualities (Astin, 1993; Astin, et. al., 2011). Students who become more tolerant, caring,
and connected to others are more likely to engage in a spiritual quest (Astin, et. al.,
2011). Students who are engaged in a spiritual quest are more self-understanding,
empathetic, caring and socially responsible (Astin, et. al., 2011). These democratic
outcomes are in line with Astin, Astin, and Lindholm’s (2011) definition of spirituality:
The values that we hold dear, our sense of who we are and where we come from,
our beliefs about why we are here – the meaning and purpose that we see in our
work and our life- and our sense of connectedness to one another and to the
world around us (p. 4).
These democratic outcomes outline the characteristics of the spiritual democratic value.
Summary
Student civil disengagement can be attributed to a lack of democratic ideals in
the university mission statement. Institutions of higher education that do not
incorporate democratic ideals into their mission statement cannot expect students’
democratic outcomes to be significant. Incorporating diversity into higher education is
the link to increasing student democratic outcomes. The Theory of Diversity and
Leaning (Gurin et. al., 2002) was the frame used to organize the literature review to
present the link between diversity and democratic outcomes using three types of
diversity: structural diversity, frequent interaction with diverse peers, and diversity
initiatives (diversity courses and student diversity experiences). Furthermore, Carole
Pateman’s (1970) theory of participatory democracy was used to causally link the
relationships between institutions, individuals and democratic practices to diversity
62
course and extracurricular engagement that further translated into political socialization
to drive political participation and political engagement. Democratic outcomes were
then used to operationalize five important democratic values (empathy value, social
value, liberal value, leadership value, and spiritual value) that can help prepare students
to live in a diverse global democracy.

63
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which diversity courses
and student diversity experiences correlate with the democratic values of undergraduate
students at a private, research I institution. This chapter discusses the methodology for
conducting the research and answering the research questions. First, a description of
the research site, sample and population are discussed. Second, instrumentation and the
theoretical framework are presented. The chapter concludes with a presentation of the
methods for data collection and analysis.
The methodology used for this single institution investigation is a non-
experimental longitudinal research design utilizing student transcripts and self-reported
survey data detailing pre-college characteristics as well as student experiences while
attending Western University (WU). The purpose of conducting this study was to
answer the following two research questions and sub-questions that may contribute to a
new knowledge base for the Teagle Foundation grant investigating undergraduate GE
diversity requirement(s):
1. To what extent does the diversity course experience correlate with the
undergraduate students’ democratic values?
1a). To what extent is the number of diversity courses taken
correlated with democratic values?
1b). To what extent is the diversity course typology level correlated
with democratic values?
1c). To what extent does the year a student first took a diversity
course correlate with democratic values?
2. To what extent does the student experience variable correlate with
democratic values?
64
2a). To what extent does participating in student government correlate
with democratic values?
2b). To what extent does attending a racial/cultural workshop
correlate with democratic values?
2c ). To what extent is studying abroad correlated with democratic
values?
2d). To what extent is community service correlated with democratic
values?
2e). To what extent is registering to vote correlated with democratic
values?

In this chapter, a non-experimental longitudinal research design is used to
answer the aforementioned research questions and sub-questions in this quantitative
study. The problem identified in this study governs and informs a quantitative approach
to research and identify factors and or variables that might influence the outcomes of
the study and students’ democratic values (Creswell, 2003). The knowledge claims
brought to this study are based on the philosophical assumptions and postpositive
claims from the literature review that examines existing theories by specifically
narrowing the collection of data to support or refute the hypothesis through surveys
(Creswell, 2003). Additionally, the significant findings from past quantitative studies
that examine the influences of diversity courses (Chang, 2002; Gurin et al, 2002; Gurin,
1999) are implemented as strategies to gather data that measure associations with
democratic values.
To further enhance the empirical literature on democratic values, an analysis of
democratic value pre-test variables and environmental variables use three data points:
(1) CIRP survey given to students prior to matriculating into Western University: (2)
Senior survey given to students in their fourth year; and (3) student transcript data to
measure the influence of environmental factors (diversity courses and student diversity
65
experiences) to report significant findings for democratic post-test outcomes. The
outcome measures can help WU learn the extent to which diversity courses and
diversity experiences are correlated with democratic value development. A quantitative
approach was chosen to help identify connections between variables that are significant
for further analysis. If the research goal is to understand how and why diversity courses
and diversity experiences affect democratic values, then a qualitative approach is
appropriate.
According to McEwan and McEwan (2003), a quantitative research approach is
a statistical method frequently used to identify what factors influence an outcome and
which relationships are significant between variables. Quantitative research is also used
to control for subjectivity (Patton, 2002). Additionally, using a quantitative approach in
examining democratic value outcomes is consistent with prior studies (Astin, 1993;
Pascarella et al., 1996; Chang, 1999; Hurtado, 1999, 2006, 2007; Chang, 2002; Gurin,
Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin, 2002; Lopez, 2004; Hurtado, 2007). Therefore, the
researcher applied quantitative research methods to investigate to what extent student
diversity courses and diversity experiences correlate with democratic values.
Sample and Population
This section presents information about the context and background of the
selected research site and describes the sample and population used in this research.
Site Selection
This study is part of the Teagle Foundation Research Grant that selected
Western University (WU) as the research site because of its metropolitan location and
high diversity in ethnic/racial cultures within a population of 9,862,049 (U.S. Census
66
Bureau, 2008). The diverse demographical landscape of this community is represented
in the student population. Western University is an ideal research site for this study
because its institutional mission statement is committed to diversity incentives, it
currently offers over 88 different diversity courses, it has structural student diversity,
and because its urban location makes this university relevant to examine diversity
course requirements and student experiences with diversity (see appendix G). Hence,
this institution is a microcosm of its community demographics and, therefore, other
similar urban institutions may use WU as a model to incorporate similar diversity
courses and extracurricular diversity initiatives.
Western University, located on the west coast, is one of the top private research
I universities in the United States. This large institution attracts students from around
the world and matriculates over 33,500 students, of whom 16,500 are undergraduates
(Cole & Sundt, 2007). Western University is an excellent site for this study due to the
fact that its student population is made up of 63 % American minorities, and both
genders are equally represented with 50 % men and 50 % women. Hence, the hallmark
of Western University’s community lies in its structural diversity. WU matriculates
students from all 50 states, seven territories, and 138 countries (Western University,
2005). Thirty-six percent of undergraduate students are minorities and 17.5 % are
international students (Western Universities, 2005). The undergraduate population for
fall 2008 was 47% White/Caucasian; 23% Asian/Pacific Islander; 12% Hispanic; and
5% Black/African American (About WU, 2008). The structural diversity at WU
contributes to the research purpose of this study. Student diversity experiences can be
67
examined to analyze the effects of diversity course instruction using diverse content and
diverse peer interaction on democratic value development.
All undergraduate students must complete Western University’s Core
requirements that include general education, writing and diversity course(s) (Western
University, 2007). Sixty-three percent of four-year colleges in the United States offer
and require undergraduate students to pass at least one diversity course from a list
designated “m” for multiculturalism in fulfillment of the liberal arts curriculum
(Humphreys, 2000). The liberal arts curriculum has incorporated the diversity
requirement since the late 1980’s to help contribute to reducing prejudices and increase
tolerance of undergraduate students (Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terezini, & Nora, 2001).
WU diversity requirement has been in place since 1993 and since then, numerous
revisions have occurred until present. The variety and different levels of diversity
courses offered at WU, along with the curriculum, are comparatively similar to those of
many national institutions that offer diversity courses. Therefore, WU is a strong
research site for this study, as it has a diversity course curricular model representative of
other institutions.
The central mission of Western University is “the development of human beings
and society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and
spirit” (retrieved on January 15, 2010 from www.wu.edu). The university’s goal for
diversity courses is to “prepare students through the study of human differences for
responsible citizenship in an increasing pluralistic and diverse society” (Western
University Catalogue, 2009). The diversity courses at WU are designed to:
68
provide undergraduate students with the background knowledge and analytical
skills to enable them to understand and respect differences between groups of
people and to understand the potential resources and/or conflicts arising from
human differences on the contemporary American and international scene
(Western University Catalogue, 2009).
Western University’s central mission and its goals for diversity courses both
espouse the importance of exposure to diversity for undergraduate students to enhance
their analytical frameworks to further comprehend and discuss social, political, cultural,
ethical, and public analyses (Western University Catalogue, 2009). For this study, the
influences of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on democratic values
will be juxtaposed with the diversity requirement goals to understand if the
aforementioned institutional goals are achieved.
Participant Selection
The population for this study is Western University undergraduate students who
matriculated in 2004 and finished in 2008. Two self-reported surveys are administered
between Summer 2004 and Spring 2008. The convenience samples from this
population consists of those who completed two surveys, the 2004 CIRP and the 2008
Western University Senior Survey. The entering 2004 undergraduate class received a
pre-college 2004 CIRP survey and had a rate of response of N=2429. The exit survey
gathering data from the 2008 Western University Senior Survey had a response rate of
N=551. Therefore, effect size of the population of interest for this study sample has an
approximated N=551, with an overall attrition or mean difference of 1878 participants.
The procedure used to compute these numbers is determined by the response rate of
69
both surveys. This sample size is large enough to accurately detect a significant
correlation as small as .10 with power equal to .80 (Cohen, 1988, p. 89).
Instrumentation
Selecting the appropriate research site is a significant decision when conducting
a research study. Western University is a great research site within which to perform an
investigation that analyzes the effects of diversity courses and student diversity
experiences using multiple instrumentation types. The theoretical framework and
instrumentation used in this study is further examined in the following section.
This quantitative research study uses a non-experimental design to rigorously
collect data from a secondary source analysis utilizing several data points (2004 CIRP,
2008 Western University Senior Survey, 2004 Western University undergraduate
student transcript data). This section discusses the connection between the research
questions and sub-questions and the instrumentation. The theory of diversity and
learning (Gurin et al., 2002) is the conceptual framework that links theory to the
questions on both surveys that are then used to determine data points. Astin’s (1984)
Input-Environment-Output model is the research model used to organize and explain
the process of examining factors/variables from these data points into each aspect of
both surveys.
Organizing Framework
Astin’s (1984) Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) model is designed to “yield
assessment results that will simultaneously: (a) yield maximum information on the
possible causal connections between various educational practices and educational
outcomes, and (b) minimize the chances that our causal inferences will be wrong”
70
(Astin, 1993, 2002 p. xii). Astin’s (I-E-O) model is the organizational frame used to
investigate democratic value outcomes. The (I-E-O) model is used to organize and
capture the longitudinal nature of the process measuring social environmental
influences deduced from multiple inputs from the 2004 CIRP and 2008 Western
University Senior Surveys. The theory of diversity and learning is the theoretical
framework used to explain the (I-E-O) model’s interactivity between individual input
(i.e. student background characteristics) and college environmental factors or
independent variables (i.e. diversity courses, student diversity experiences) that have
been empirically shown through the literature to be linked with democratic value
outcomes. Furthermore, the data points are derived from the variables identified in the
aforementioned two surveys and transcripts.
Table 3.1 is an organizational illustration integrating The Theory of Diversity
and Learning (Gurin et. al., 2002) with the I-E-O model (Astin, 1984). The Theory of
Diversity and Learning (Gurin et al., 2002) expresses three types of diversity
experiences with the specific data points used in for this study. Each research question
is answered using this table as they relate to or associate with undergraduate students
social and academic experiences in diversity initiatives.
71
Table 3.1: I-E-O Model Integrating Conceptual Framework and Data Points

Data Points
This study, as previously presented, is part of a three year (2008-2011) Teagle
Foundation Grant (Assessing the Impact of Diversity Courses on Students’ Higher
Order Thinking Skills, Cole & Sundt, 2008) that uses existing secondary data sets of
undergraduate students initially collected for this project by Western University staff.
There are three main data sets used for this study, as shown in Table 3.1. The data sets
are examined and merged from two separate self-reported survey instruments, the 2004
Cooperative Institute Research Program (CIRP) and 2008 Western University Senior
Survey (WUSS). Hence, the first data point is the 2004 CIRP survey used as the pre-
test. The second is the 2008 Western University Senior Survey (WUSS) used as the
post-test, and the third is the transcript data for the students who participated in and
completed both aforementioned surveys. The CIRP is a reputable and popular national
survey of student outcomes used by many research institutions concurrently studying
over 500,000 students within 1300 universities (Astin, 1993). The Western University

STUDENT INPUTS
2004 CIRP (N=2429)
Student Characteristics
¥ Gender
¥ Race
¥ Parental Education
Democratic Values
¥ Empathy Values
¥ Leadership Values
¥ Liberal Values
¥ Social Values
¥ Spiritual Values
ENVIRONMENT
Diversity Courses
¥ Yr 1st Diversity Courses was taken
¥ Total of Diversity Courses Taken
¥ Typology of 1st DC taken
Diversity Experiences
¥ Racial awareness workshop
¥ Community service
¥ Student government
¥ Study Abroad
¥ Register to Vote
STUDE NT OUTPUTS
Senior Survey (N=553)
Democratic Values
¥ Empathy Values
¥ Leadership Values
¥ Liberal Values
¥ Social Values
¥ Spiritual Values
DATA POINTS

2004 CIRP ¥ 2008 Senior
Survey
¥ Transcript
Data
2008 Senior
Survey
72
Senior Survey is an institutional instrumentation that examines specific areas important
to Western University. The following section will discuss both survey instrumentation
in more detail and discuss which variables will be used for this study and why they are
relevant.
Cooperative Research Project
The survey is a widely cited source of data on college demographics and
attitudinal trends
---The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) located at the University of
California, Los Angeles (UCLA) runs the Cooperative Research Project (CIRP) (Astin,
1993). The CIRP was developed in 1966 as part of the American Council of Education
(ACE) to address student self-reported information in several areas: student
characteristics, parental income and education, ethnicity, other demographic items;
career plans, values, attitudes, beliefs, and self-concept (Astin, 1993). The CIRP is
known as a freshman survey tool annually administered to over 400,000 freshmen
during an orientation or registration. The results from these surveys are published
yearly in The American Freshman, providing “a comprehensive portrait of the changing
character of entering students and American society at large” (Retrieved from
http://www. heri.ucla.edu/cirpoverview.php). A total of forty-one items are listed on
the 2004 CIRP, with twenty-one optional items. For the purpose of this single
institution study, the analysis of the responses of the 2004 CIRP freshman survey is
examined.
73
The Western University Office for Student Outcomes Research (SOR)
administrated the 2004 CIRP (pre-test) online for all first year freshmen, and 2429
students participated. As illustrated in Table 3.2, the data points from the 2004 CIRP
(pre-test) are used for the input variables (pre-college characteristics of students), as
identified through the empirical literature to measure cognitive or behavioral changes.
Table 3.2: 2004 CIRP Variables for Democratic Values Model
Scale 2008 Senior
Survey Item
Type Variable Factor
Loading
Cronbach
Alpha
N
Gender SEX IV Student gender
Race RACE1 IV White/Caucasian
RACE2 IV Black/African American
RACE3 IV American Indian/Alaskan Native
RACE4 IV Asian American/Asian
RACE5 IV Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
RACE6 IV Mexican American/Chicano
RACE7 IV Puerto Rican
RACE8 IV Other Latino
RACE9 IV Other
Parental
Level of
Education
FATHEDU&
MOTHEDU
IV Father’s Education
Mother’s Education

Empathy1 RATE0423 CV Understanding others .444 .655 3
RATE0403 CV Compassion .464
RATE0405 CV Cooperativeness .425
Leader1 RATE0416 CV Public speaking ability .481 .753 4
RATE0413 CV Leadership ability .507
RATE0418 CV Self-confidence (intellectual) .477
RATE0419 CV Self-confidence (social) .472
Liberal1 VIEW0402 CV Abortion should be legal .697 .669 4
POLIVW04 CV Political orientation .662
VIEW0403 CV Abolish death penalty .364
VIEW0410 CV Legal marital status for same sex
couples
.742
Spirit1 RATE0417 CV Religiousness .703 .816 4
RATE0421 CV Spirituality .524
GOAL0420 CV Integrate spirituality into my life .524
CSVACT13 CV Service to my religious community .478
Social1 GOAL0404 CV Influence political structure .572 .834 8
GOAL0405 CV Influence social values .575
GOAL0409 CV Help other in difficulty .559
GOAL0416 CV Take part in community action
program
.611

74
Table 3.2, Continued
GOAL0417 CV Help to promote racial
understanding
.580
GOAL0418 CV Keep up with political affairs .519
GOAL0419 CV Be a community leader .672
GOAL0421 CV Understand of other countries/cults .571

(Note: Controlled Variable is defined as CV; Leadership is defined as Leader; Spiritual is defined as Spirit.)

Western University Senior Survey
Western University Senior survey is modeled after the CIRP survey and is
designed by the institution to examine 224 items that assess undergraduate student
experiences. The Senior Survey is distributed to seniors every three years and is a self-
reported instrument to learn about student experiences, satisfaction, and engagement in
extracurricular activities, demographics, and future plans after college. From the initial
2004 cohort that took the CIRP, 551 students also took the 2008 Senior Survey. The
survey variables are used to determine the environmental effects in Astin’s (1984) I-E-
O model and also provide intermediate variables in the temporal sequence for the 2004 -
2008 cohort participants (Astin, 1993). The Senior Survey outcomes are theoretically
important in understanding the environmental effects of democratic values.

75
Table 3.3: Western University Senior Survey Variables for Democratic Value
Model
Scale 2008 Senior
Survey Item
Type Variable Factor
Loading
Cronbach’s
Alpha
N
Empathy
2
Change_21 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in:
understand the problems facing the community
surrounding WU
.579 .864 4
Change_22 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in:
understand social problems facing our nation
.767
Change_23 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in:
understand global issues
.772
Change_24 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in: become
an informed citizen
.820
Leaders2 Self_9 DV Rate yourself on each of the following traits:
leadership ability
.646 .779 4
Self_13 DV Rate yourself on each of the following traits:
public speaking ability
.707
Self_14 DV Rate yourself on each of the following traits: self-
confidence (intellectual)
.761
Self_15 DV Rate yourself on each of the following traits: self-
confidence (social)
.648
Liberal2 Change_16 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in: identify
moral and ethical issues
.487 .829 5
Change_17 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in: getting
alone with people from different races/cultures
.736
Change_18 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in:
understand different
religions/beliefs systems
.781
Change_19 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in:
understand issues related to gender
.774
Change_20 DV Compared when you 1
st
enrolled, indicate how
you ability level or skill level changed in:
understand issues surrounding lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people
.773
Spirit2 Freq_22

DV How often you engaged during the past year:
attended a religious service
.784 .867 4
Hours_15 DV During the past year, how much time did you
spend during a typical week during:
prayer/meditation
-.762
Self_17 DV Rate yourself on each of the following traits:
Spirituality
.801
Self-20 DV Rate yourself on each of the following traits:
religiousness/spirituality
.869
Import_21 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: integrating
spirituality into my life
.798
Social2 Import_4 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: influencing the
political structure
.712 .869 9

Import_5 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: influencing social
values
.696
Import_9 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: helping others who
are in difficulty
.604

76
Table 3.3, Continued
Import_14 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: becoming involved
in programs to clean up the environment
.573
Import_16 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: participating in
community action programs
.684
Import_17 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: helping promote
racial understanding
.653
Import_18 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: keeping up to date
with political affairs
.569
Import_19 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: keeping up to date
with issues related to 3
rd
world development and
human rights
.750
Import_20 DV Indicate the importance to your personally of
each of the following items: becoming a
community leader
.610

(*Note: Empathy2, leader2, liberal2, spirit2, and social2 are post-test dependent variables.)
Transcripts
Western University Office of the Registrar provided transcript information as a
temporal sequence for the cohort participating in this study. The transcript information
provided a comprehensive picture of each student’s academic career in terms of
diversity course(s) taken, how many, what term, and grade earned. Supplemental
components that can be reviewed in the transcript information are the student’s GPA,
whether or not the student has taken diversity course(s), how many diversity courses
were taken, and under which type of diversity courses taken to properly categorize the
class within the “Typology of Diversity Courses” (Cole & Sundt, 2008). Additional
information provided by the transcript data identifies input and bridge variables that are
used within Astin’s (1984) I-E-O model to address the research questions and sub-
questions (i.e. college major, gender, etc.), as shown in tables 3.4 and 3.5. Furthermore,
only the courses identified as diversity courses are used in this study and act as an
additional part of the “environment” in relation to the I-E-O model. In summary, the
three data points for gathering information on student democratic values as influenced
77
by diversity courses use appropriate rigorous instrumentation, and the following section
describes the procedures used for data collection.
Table 3.4: Transcript Data for Diversity Course(s) Variables
2008 Senior Survey
Variables
Type Item I-E-O
Total Number of
Diversity Courses
Taken
Independent
Variable
DiversityTaken_R Environment
Typology Level of First
Diversity Course Taken
Independent
Variable
DCTypology1st_R Environment
First Time Diversity
Course was Taken
Independent
Variable

FirstDCYear_R Environment

Table 3.5: Transcript Data for Student Experience Variables
2008 Senior Survey
Variable(s)
Type Item I-E-O
Study Abroad Independent
Variable
Abroad Environment
Racial Awareness
Workshops
Independent
Variable
Workshops Environment
Community Service Independent
Variable
Community_ServiceR Environment
Student Government Independent
Variable
Governance Environment
Register to Vote Independent
Variable
Register_Vote Environment

Data Collection
This non-experimental study uses Western University, a single institution, to
collect longitudinal data at two points in a temporal four-year sequence beginning in
2004. The participants are first-time undergraduate freshmen entering Fall 2004 who
took a hard copy of the CIRP during the summer (2429 responded) and the same
students took the Senior Survey in the spring of 2008 (551 responded). The
discrepancy in participation between these two test dates is due to the level of
cooperation. Astin (1970) states that entering students have higher levels of
cooperation than do students who are transitioning out of college and might be resentful
to spend time on taking a survey.
78
The administrative unit responsible for administering both surveys is the Student
Outcomes Research (SOR) department. The administration of the surveys, data
collection, and analysis is directed and supervised by the Student Affairs Director of the
Student Outcomes Research department. Therefore, this study is utilizing a secondary
source of analysis using the aforementioned quantitative surveys.
Data Analysis
This study uses a master data file consisting of the aforementioned three data
sources and uses SPSS version 16 as the statistical program to run all data analysis. The
data collected from the 2004 CIRP and 2008 Western University Senior Surveys were
merged with the transcript data for the 551 students who completed both surveys by
their student identification (ID) number. The master data file was prepared by first
using the student ID number as a label, changing the names of the participating students
to DPIP and then replacing personal information with numerical names. Descriptive
statistics (i.e. mean, standard deviations, variable lists) and frequencies (variances, etc.)
were run to check for missing cases based on the input data from the 2004 CIRP.
Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis was broken down by I-E-O variables. The
data was then re-coded as necessary to merge similar subset variables together as one
variable followed by running another descriptive statistics and frequencies analysis to
learn more about the sample variables.
The overarching research question for this study inquires as to the extent
diversity courses and student diversity experiences are associated with democratic
values. Similar studies that have examined diversity courses’ influence on student
development have used ANOVAs to isolate specific variables (Antonio, 2001).
79
ANOVA focuses on comparing the means between a dependent variable (democratic
values) and one or more independent variable (diversity courses). The I-E-O model
helped organized the linear associations of the input variables, environment variables
based on diversity courses and student diversity experiences, and outcomes (democratic
values). Using an ANOVA helps examine the influences of diversity courses to
understand the associations between diversity courses and student diversity experiences
to democratic value outcomes by statistically controlling for variable inputs.
Test-Retest Reliability
Students completed an inventory survey when they first matriculated into
college and took another when they were about to graduate. One approach to
conducting analysis on the result of these two surveys is to measure change or growth
from a longitudinal perspective using test-retest reliability by examining correlations
(Feldman &Newcomb, 1969; Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). Hence, the student’s output
performance from the WUSS was reviewed in relation to the initial input characteristics
from the CIRP. This type of comparison should provide results presenting observed
changes due to students’ experiences while in college (Astin, 1970). The correlation
coefficient was used to obtain the extent to which participants have the same scores
across two testing times (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006). Specifically, when test scores are
continuous, the Pearson correlation coefficient is the statistic used to reflect test-retest
reliability (Kurpius & Stafford, 2006).
Factor analysis
Factor analysis is a statistical approach used to verify or test conceptualization
of the construct of interest to help condense data to study intercorrelations among a set
80
of scores into a smaller set of factors with minimum loss of information (Ary, et al.,
1985; Hair, et al., 1992). Factor analysis is a tool used to analyze interrelationships
among large number of variables and explain them in terms of common factor to help
determine what factors will be retained for further analysis that will be named using
empirical information from the literature review (Hair, et al., 1992). Several pre-test
democratic values (input) and environmental variables were created and selected after
running factor analysis to identify reliable variables to measure students in and out of
classroom diversity experiences outcomes. Several factor analyses were run on a large
matrix of original variables from the data points to understand, if any, the relationships
between variables. The correlational data are reduced into a smaller number of factors
that are named and used, which also helps to test the reliability in the study.
Reliability tests
Reliability test usually are run after factor analysis to identify the internal
consistency measures of scores using Chronbach’s alpha (α). This step of statistical
analysis identifies related variables from factor analysis and test reliability to merge
variables that have a Chronbach’s alpha (α) greater than .70 to help determine a more
reliable and stronger measure than an individual variable. As shown in tables 3.2 and
3.3, reliability tests were run after factor analysis to determine internal consistency of
the pre-test and post-test democratic value variable as reported in the α .
Validity tests
Validity in quantitative research is also known as construct validity, which
measures the result strength of a conclusion, inferences or propositions (Ary et al.,
1985). Validity helps determine whether the instrumentation truly measures what it
81
intends to measure and how truthful the research results are. Threats to validity can
encompass different factors like history, maturation of sample or measuring
instruments. The largest threat to validity of this research study can be triggered by the
maturation of students and instrument changes. The four-year length of this study
presents various factors that can threaten or influence student diversity experiences.
Additionally, using two different research surveys to assess the influences of diversity
courses and student diversity experiences (CIRP is used to measure student inputs and
WUSS is used to measure student outputs) presents internal threats to validity.
Moreover, threats to external validity can be presented when diversity courses unique to
Western University mission provide results, through the use of the same two surveys,
not generalizable at different campuses.
Limitations
There are limitations that exist due to the nature of this inquiry. One limitation
in this study concerns the use of self-reported survey data from the CIRP and WUSS.
In general, surveys are appropriate instruments for studying the impact of an experience
on an outcome but there are limitations when students are self-reporting their impact.
However, the third data point acquired from student transcripts provide non-self
reported measure of impact like GPA. Another limitation in this study concerns when
diversity courses were taken. The research did not measure diversity courses taken by
students after their fifth year or pass course number 40.
Descriptive statistics
The aim of descriptive statistics is to summarize a data set quantitatively into a
manageable form that organizes and describes the overall sample (i.e. size,
82
demographic, etc.) into single or combined variables. Data from descriptive statistics
also present themes that can me meaningful in summarizing findings. The researcher
ran descriptive statistics in the study on the five pre-test and post-test variables to
understand measurement of variability in a set of scores. The descriptive statistics of
the five pre-test variables were compared to the descriptive statistics of the five post-test
variables to identify where the variables fall in a frequency distribution to predict
central tendency.
ANCOVA
The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is a statistical data analysis used to test a
hypothesis (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). The researcher used ANCOVA to make
statistical inferences about whether or not the data gathered supported the research
hypothesis. Running ANCOVAS produced F-ratios used to calculate p-values. If the
p<.05, the null hypothesis is rejected. Research question one and its sub-questions are
assessed using five different univariate ANCOVAS to examine the impact of each
independent variable of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on change in
the post-test scores for each of the outcome measures. The influences of the three
diversity course variables (total number of diversity courses taken, typology of diversity
course, year first diversity course was taken) are evaluated by controlling for the five
pre-test outcome measures(empathy1, leadership1, liberal1, social1, spiritual1) and
three demographic variables outcome measures (sex, race, parental level of education).
Research question two and its sub-questions were assessed using five different
univariate ANCOVA’s to examine the impact of each independent variable on changes
in the five democratic value post-test scores. The association of the five student
83
diversity experience variables (student government participation, attending
cultural/racial workshop, study abroad, community service participation, registered to
vote) are assessed by controlling for the five pre-test variables. Post-hoc Fisher LSD
(Least Significant Differences) were ran to analyze the differences for the number of
diversity courses and typology level (Glass & Hopkins, 1984).
Summary
The methodology was outlined in this chapter by discussing the sample, research
site, instrumentation, theoretical framework, data collection and data analysis for this
quantitative study. Chapter four presents the theoretical lens to examine the theory,
research, and empirical variables described in chapter two to address, organize, and
apply the results as a means to help interpret the collected and analyzed data that will be
expanded upon in chapter five.

84
CHAPTER 4
Analysis of the Data
The purpose of this study was to evaluate two assumptions that underlie
democratic values formation of undergraduate student at Western University. The two
factors for evaluation examined if: 1) diversity courses (DC’S) and 2) student diversity
experiences influenced democratic values. The researcher sought to determine if taking
more than one diversity course, the typology level of 1
st
diversity course taken, and/or
the year students took their first diversity course have an impact on democratic values.
Additionally, the researcher also examined if student government participation,
racial/cultural awareness workshop attendance, studying abroad, community service
participation, and/or being a registered voter have an impact on democratic values.
Chapter four reports the results of the analysis of data obtained from two student
surveys (CIRP & WUSS) and academic transcripts interpreted by SPSS statistical
computer software with Astin’s (I-E-O) model used as the organizational frame. The
first section of this chapter presents participant pre-test characteristics including:
gender, race, and parental education; data on diversity courses and student diversity
experiences as well as variables used to measure democratic values of undergraduate
students. The second section of this chapter discusses the regression analysis and
results in response to the research questions that guides this study.
Treatment of Data
This study is modeled after many different studies that evaluate the effects of
democratic values as well as the Teagle Foundation research goals. The researcher only
utilizes questions from the CIRP and WUSS as well as academic transcript data that
85
pertain to the research questions. The CIRP survey questions sex, race 1-9, and highest
level of parental education (fatheduc & motheduc) are used to create the pre-test
variables to determine the demographic information of the sample. These pre-test
variables are then re-coded to gender, race, and parental education (see Table 3.2).
CIRP questions: polivw04; rate 0403, 0405, 0413, 0416-0419, 0421, 0423; view0402,
0403, 0410; csvact13; and goal0404, 0405, 0409-0421 are used in this study to
determine the pre-test democratic value variables (see Table 3.2). After running
reliability tests and factor analysis, the controlled variables are re-coded to empathy1,
leader1, liberal1, spirit1, and social1 (see Table 3.2).
The environmental effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences
are divided into two sets of variables. The researcher identifies three variables to
measure the environmental effects of diversity courses: 1) year when student took first
diversity course; 2) total number of diversity courses taken; and 3) the typology level of
first diversity courses taken. Questions from the WUSS and academic transcript are
used to develop the diversity course(s) variable and then re-coded to:
DiversityTaken_R, DCTypology1st_R, and FirstDCYear_R (see Table 3.4). The
researcher measures student experiences with diversity using five environmental
variables: 1) participation in student government; 2) attended of racial/cultural
awareness workshop; 3) studied abroad; 4) involved in community service; and 5)
registered to vote as an attempt to explain their connection with democratic values.
Certain questions from the WUSS and transcript data are used to determine the student
experience variables and then re-coded to: aboard, workshop, communityservice_R,
governance, and register_vote (see Table 3.5).
86
The following questions are taken from the WUSS to create the democratic
values output variables: change_21-24; self_9,13-15,17,20; change_16-20; freq_22;
hours_15; and import_4-5,9,14,16-21 (see Table 3.3). All post-test variables are
reliable and re-coded as dependent variables empathy2 (α=864), leader2 (α= .779),
liberal2 (α= .829), spirit2 (α=.867), and social2 (α= .869) (see Table 3.3).
Descriptive Statistics of Student Characteristics
Questions from two data sets (CIRP and WUSS survey) along with academic
student transcripts are used to identify the variables for this study. The data is treated to
create three independent input variables to gather information on individual student
background (participant characteristics in terms of sex, race, and level of parental
education). Additionally, five controlled input variables are identified and correlations
are run. Furthermore, independent environmental variables are identified for both
diversity course experiences (3 variables) and student diversity experiences (5
variables). The following section explores participants and the three independent input
variables used to investigate participant characteristics as well as describe the research
setting for this study.
Participant Characteristics
As noted in chapter three, the participants for this study are undergraduate
students who participated in completing two self-reported surveys administered at two
different times. The CIRP was administered in 2004 and the WUSS was administered
in 2008. 553 students completed both surveys. The sample size is reported by gender
and race (Non-White and White) using descriptive data to better understand the
dynamics between these two groups.
87
The majority of participants in this study is white females (41.4 %) and whites
males (27.9%). Non-White males have a small sample representation of 9.2% and Non-
White women represents 21.5%. These percentages show an imbalance of participants
according to gender and race. Hence, Non-White females represent 70% of Non-White
females at the same time as White women correspond to 59.8% of the White student
participants. Consequently, women represent a higher percentage of the student
participation in this study.
Level of Parental Education
The descriptive data used to understand the highest level of parental education is
divided into three categories: 1) high school or less; 2) some college or degree; and 3)
graduate degree or less. When analyzing the descriptive data for White and Non-white
students, about seven percent responded their parents highest level of education
received is a high school diploma or less. Roughly 40 % of the sample states at least
one parent as having attended college or have received a bachelor’s degree.
Approximately, 53% of the majority sample responded that their parents attended
graduate school and/or have obtained a graduate degree. Furthermore, the highest
responses to the three categories for the sample population are parents experiencing at
least some graduate school in which 57.3% reported from the White population and
43.5% for the Non-White population as reported in table 4.1.

88
Table 4.1: Descriptive Data of Student Characteristics

Student Background

White (n=383)

White (Within
White Group

Non-White
(n=170)

Non-White (Within Non-
White Group)

Gender of Students

Men

27.9%

40.2%

9.2%

30.0%

Women

41.4%

59.8%

21.5%

70.0%

Level of Parental
Education

High School or Less

1.8%

2.6%

4.7%

15.3%

Some College or Degree

27.3%

39.4%

12.5%

40.6%

Grad Degree or Less

39.6%

57.2%

13.5%

43.5%
Summary
Understanding the variables between and within group similarities and
differences are important to understand when interpreting the results of this study.
Between White and Non-White groups both had similarities. Both groups (White and
Non-White students) have more female over-representation than male as well as overall
level of parental education is somewhat similar. One noticeable between group
differences in terms of parental education is that 15.3% of Non-White students have
parents with high school degree or less but overall parental education levels are
equivalent. Therefore, the student participants in this study is mostly female and the
majority of participants have parents with some college or degree or higher.
Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables
Table 4.2 displays the means and standard deviations and frequencies for each
of the study’s 13 variables. The 13 variables are divided into two groups: independent
input variables of individual student background characteristics and controlled
democratic value input variables, and college environment independent variables for
future analysis. The importance of dividing the 13 variables into input and
89
environmental groups is to measure social environmental influences deduced from
inputs using Astin’s (I-E-O) organizational model to investigate their relation to
democratic value outcomes.
Sample sizes for the pre-test variables (5 controlled variables) are higher than
the sample sizes for the diversity course experiences (3 independent variables), diversity
experiences (5 independent variables) and the post-test variables (5 dependent
variables) because of student attrition from pre-test to post-test. Descriptive statistics is
useful in understanding measurement variability in a set of scores. Running descriptive
statistics identifies the observations and measures of the five pre-test variables. The
means, standard deviations, and ranges of pre-test controlled variables may change and
they will be used to compare descriptive statistics of post-test output variables. Among
the five pre-test variables, the mean for empathy is the highest using a 1-5 point scale
and spiritual is the lowest. The mean scores and standard deviations can help identify
where the variables fall in a frequency distribution that conforms to a normal, or bell
curve for the pre-test base year of 2004. Therefore, the strong mean score for the
empathy variable (3.8931) predicts the central tendency of the bell shape curve and its
standard deviation of .60077 estimates that approximately 95% of the scores will fall in
the range of 3.8931± 2SD. This critical information will help compare one democratic
value to another with the spiritual variable as an outlier.

90
Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean Std. Deviation N

Empathy1
3.8931 .60077 2425

Leader1
3.7137 .69374 2426

Liberal1
2.8826 .70657 2430

Social1
2.3359 .61312 2361

Spiritual1
2.3351 .81900 2437

Total Number of Diversity Course(s) Taken
1.4112 .79247 1515

Typology Level of 1
st
Diversity Course Taken
2.4414 .92325 1520

Year when students 1st took a Diversity Course
2.0513 1.22353 1520

Since enrolling at USC, have you ever: Participated in student
government
.12 .330 1256

Since enrolling at USC, have you ever: Attended a racial/cultural
awareness workshop
.25 .433 1256

Since enrolling at USC, have you ever: Studied abroad
.28 .448 1256

Community Service
.4344 .49588 1250

Are you registered to vote?
.82 .382 1103

(*Note: For Pre-Test controlled variables empathy1, leader1, liberal1, social1, and spiritual1 see Table
3.2.)

Pre-Test Input Variables
Correlation coefficients that describe the relationship between the pre-test
variables and the degree the rank order stay the same are shown in Table 4.3 through
Table 4.6. Pearson correlations are provided to show perfect relationships, no
relationship, or unrelated relationships between variables. In Table 4.3, the correlations
between the five pre-test variables are all significant (p < .05) except for the correlation
between liberal and leadership values, with a near zero r (2421) = -.032, p=.113, thus
high or low scores on the liberal variable show no consistent relationship with high or
low scores on the leadership variable. Furthermore, most of the correlations are small
and positive but still significant statistically showing perfectly positive one-to-one
correlation, (most correlations fall between these extremes). Yet, the one exception is
91
the negative correlation between liberal and spiritual values, with a low negative
correlation of r (2430) = -.361, p = .001.
Table 4.3: Pre-Test Analysis

Pre-Test Variable empathy1 leader1 liberal1 social1 spiritual1

Empathy1

Pearson Correlation

1

.293

.068

.236

.193

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .001 .000 .000

N
2425 2424 2420 2353 2425

Leader1

Pearson Correlation

.293

1

-.032

.268

.178

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .113 .000 .000

N
2424 2426 2421 2353 2426

Liberal1

Pearson Correlation

.068

-.032

1

.091

-.361

Sig. (2-tailed)
.001 .113 .000 .000

N
2420 2421 2430 2356 2430

Social1

Pearson Correlation

.236

.268

.091

1

.253

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000

N
2353 2353 2356 2361 2361

Spiritual1

Pearson Correlation

.193

.178

-.361

.253

1

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000

N
2425 2426 2430 2361 2437

(*Note: For Pre-Test controlled variables empathy1, leader1, liberal1, social1, and spiritual1 see Table
3.2)

Pre-Test Environmental Variables
The environmental variables are divided into two sections, diversity course
experience with three variables and student diversity experience with five variables.
Table 4.4 shows the correlation coefficients between the three diversity course
experiences variables (Year Student Took First Diversity Course, Total Number of
Diversity Course Taken, and Typology Level of First Diversity Course Taken).
Undergraduate students who took a diversity course earlier in their academic careers are
more likely to take more diversity courses as they persisted towards degree attainment.
92
Two correlations are significant: Total Number of Diversity Courses Taken and Year
When the Student First Took the Diversity Course, r(1515)=-.256, p=.001; and
Typology Level of Diversity Course and Year When Student Took First Diversity
Course, r(1515)=-.089, p=.001).
Table 4.4: Diversity Courses Analysis

(*Note: For diversity course factors see Table 3.4).
Table 4.5 shows the correlation coefficients for the five environmental diversity
experience variables. The associations between the five diversity experience variables
are all significant (p<.001), but yet the coefficient values are negligible (i.e. all less than
.20). The negligible coefficient value show no relationship between the five variables
and thus will not be discussed because the amount is so small that it is not worth
considering and can be ignored when studying larger effects.

Environmental Variables
Diversity Course(s) Experiences
Diversity Courses Taken
Total DCTypology1st_R
Year when students first took a
DC

Total Number of Diversity Course(s)
Taken
1 .012 -.256

.646 .000

1515 1515 1515

Typology Level of 1
st
Diversity
Course Taken
.012 1 -.089

.646 .000

1515 1520 1520

Year when students took 1
st
Diversity
Course
-.256 -.089 1

.000 .000

1515 1520 1520
93
Table 4.5: Diversity Experiences Analysis

Environmental
Variables

Diversity
Experiences

Since enrolling
at USC, have
you ever:
Participated in
student
government
Since enrolling at
USC, have you
ever: Attended a
racial/cultural
awareness
workshop
Since enrolling at
USC, have you
ever: Studied
abroad

Community
Service

Are you
Registered
to Vote

Since enrolling at
USC, have you ever:
Participated in
student government

Pearson
Correlation 1 .178 .053 .101

.067

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.062

.000

.028

N

1256

1256

1256

1245

1093
Since enrolling at
USC, have you ever:
Attended a
racial/cultural
awareness workshop

Pearson
Correlation .178 1 .074 .084

.021

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.009

.003

.480

N

1256

1256

1256

1245

1093
Since enrolling at
USC, have you ever:
Studied abroad
Pearson
Correlation .053 .074 1 .086

.116

Sig. (2-tailed)

.062

.009

.003

.000

N

1256

1256

1256

1245

1093
Community Service Pearson
Correlation
.101 .084 .086 1
.038

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

.003

.003

.205

N

1245

1245

1245

1250

1090
Are you registered
to vote?
Pearson
Correlation
.067 .021 .116 .038
1

Sig. (2-tailed)

.028

.480

.000

.205

N

1093

1093

1093

1090

1103

(*Note: For student experience variables see Table 3.5).

Results: Democratic Values Post-Test Analysis
There are five dependent outcome variables in this study. Astin’s I-E-O model
is used to interpret the extent to which the aforementioned input and environmental
variables influence these five democratic value variables. As shown in Table 4. 6, the
associations between the five post-test dependent outcome variables are all statistically
significant. The strongest variable association is between the empathy and liberal,
94
r(1142)=.560, p=.00, showing a stronger tendency for variable association and the
lowest variable association is between empathy and spiritual, r(1140)=.112, p=.000.
Table 4.6: Democratic Values Post-Test Analysis
Output
Variables

empathy2

leader2

liberal2

social2

spirit2

empathy2

Pearson Correlation

1

.280

.560

.418

.112

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000

N
1142 1141 1142 1089 1140

leader2

Pearson Correlation

.280

1

.175

.260

.182

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000

N
1141 1149 1141 1092 1146

liberal2

Pearson Correlation

.560

.175

1

.346

.155

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000

N
1142 1141 1142 1089 1140

social2

Pearson Correlation

.418

.260

.346

1

.278

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000

N
1089 1092 1089 1094 1091

spirit2

Pearson Correlation

.112

.182

.155

.278

1

Sig. (2-tailed)
.000 .000 .000 .000

N
1140 1146 1140 1091 1146

(*Note: For the post-test democratic value factors of empathy2, leader2, liberal2, social2, and spirit2 see Table 3.3)

Results of Post-Test Analysis
The environment at Western University in terms of the aforementioned campus
and community demographics, concurrent with ample opportunities for extracurricular
or community service participation, present various diversity encounters for
undergraduate students. This section is organized in two parts reporting how students at
Western University encounter diversity. The first addresses statistical information
relevant to diversity courses and the second presents student experiences with diversity.
95
The analysis and discussion of the following two questions and sub-questions is used to
interpret these diversity encounters which may help form their democratic values:
1. To what extent does the diversity course experience correlate with the
undergraduate students’ democratic values?
1a). To what extent are the numbers of diversity courses taken
correlated with democratic values?
1b). To what extent is the diversity course typology level correlate
with democratic values?
1c). To what extent does the year student first took diversity course
correlated with democratic values?
2. To what extent does the student experience variable correlate with
democratic values?
2a). To what extent does participating in student government
correlated with democratic values?
2b). To what extent does attending a racial/cultural workshop
correlate with democratic values?
2c ). To what extent is studying abroad correlated with democratic
values?
2d). To what extent is community services correlated with democratic
values?
2e). To what extent is registering to vote correlated with democratic
values?

Results for Research Question 1
The purpose of research question 1 was to understand the influence of taking
diversity course(s) on democratic values. Research question 1 and its sub-questions are
reviewed using five analyses of covariance (ANCOVAS). The effects of the three
diversity course variables (total number of diversity course(s) taken; typology of first
diversity course taken; year first diversity course taken) are evaluated by controlling for
the five pre-test variables (empathy1, leader1, liberal1, social1, spirit1) and the three
demographic variables (sex, race, parental level of education).
The influence of taking diversity courses on undergraduate students’ democratic
value of empathy is examined using an ANCOVA. The results for the empathy value
96
post-test are shown in Table 4.7. Neither the year of the first diversity course taken nor
the levels of the typology of the first diversity course taken are significant. However,
the total number of diversity courses taken is statistically significant F(3, 367)=2.843,
p=.038. Post-hoc Fischer LSD tests are presented Table 4.8. The mean for the empathy
post-test variable is 3.481 if four or more diversity classes are taken, as shown in Table
4.8. The mean for empathy post-test variable is 3.481, whereas the means for the
remaining three groupings were near 3.0. Therefore, taking four or more diversity
courses leads to a higher change in the empathy score, whereas the typology level of
first diversity course taken and the first year diversity course taken did not have a
significant impact on the empathy value score.
Table 4.7: Empathy Value by Diversity Course ANCOVAS
Source

Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
18.920(a) 19 .996 3.382 .000

Intercept
13.167 1 13.167 44.723 .000

Parents Level of Education
.395 2 .197 .670 .512

RACE
.109 1 .109 .369 .544

SEX
.858 1 .858 2.916 .089

Year When Student Took 1
st

Diversity Course
1.307 4 .327 1.110 .352

Total Number of Diversity
Course(s) Taken
2.511 3 .837 2.843 .038

Typology Level of 1
st

Diversity Course Taken
.566 3 .189 .641 .589

Empathy1
1.402 1 1.402 4.763 .030

Leader1
2.348 1 2.348 7.976 .005

Liberal1
1.409 1 1.409 4.787 .029

Social1
.513 1 .513 1.741 .188

97
Table 4.7, Continued

Spiritual1
.307 1 .307 1.042 .308

Error
108.052 367 .294

Total
3992.958 387

Corrected Total
126.972 386

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for diversity course factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2)

Table 4.8: Empathy Values by Diversity Course(s) Taken ANCOVAS

Total Diversity Courses Taken
Mean Std. Error

1.00
3.060
b
.049

2.00
3.153
b
.081

3.00
3.040
b
.144

4.00
3.481
a
.155
(Note: Different groups are indicated by a unique superscript (post hoc = Fisher LSD).

Table 4.9 displays the ANCOVA results for the leadership value post-test. None
of the three diversity course variables are statistically significant. Thus, the first year
that students’ took their diversity course, the number of diversity courses taken, and the
typology of first diversity course do not have an impact on leadership values.
Table 4.9: Leadership Values by Diversity Course(s) ANCOVAS
Source

Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
76.742(a) 19 4.039 15.192 .000

Intercept
5.229 1 5.229 19.667 .000

Parents Level of Education
.162 2 .081 .305 .737

RACE
2.802 1 2.802 10.538 .001

SEX
2.376 1 2.376 8.936 .003

Year When Student Took
1
st
Diversity Course
.705 4 .176 .663 .618

Total Number of Diversity
Course(s) Taken
1.525 3 .508 1.912 .127

Typology Level of 1
st

Diversity Course Taken
1.474 3 .491 1.849 .138

98
Table 4.9, Continued

Empathy1
1.482 1 1.482 5.573 .019

Leader1
42.285 1 42.285 159.051 .000

Liberal1
.005 1 .005 .018 .894

Social1
1.227 1 1.227 4.616 .032

Spiritual1
.488 1 .488 1.835 .176

Error
97.837 368 .266

Total
5860.063 388

Corrected Total
174.579 387

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for diversity course factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2).

Findings for the third democratic value outcome, liberal values, are given in
Table 4.10. The effect of total number of diversity courses taken is significant, F (3,
367)=4.299, p = .005 and the effect of the level of the typology of the first diversity
course taken are also significant, F(3, 367) = 3.01, p = .030 for liberal values. As a
result, the extent of the total amount of diversity courses and the typology of the first
diversity course taken play a role in having more change in the liberal value scores, yet
the first year diversity course is taken does not.
Table 4.10: Liberal Values by Diversity Course(s) ANCOVAS
Source

Type III Sum of Squares Df
Mean
Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
17.227(a) 19 .907 3.140 .000

Intercept
24.944 1 24.944 86.379 .000

Parents Level of Education
.242 2 .121 .420 .658

RACE
1.018 1 1.018 3.526 .061

SEX
1.383 1 1.383 4.789 .029

Year When Student Took
1
st
Diversity Course
1.751 4 .438 1.516 .197

Total Number of Diversity
Course(s) Taken
3.724 3 1.241 4.299 .005

Typology Level of 1
st

Diversity Course Taken
2.606 3 .869 3.009 .030

99
Table 4.10, Continued

Empathy1
.857 1 .857 2.967 .086

Leader1
.427 1 .427 1.479 .225

Liberal1
.039 1 .039 .136 .712

Social1
.103 1 .103 .357 .551

Spiritual1
.082 1 .082 .284 .594

Error
105.978 367 .289

Total
3334.136 387

Corrected Total
123.205 386

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for diversity course factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2).

Tables 4.11 and 4.12 display the means for liberal values broken down by two
significant independent variables (total number of diversity courses taken and typology
level of first diversity course taken). In Table 4.11, the students who took three or four
diversity courses had more change in liberal value scores than the students who took
one or two courses.
Table 4.11: Liberal Value means broken down by Number of Diversity Course(s)
and Level of Typology of Diversity Course Taken

Total Number of Diversity Course(s)
Taken Mean Std. Error

1.00
2.820
a
.048

2.00
2.974
a
.080

3.00
2.955
b
.143

4.00
3.301
b
.153

(Note: Different groups are indicated by a unique superscript (post hoc = Fisher LSD).

In Table 4.12, the only significant difference was between those students whose
first diversity course was at a typology level one and those students whose first diversity
course are a typology level four. Undergraduate students tend to report more change in
liberal value scores when they take a level four typology diversity course compared to
those students who take a level one typology diversity course.
100
Table 4.12: Liberal Value mean broken down by Level of Typology of 1
st
Diversity
Course Taken

Typology Level of 1
st
Diversity
Course Taken Mean Std. Error

DC Level 1
2.859
a,b
.092

DC Level 2
3.106
a
.080

DC Level 3
3.006
a
.078

DC Level 4
3.079
c
.098

(Note: Different groups are indicated by a unique superscript (post hoc = Fisher LSD).

Table 4.13 shows no statistical significance for the social variable post-test
broken down by the three diversity courses variables. What does this finding suggest?
The year when the student took first diversity course, the total number of diversity
course(s) taken, and the typology level of 1
st
diversity course taken suggests no
significant relationship with the democratic value of social.
Table 4.13: Social Values by Diversity Course(s) ANCOVAS
Source

Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
37.480(a) 19 1.973 6.192 .000

Intercept
12.576 1 12.576 39.477 .000

Parents Level of
Education
.294 2 .147 .461 .631

RACE
1.175 1 1.175 3.689 .056

SEX
.017 1 .017 .053 .819

Year When Student Took 1
st

Diversity Course
1.392 4 .348 1.092 .360

Total Number of Diversity
Course(s) Taken
1.225 3 .408 1.282 .280

Typology Level of 1
st
Diversity
Courses Taken
1.752 3 .584 1.833 .141

Empathy1
.923 1 .923 2.898 .090

Leader1
.517 1 .517 1.623 .204

Liberal1
.075 1 .075 .236 .627

Social1
17.674 1 17.674 55.480 .000

101
Table 4.13, Continued

Spiritual1
.130 1 .130 .409 .523

Error
112.456 353 .319

Total
4431.891 373

Corrected Total
149.935 372

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for diversity course factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2).

Table 4.14 shows no statistical significance for the spiritual variable post-test
broken down by the three diversity courses variables. The year when student took first
diversity course, total number of diversity course(s) taken, and typology level of 1
st

diversity course taken suggests no significant relationship with the democratic value of
spiritual.
Table 4.14: Spiritual Values by Diversity Course(s) ANCOVAS
Source

Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
144.953
a
19 7.629 19.518 .000

Intercept
3.592 1 3.592 9.188 .003

Parents Level of Education
2.441 2 1.221 3.123 .045

RACE
2.875 1 2.875 7.356 .007

SEX
.002 1 .002 .005 .946

Year When Student took 1
st

Diversity Course
.228 4 .057 .146 .965

Total Number of Diversity
Course(s) Taken
1.588 3 .529 1.354 .256

Typology Level of 1
st

Diversity Course Taken
.130 3 .043 .110 .954

Empathy1
1.459 1 1.459 3.733 .054

Leader1
.046 1 .046 .117 .733

Liberal1
3.156 1 3.156 8.096 .005

Social1
1.050 1 1.050 2.686 .102

Spiritual1
75.289 1 75.289 192.617 .000

102
Table 4.14, Continued

Error
143.452 367 .391

Total
2878.417 387

Corrected Total
288.405 386

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for diversity course factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2).

Analysis regarding research question 1 shows significant results in two out of
five democratic value areas. None of the three diversity course experiences (number of
diversity courses taken, diversity course typology level, 1
st
year diversity course taken)
has statistical significance for the leadership, social, nor spiritual democratic values.
Yet, changes in the empathy and liberal value scores were significantly affected by
specific diversity course experiences. Students taking four or more diversity courses
had a higher change in empathy and liberal value scores. Furthermore, the typology
level of the first diversity course taken has strong statistical significance in terms of
change in the liberal value scores. Students enrolled in a typology level one diversity
course for their 1
st
diversity course taken are less liberal than those enrolled in their first
diversity course with a typology level of 4. For all five democratic variables, the first
year diversity course taken has no effect. Additionally, taking four or more diversity
courses that are at a typology level 2, 3, or 4 has significant effects on the empathy and
liberal democratic value scores. Considering that Western University general education
requires undergraduate students to take two diversity courses, it is important to note that
the amount of classes and the typology level have a significant effect.
Results for Research Question 2
The purpose of research question 2 is to comprehend to what extent students’
diversity experience variables (student government participation, attending
103
cultural/racial workshop, studying abroad, community service participation, registered
to vote) are correlated with democratic values by answering the following five sub-
questions and interpreting their results using five analyses of covariance (ANCOVAS):
2a). To what extent does participating in student government
correlated with democratic values?
2b). To what extent does attending a racial/cultural workshop
correlate with democratic values?
2c ). To what extent is studying abroad correlated with democratic
values?
2d). To what extent is community services correlated with democratic
values?
2e). To what extent is registering to vote correlated with democratic
values?

The effects of the five diversity experience variables were evaluated controlling
for both the pre-test variables and the three demographic variables using Astin’s (I-E-O)
model organizational frame to examine interactivity between the controlled and
independent variables with each democratic value outcome to help answer research
question 2. The ANCOVA results for the first democratic value, empathy, post-test are
shown in table 4.12a and table 4.12b. The effect of attending a racial awareness
workshop is associated with a high level of empathy on the post-test, F(1, 500) = 6.915,
p = .009, while studying abroad, community service, participation in student
government and registering to vote are not statistically significant. Furthermore,
students who have attended a racial awareness workshop have a higher level of change
in the empathy value scores (M = 3.22 versus M = 3.01).

104
Table 4.15: Empathy Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS
Source

Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
19.556
a
14 1.397 4.673 .000

Intercept
22.128 1 22.128 74.029 .003

Parents Level of Education
.534 2 .267 .894 .410

RACE
.077 1 .077 .259 .611

SEX
2.227 1 2.227 7.450 .007

Study Abroad
.700 1 .700 2.343 .126

Community Service
.346 1 .346 1.159 .282

Student Governance
.128 1 .128 .427 .514

Register to Vote
.038 1 .038 .129 .720

Racial Awareness Workshop
2.067 1 2.067 6.915 .009

Empathy1
1.583 1 1.583 5.297 .022

Leader1
1.869 1 1.869 6.253 .013

Liberal1
1.061 1 1.061 3.550 .060

Social1
.366 1 .366 1.225 .269

Spiritual1
.216 1 .216 .721 .396

Error
143.456 500 .299

Total
5311.701 515

Corrected Total
169.012 514
(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for student experience factors see Table 3.5; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2)
Table 4.15 shows the ANCOVA results for leadership post-test variable to
examine what student diversity experiences influenced the leadership value. Three out
of the five environmental variables are not significant (study abroad, racial awareness
workshop, and register to vote). Yet, the Community Service variable is statistically
significant F(1, 500)=5.179, p=0.023, and Student Governance variable is marginally
significant F(1,500)=3.655, p=.056. The results suggest the effects of student
participation in community service and student governance are associated with higher
levels change in leadership values scores, as shown in Table 4.16.
105
Table 4.16: Leadership Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS
Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
98.119
a
14 7.008 26.258 .000

Intercept
10.303 1 10.303 38.602 .000

Parents Level of Education
.274 2 .137 .514 .599

RACE
1.848 1 1.848 6.925 .009

SEX
1.834 1 1.834 6.871 .009

Study Abroad
.688 1 .688 2.579 .109

Community Service
1.382 1 1.382 5.179 .023

Student Governance
.976 1 .976 3.655. .056

Register to Cote
.028 1 .028 .103 .748

Racial Awareness Workshop
.406 1 .406 1.522 .218

Empathy1
.517 1 .517 1.939 .164

Leader1
58.220 1 58.220 218.129 .000

Liberal1
.071 1 .071 .266 .607

Social1
.521 1 .521 1.952 .163

Spiritual1
.571 1 .571 2.140 .144

Error
133.452 500 .267

Total
7761.563 515

Corrected Total
231.571 514

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for student experience factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2).

Table 4.17 shows the variables Community Service and Registering to Vote are
associated with higher levels of change in leadership value scores.
Table 4.17: Leadership Values by Community Service and Governance

Community
Service

Mean

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

No

3.827
a

.056

3.717

3.937

Yes

3.935
a

.059

3.820

4.050

Student
Government
Participation

Mean

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

No

3.820
a

.051

3.721

3.920

Yes

3.942
a

.070

3.804

4.079
106
The ANCOVA results for the liberal post-test variable are shown in Table 4.18,
which assessed the extent to which student experience variables were associated with
the liberal value. Four out of the five environmental variables were not significant, but
the Workshop variable was statistically significant F(1, 500)=13.920, p=0.001. Thus,
the effects of attending a racial awareness workshop tend to lead to higher levels of
change in the empathy value score.
Table 4.18: Liberal Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS
Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
16.974
a
14 1.212 4.084 .000

Intercept
29.839 1 29.839 100.503 .000

Parents Level of Education
3.19 2 .159 .537 .585

RACE
1.108 1 1.108 3.732 .054

SEX
3.029 1 3.029 10.201 .001

Study Abroad
.001 1 .001 .003 .958

Community Service
.877 1 .877 2.953 .086

Student Governance
.001 1 .001 .003 .958

Register to Vote
.046 1 .046 .154 .695

Racial Awareness Workshop
4.133 1 4.133 13.920 .000

Empathy1
1.441 1 1.441 4.853 .028

Leader1
.366 1 .366 1.234 .267

Liberal1
.057 1 .057 .191 .662

Social1
.081 1 .081 .273 .601

Spiritual1
.219 1 .219 .739 .391

Error
148.449 500 .297

Total
4476.779 515

Corrected Total
165.423 514

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for student experience factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2)

Table 4.19 shows the ANCOVAS for the social post-test variable to examine
which of the five diversity variables are associated with the social value. Two out of
107
the five diversity experiences are statistically significant: Study Abroad
F(1,150)=4.868, p=.028; and Racial Awareness Workshop F(1,150)=8.902, p=.003
have a significant relationship with social value, whereas Community Service, Student
Governance, and Registered to Vote have no significant influence on the social value.
Therefore, the effects of studying abroad and attending racial/cultural workshops lead to
having higher changes in the social value scores.
Table 4.19: Social Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS
Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
56.498
a
14 4.036 13.351 .000

Intercept
16.086 1 16.086 53.218 .000

Parents Level of Education
.196 2 .098 .324 .724

RACE
1.525 1 1.525 5.044 .025

SEX
.443 1 .443 1.467 .226

Study Abroad
1.471 1 1.471 4.868 .028

Community Service
.441 1 .441 1.460 .228

Student Governance
.094 1 .094 .310 .578

Register to Vote
.334 1 .334 1.104 .294

Racial Awareness Workshop
2.691 1 2.691 8.902 .003

Empathy1
2.157 1 2.157 7.138 .008

Leader1
.875 1 .875 2.893 .090

Liberal1
.335 1 .335 1.109 .293

Social1
20.089 1 20.089 66.462 .000

Spiritual1
.116 1 .116 .383 .536

Error
149.921 496 .302

Total
6003.522 511

Corrected Total
206.420 510

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for student experience factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2)

108
Table 4.20 show parental education has a significant effect on the spiritual
value. Students whose parents have a high school diploma or less education t have
lower spiritual value scores.
Table 4.20: Spirit Values Means Broken Down by Parent Education

Parent Education

Mean

Std. Error

HS Diploma or less
2.291
a
.124

College Degree or less
2.702
a
.067

Grad Degree or less
2.709
a
.064

The ANCOVA post-test results for the spiritual variable are displayed in Table
4.21 and show which of the five diversity experience variables influenced the spiritual
value. Out of the five diversity variables, attending racial awareness workshop is
statistically significant F(1,205)=6.718, p=.010, and the student governance variable is
marginally significant F(1,205)=2.979, p=.085. Thus, undergraduate students who
attend racial awareness workshops and participate in student governance tend to have
higher levels of change in spiritual value scores.
Table 4.21: Spiritual Values by Diversity Experience(s) ANCOVAS
Source

Type III Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model
195.296
a
14 13.950 34.067 .000

Intercept
8.193 1 8.193 20.010 .000

Parents Level of Education
4.812 2 2.406 5.876 .003

RACE
3.754 1 3.754 9.167 .003

SEX
.370 1 .370 .904 .342

Study Abroad
.157 1 .157 .383 .536

Community Service
.780 1 .780 1.905 .168

Student Governance
1.220 1 1.220 2.979 .085

Register to Vote
.088 1 .088 .216 .643

109
Table 4.21, Continued

Racial Awareness Workshop
2.751 1 2.751 6.718 .010

Empathy1
.295 1 .295 .720 .396

Leader1
.008 1 .008 .019 .891

Liberal1
4.011 1 4.011 9.796 .002

Social1
.338 1 .338 .824 .364

Spiritual1
109.699 1 109.699 267.903 .000

Error
204.737 500 .409

Total
3949.361 515

Corrected Total
400.033 514

(*Note: For student characteristics descriptive factors see Table 3.2; for student experience factors see Table 3.4; and for pre-test
democratic value factors see Table 3.2)

The analysis of results for research question 2 showed that specific diversity
experiences (attending racial awareness workshops, participating in community service,
student government, and studying abroad) had a significant effect on democratic values.
Participating in student governance has a marginal significant effect on the spiritual
value, yet tends to lead to high levels of leadership values. Attending a racial awareness
workshop had a positive significant effect on the change in empathy, liberal, social, and
spiritual value scores. Moreover, studying abroad led to high changes in social value
scores and participating in community service tends to lead to high changes in
leadership value scores. Furthermore, being registered to vote has no significant effect
on any of the five democratic values. Additionally, the four diversity experience
variables of study abroad, community service participation, student government
participation, and registering to vote have no significant effect on the democratic values
of empathy, liberal, or spiritual.
Since Western University offers a large array of extracurricular activities for
students, it is important to note that attending racial awareness workshops has
110
significant effects on four out of five democratic values that resulted in having higher
changes in the empathy, liberal, social and spiritual value scores. Participating in
student governance has a significant effect on both leadership and spiritual values,
affecting two out of the five democratic values. Whereas participating in community
service has a significant effect on one out of five democratic values (leadership) and
studying abroad also has a significant effect on one out of five democratic values
(social). Registered to vote is the only student experience variable that has no
significance to any of the five democratic values.

111
CHAPTER 5
Summary and Discussion

The goal of this study was to examine the extent diversity initiatives (diversity
courses and student experiences) correlated with democratic values of undergraduate
students matriculated at Western University, a private tier-one research institution. The
first two chapters in this study provided the theoretical foundation and empirical studies
to frame the analysis of the data. Chapter three presented the methodology and data
collection. The factors, as well as diversity course and student experience variables,
that influenced democratic values were examined in chapter four. The first section of
Chapter five presents a summary of the study by revisiting the statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, research questions, methodology and a summary of the findings.
Statistically significant correlations from the ANCOVA democratic value post-test
outcome results reported in chapter four are interpreted and conclusions are drawn
below. The second section of chapter five presents the implications and
recommendations regarding diversity courses and student experiences along with a
discussion of the findings for democratic values to conclude the end of this study.
Summary of the Study
The mission statements for most American Universities espouse their
educational obligation to educate students for responsible democratic citizenship by
helping them form specific democratic ideals outlined uniquely in these mission
statements. The American Association of Colleges and Universities (1995)
acknowledged the value of training undergraduate students for a diverse democracy
and, therefore, renewed their mission statement to emphasize democracy. However,
112
there is a lack of clarity defining democratic citizenship due to its interchangeable
terminology with civic engagement, social justice, community service, social capital,
social responsibility, and public leadership (Battistoni, 2002; Levine, 2007).
Checkoway (2001) elaborates that education for citizenship becomes further
complicated in a diverse democratic society that is not mono-cultural, but, rather
multicultural, with significant differences among and between groups. Functioning in a
successful democracy in the future requires students to understand their own identities,
communicate with people different from themselves, and bridge cultural differences to
shift into a more diverse society (Checkoway, 2001). To meet the goal of preparing
students for responsible civic participation in a global society, it is imperative that
institutions of higher education provide environments as well as experiences where
students can learn from diverse people and content.
There is an assumption that diversity exposure in terms of experiences,
environment, and people will influence students’ democratic values. Institutions of
higher education have attempted to meet the goal of preparing students for responsible
citizenship in a global society by employing several strategies. One is linking diversity
to the mission statement in terms of recruiting diverse students and faculty, diversity
courses and content, and diverse student experiences. Hurtado (2007) affirms that the
benefits of diversity exposure integrated into the curriculum (diversity courses) and
student diversity experiences have a positive effect on democratic outcomes and
responsible citizenship. Yet, the issues colleges and universities face are offering large
arrays of diversity courses to fulfill the general education requirement, using different
113
pedagogies and curriculum, and fostering extracurricular activities producing different
student experiences.
As a result, the purpose of this study was to evaluate to what extent diversity
courses and student diversity experiences correlate with democratic values. The
following two research questions and sub-questions were specifically investigated to
gain an understanding of how undergraduate students at Western University interpret
those diversity encounters that may help form their democratic values:
1. To what extent do diversity courses correlate with the undergraduate
students’ democratic values?
1a). To what extent are the numbers of diversity courses taken
correlated with democratic values?
1b). To what extent is the diversity course typology level correlated
with democratic values?
1c). To what extent does the year student first took diversity course
correlate with democratic values?
2. To what extent do the student experience variables correlate with democratic
values?
2a). To what extend does participating in student government
correlate with democratic values?
2b). To what extent does attending a racial/cultural workshop
correlate with democratic values?
2c ). To what extent is studying abroad correlated with democratic
values?
2d). To what extent is community services correlated with democratic
values?
2e). To what extent is registering to vote correlated with democratic
values?

The answer to research question 1 is yes, diversity courses do correlate with the
undergraduate students’ democratic values. More specifically, taking four or more
diversity courses showed higher changes on the empathy and liberal democratic values
scores. Additionally, a typology level 2 or higher for the first diversity course taken
also had higher changes on liberal value scores. The answer to research question 2 is
114
yes, student diversity experiences do correlate with democratic values. Attending a
racial awareness workshop showed higher changes on the empathy, liberal, social, and
spiritual values scores. Additionally participating in community service had a higher
change on leadership value scores and studying aboard showed higher changes on social
values scores.
Methods
The methodology used for this single institutional investigation was a non-
experimental longitudinal research design utilizing secondary data analysis of student
transcripts and self-reported survey data. The secondary data analysis gave detailed pre-
college characteristics (gender, race, parents’ education and pre-test for the outcome
variables) as well as student experiences while attending Western University. Astin’s
(1984, 1993) I-E-O model was used as the organizational frame to investigate
controlled independent variables (empathy1, leader1, liberal1, social1, spiritual1), the
environment (diversity courses and student diversity experiences) and democratic
values post-test outcomes (empahty2, leader2, liberal2, social2, spiritual2) that were
examined using ANCOVA’S. Chapter four reported and discussed the results of this
analysis and the significant findings are presented and further summarized below.
Findings and Discussion
As previously noted, this study aimed to describe the extent to which diversity
courses and student diversity experiences correlate with democratic values within the
literature review. The key findings for each research question are illustrated, explained,
and connected to the literature review in the next section. A discussion of the
implications and recommendations for research ends the chapter. Table 5.1, Table 5.2,
115
Table 5.3, and Table 5.4 show only the significant findings for research question one
and by each democratic post-test variables.
Table 5.1: Significant Results for Research Question 1
Research
Question – 1
Empathy 2
N=367
P
Leadership2
N=367
P
Liberal2
N=367
P
Social2
N=367
p
Spiritual2
N=367
P
1a)Total
number of
Diversity
Courses taken
p=.038*

p=.005**
1b)Diversity
course
typology level
p=.030*
1c)Year first
took diversity
course

(*p=.05 or lower; **p=.01 or lower; ***p=.001 or lower)
Table 5.2: Empathy Value mean broken down by Number of Diversity Courses
Total Diversity
Courses Taken

Mean

Std. Error
1.00 3.060
b
.049
2.00 3.153
b
.081
3.00 3.040
b
.144
4.00 3.481
a
.155
(*Note: Different subscripts indicate different means)

Table 5.3: Liberal Value by Number of Diversity Courses
Total Number of
Diversity Course(s)
Taken Mean Std. Error
1.00 2.820
a
.048
2.00 2.974
a
.080
3.00
2.955
a
.143
4.00 3.301
a
.153
(*Note: Different subscripts indicate different means)

116
Table 5.4: Liberal Value Means by Level of Typology of 1
st
Diversity Course
Taken
Typology Level of
1
st
Diversity Course
Taken Mean Std. Error
DC Level 1 2.859
a
.092
DC Level 2 3.106
a
.080
DC Level 3 3.006
a
.078
DC Level 4 3.079
a
.098
(Note: Different subscript indicate different means)

Significant Findings: Effects of Diversity Courses
As noted in Table 5.2, Table 5.3, and Table 5.4, there were two significant
findings in this study for the number of diversity courses taken. The findings suggest
that the number of diversity courses taken was significantly correlated to the democratic
values of empathy and liberal. Taking more than four diversity courses significantly
correlated with having greater change in empathy value scores and more change in
liberal value scores.
Additionally, the typology level of diversity courses taken was significantly
correlated with the democratic value of liberal. The findings suggest that taking a
diversity course at a level 2, 3, or 4 typology level correlated with more change in
liberal value scores.
The findings of this study build upon the argument that undergraduate students
are more likely to make informed decisions about their values and commitments, and to
think actively if confronted with diversity and complexity (Gurin et al., 2002). Students
who took four diversity courses showed higher levels of change in empathy value
scores and had more change in liberal value scores. Students who enrolled in four or
more diversity courses were more likely to have measurable democratic outcomes:
117
increase interest in social understanding; concerned for the public good; belief in social
equality; lower levels of prejudice; and greater awareness of social inequality. Indeed,
this pattern affirms existing student college impact literature on the educational benefits
of diversity, which consistently suggest that diversity courses increase students’ levels
of empathy (Humphreys, 1998). College impact literature also suggests that taking
more than one diversity course is statistically significant in sustaining racial attitudes
and assumptions of other diverse groups (Chang, 2002). Additionally, the correlation
for the liberal variable indicates that students who enroll in diversity courses had higher
levels of racial and ethnic engagement with differences (Chang, 2002). However, there
is minimal college impact literature on the effects of taking a large number of diversity
courses and more research is needed to understand the different effects of taking
multiple diversity courses.
The research findings suggest that the level of typology course that was taken is
significantly correlated with more change in liberal value scores. The results indicate
that undergraduate students who took diversity courses at a 2, 3, and 4 typology level
show higher levels of change in the liberal value scale. There is no current college
impact literature on the effects of the level of diversity course taken to support this
research finding. Cole and Sundt (2009) created the Typology of Diversity Courses
exploratory rubric which has not been used to explore diversity courses’ impact on
democratic outcomes until this research study. The rubric categorized diversity courses
into four levels or categories. Each level suggests the “variation across diversity courses
is meaningful and distinct” (Cole & Sundt, 2009, p.8). The four levels are introductory
(level 1), basic (level 2), intermediate (level 3), and advanced (level 4). Relatively
118
small amount of diversity courses (16%) were categorized into level one, 51% exceeded
diversity requirements to be categorized as level 3, and 9% well exceeded requirements
to be labeled level 4 (Cole & Sundt, 2009). This research finding suggests that there
was a statistical relationship between taking level 2, 3, or 4 diversity courses and the
student’s liberal democratic value. The positive effects on the liberal value are very
important because this provides new knowledge within college impact research that
helps differentiate democratic outcomes by level of diversity course and suggests that
there is uniqueness in these diversity courses that directly affects student democratic
values.
Significant Findings: Effects of Student Diversity Experiences
Other environmental variables, in addition to diversity courses, have shown to
have an effect on measures of democratic values. There were five variables that
separately measured different student diversity experiences: participation in student
government; attending a racial/cultural workshop; studying aboard; community service;
and registering to vote, as shown in Table 5.5. There were three significant findings in
this study further discussed below.
Table 5.5: Summary of findings for Research Question 2
Research
Question – 2
Empathy
P
Leadership
P
Liberal
p
Social
P
Spiritual2
N=500
P
2a)Participating
in student
government

2b)Attending
racial/cultural
workshop
p=.009** p=.001*** p=.003** p=.010*
2c)Studying
abroad
p=.028*

119
Table 5.5, Continued
2d)Community
Service
p=.023*
2e)Register to
vote

(N=551; *p=.05 or lower; **p=.01 or lower; ***p=.001 or lower)
Attending a racial/cultural workshop was significantly correlated with empathy
F(1,500)=6.915, p=.009, liberal F(1,500)=13.920, p=.001, social F(1,150)=8.902,
p=.003, and spiritual F(1,205)=6.718, p=.010 democratic values, as presented in Table
5.5. First, the empathy results indicate that attending a racial/cultural awareness
workshop was related to greater change in empathy value scores. College impact
research reported a positive relationship between students who attended a racial/cultural
workshop and cultural understanding and awareness (Astin, 1993; Milem, 1992, 1994).
Second, the results for liberal values indicate that attending a racial/cultural workshop
increases student’s exposure to a broader perspective of thoughts and ideas, openness to
diversity and challenge that is line with college impact research (Chang, 1999; Chang,
2003; Chang, 2002a; Pascarella et al., 1996; Seltzer & Kim, 2001). Other democratic
outcomes associated the liberal value and attending these workshops were increased
racial and cultural awareness, political liberalism, and higher levels of commitment to
promote racial understanding (Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al., 2002; Milem, 1992, 1994;
Pascarella et. al., 1996). Third, results for social values indicate a positive relationship
with attending such workshops with social activism, participation in campus protests,
and increased personal empowerment to affect social change (Astin, 1993). Students
who attend racial and cultural workshops were more committed to helping promote
racial understanding, help others in difficulty, and cleaning the environment (Astin,
120
1993). And last, the results show spirituality value had a positive impact on students’
developing a deep life philosophy, as did discussing religion and spirituality with
friends and family, (Astin, 1993). Students who became more tolerant, caring, and
connected to others were more likely to journey into a spiritual quest and become more
empathetic, caring and socially responsible (Lindholm, et al., 2010). College impact
research suggests attending these workshops increases public speaking, which is
characteristic of the leadership value, but this research did not show a significant
correlation between the leadership value and attending a racial/cultural workshop
(Astin, 1993).
The student diversity experience of studying abroad F(1,150)=4.868, p=.028 had
a strong association with the social democratic values as shown in table 5.5 This result
indicated that students who studied abroad became globally engaged and/or global
citizens. Students who studied abroad reported higher levels of global engagement and
were a more committed global citizen (Paige, Stallman, & Josic, 2008). Not found in
this study but noted by college impact research, the empathy and spirituality values are
correlated with studying abroad. Studying abroad provides cross-cultural skills, global
understanding, appreciation of cultural differences and openness to the world (Carlson,
Burn, Ussem & Uachimowicz, 1990; Kitsantas, 2004; Kaufman, Martin, Weaver &
Weaver, 1992; Talbert & Stuart, 1999). Lindholm, Astin, and Astin (2010) reported
that students participating in studying abroad enhanced their spirituality.
Finally, participating in community service F(1,500)=5.179, p=.023 was
strongly correlated with high levels of change in leadership democratic value scores.
Thus, students participating in community services showed stronger leadership skills.
121
According to the college impact literature, community service enhances leadership
skills but has a stronger relationship with the social value, increasing students’
commitment to participating in community action programs and promoting racial
understanding activities (Astin, 1996).
A summary of the significant findings in this study are shown in Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6: Summary of Significant Research Findings
(I)nputs (E)nvironment (O)utcomes

Racial. Pre-Test Democratic
Values

Empathy Value

Leadership Value

Liberal Value

Social Value

Spiritual Value
Diversity Courses
Total Number of Diversity
Courses Taken
 Taking 4 or more
diversity courses
Diversity Course typology
level
 Typology level 2 or
higher

Student Diversity
Experiences
Racial/Cultural Workshop

Studying Abroad

Community Service

Post-Test
Democratic Values
Empathy Value
Liberal Value

Liberal Value

Post-Test
Democratic Values
Empathy, Liberal,
Social, and Spiritual
Value

Social Value

Leadership Value

Practical Implications
This study informs the practice of professionals in academic and student affairs.
For universities to establish a compelling interest in educational diversity, clear policies
and practices that facilitate interracial interaction and dialogue must be established.
Actualizing the added value of diversity to attain democratic outcomes is dependent on
how leaders in higher education manage, in the post-civil rights era, and involves active
engagement in institutional reform. This research builds upon existing knowledge on
122
the benefit of diversity in terms of structural diversity, diverse peer interactions and
diversity initiatives’ impact on learning and democratic outcomes in undergraduate
students’ education. The results of this research support diversity courses’ contributions
to the formation of democratic values, but also suggests that more attention must be
focused on diversity courses’ typology level to differentiate the uniqueness for each
diversity type, as it has an impact on democratic values. Furthermore, the interaction
with diverse peer groups in a workshop format had a more significant effect on the
empathy, liberal, social, and spiritual values than did diversity courses. Both the theory
and findings indicate that individual students benefit from diverse interactions and
extracurricular activities. However, in order to foster democratic values for a diverse
democracy, educators must present more opportunities for students to interact with the
discomfort of differences and build stronger relationships across diverse student groups
on the college campus.
One way of implementing something new to a university is through
benchmarking the best practices of other institutions. The results from the research
show that Western University offers a variety of diversity courses and conducts
diversity workshops. The results show that students who actively engage in diversity
courses and diverse student activities change their values. In order to change the
institutional culture, five implications connected to the findings and the literatures are
drawn. One implication calls for making sure the five democratic values are
incorporated into the mission statement. University Presidents and Diversity Offices
would do well to come up with concrete goals to examine the increase of democratic
123
values through a pre- (freshman survey) and post- (Senior Survey) test to measure the
goals and make this information public.
A second implication calls for evaluating diversity courses using a Standards
Based education tool for curriculum development to measure the course by pre-testing
and post-testing change in attitudes. Institutions would benefit from conducting a
content analysis of Western University diversity courses to observe whether there is a
logical connection to democratic values. If a diversity course does not have a
theoretical connection to democratic values, then there will likely be no impact, as
diversity courses are not created equal. Some diversity courses change attitudes, and
some do not. Furthermore, studying the measurable effects of taking multiple diversity
courses that incorporate democratic values using pre-post surveys is important to assess
impact. Currently, American students are disinterested in civic and democratic
responsibilities. Identifying democratic values and understanding that taking a large
number of diversity courses affects empathy and liberal values is an important research
finding to further expand research regarding taking more diversity courses and
providing the academic-based knowledge to rekindle the democratic spirit that can
move it away from the margins and back into the center of higher education.
Identifying a set of institutional democratic values can help guide the civic preparation
of undergraduate students to live in a diverse democracy.
The third implication for practice affirms the need to extend the findings of the
Typology of Diversity rubric and possibly redesign level 1 typology diversity courses,
as these do not have an effect on students’ democratic values. According to Cole and
Sundt (2009), the Typology of Diversity rubric categorized diversity courses into four
124
levels rated on a 4 point Likert scale. Level 1 is labeled introductory with an average
score on the rubric of 1.27. Thus, there are a large number of level 1 courses in the
typology and there is no level 0, therefore it is unknown what level 0 will represent and
further research in needed to explore and create this level. It is time to re-examine the
scope and quality of diversity courses to enhance students’ interest, commitment and
action in democratic responsibilities, and further research is needed using the Typology
of Diversity rubric because the results came from a single institutional study that results
may not be generalizable to other campuses. Additionally, a second typology of
diversity courses is needs to be developed based on pedagogy that can qualitatively
condense diversity courses taught by various faculties using different pedagogy to
match the syllabi.
A fourth implication necessitates the identification of the goals of racial/cultural
workshops and the measuring of goals using a pre-post survey to observe changes in
democratic values. Racial/cultural workshops are the most cost effective and shortest-
term student diversity experiences to have statistically significant impact on democratic
values. University administration should rely more heavily on racial/cultural
workshops than on diversity courses because they are more practical.
And a fifth implication calls for extending Astin, Astin, and Lindholm’s (2011)
study of spirituality development through students’ experiences with diverse students,
diversity courses and student diversity experiences using their five spiritual qualities
(equanimity, spiritual quest, ethic of caring, charitable involvement, and ecumenical
worldview) to make a logical connection to democratic values. Spirituality
development helps explore the bigger question of student’s inner values that enhances
125
community service, leadership, social, liberal and empathy values. Astin, Astin, and
Lindholm’s (2011) identified several college experiences that contribute to students’
college growth. Students’ attitude change can be measured using pre- and post-tests
with diversity courses and the connection between students’ experiences with their
spiritual life and democratic values.
Limitations
There are two major limitations in this research: threats to internal validity and
threats external validity. Internal validity has to do with the credibility of causal
inference. The results from this research show that having multiple diversity courses
and having a single racial/cultural workshop lead to more democratic values. The study
allows only weak causal inferences because the design was correlational. The key
limitation of the research was uncontrolled outside factors (i.e. pre-college
characteristics, SES level, parent educational level, etc.) that make it impossible to
prove causal inferences to explain the results. While there are many threats to internal
validity, all quasi-experimental designs are characterized by weak to moderate causal
inferences. The only design that justifies a strong causal inference is the true
experiment or randomized trial. Changing the research design to a true experimental
design by randomly assigning students to treatment and control groups would allow for
a credible causal inference.
The second limitation to the study is the threat to external validity. External
validity is the extent to which a study’s research can be generalized to other samples,
settings, measurements and treatments. Virtually all studies have limited
generalizability, so each of these three threats will be discussed. The first threat is that
126
the study’s participants are not similar to other student populations in different
university settings. The population and setting at Western University is unique. The
majority of the student population at Western University is financially and
educationally affluent. The setting at Western University is that of a private, research I
university located in a large metropolitan area, so the results can only be generalized to
a few universities in similar settings.
A second threat to external validity is the likelihood that the results will
generalize to other measurements. The answer is “probably.” It likely does not matter
how values are measured as long as self-reports are used and the same values are
measured. Nonetheless, if different measures of values are used (e.g. behavioral
indicators) the results would likely not be generalizable.
The last threat to external validity is the nature of the intervention. Western
University has a large number of diversity courses, and the nature of these cannot be
replicated at another institution. Therefore, the intervention probably cannot be
replicated at universities that offer fewer diversity courses or have different diversity
requirements. Moreover, a recommendation is to further extend and expand research at
various universities that have a different diversity course requirement and that have
differing institutional missions: faith-based institutions, historically black colleges and
universities, community colleges, women’s colleges, master’s degree universities, and
liberal arts colleges.
Recommendations for Future Research
There are four recommendations for future research to arise from this study. A
first recommendation is to expand the theory of diversity and learning to show a logical
127
connection between diversity courses and student diversity experiences, most
specifically racial/cultural workshops and democratic values. Currently, the theory of
diversity and learning (Gurin et. al., 2002) and supporting theories from Coser (1975)
and Langer (1978) examine active thinking learning outcomes that shows why diversity
courses work. Expanding this theory using qualitative analysis will help explain the
nuances of skills and competencies of diversity courses and student diversity
experiences’ effect on democratic values. College impact research is missing
qualitative literature, and expanding or creating new theories will add to the body of
literature.
Second, all diversity courses are not created equal, and the results of this study
show there is a need for further research on the Cole and Sundt (2009) Typology of
Diversity Courses rubric. A second recommendation is to expand the typology to assess
all diversity courses taken by students instead of only the first diversity course taken.
This analysis would allow for a more thorough understanding of how the numbers of
courses taken and the typology interact.
A third recommendation is a small-scale study on racial/cultural workshops with
randomly assigned experimental and control groups. Racial/cultural awareness
workshops are practical, economical, and have significant effects on four of five
democratic values in the present study. Racial/cultural awareness workshops are an
easy way to target one or more democratic values. Racial/cultural awareness
workshops designed to affect leadership values can be studied by asking students to fill
out surveys while on a waiting list and then after the intervention. Randomly assigning
students who received an intervention can then be compared to control group students
128
who will receive the intervention at a later time. It would also be interesting to
experiment on categorized workshops within the Typology rubric. For example,
students receiving higher levels of the diversity typology can be compared to students
receiving lower levels of the typology.
The fourth recommendation is to study how diversity courses work through
qualitative analysis. College impact research is missing the qualitative research
necessary to learn the phenomenological effects of diversity courses and student
diversity experiences because the theory in this particular area is weak. A theory that is
confrontational and causes great dissonance that shows why diversity courses and
diverse student experiences work is much more informative than stating that taking
diversity courses or participating in diverse student experiences increases positive
attitudes. Furthermore, the present research showed that, out of all student diversity
experiences, attending a racial/cultural workshop had the most statistically significant
impact on democratic values. However, there is no agreed upon rubric for
racial/cultural workshop development. Of benefit would be a content analysis of both
diversity courses’ syllabi of racial/cultural awareness workshops though observations
and interviews to understand whether these results will replicate at another university.
It is important to understand whether the number of diversity courses at Western
University, the nature of the coding scheme for diversity courses, and the nature of
racial/cultural awareness workshops can be replicated at another university.
Summary and Conclusions
This study extends the finding from previous research on the benefits of
diversity experiences on students’ democratic outcomes. The purpose of this study was
129
to evaluate to what extent diversity courses and student diversity experiences correlate
with democratic values. Two research questions guided the investigation:
1. To what extent do diversity courses correlate with the undergraduate
students’ democratic values?
1a). To what extent are the numbers of diversity courses taken
correlated with democratic values?
1b). To what extent is the diversity course typology level correlated
with democratic values?
1c). To what extent does the year student first took diversity course
correlate with democratic values?
2. To what extent do the student experience variables correlate with democratic
values?
2a). To what extend does participating in student government
correlated with democratic values?
2b) To what extent does attending a racial/cultural workshop
correlate with democratic values?
2c ). To what extent is studying abroad correlated with democratic
values?
2d). To what extent is community services correlated with democratic
values?
2e). To what extent is registering to vote correlated with democratic
values?

The methodology used for this single institutional investigation was a non-
experimental longitudinal research design utilizing secondary data analysis of student
transcripts and self-reported data. The secondary data analysis gave detailed pre-
college characteristics (gender, race, parents’ education and pre-test for the outcome
variables) as well as student experiences while attending Western University. Astin’s
(1984, 1993) I-E-O model was used as the organizational frame to investigate
controlled independent variables pretest of (empathy values, leadership values, liberal
values, social values, spiritual values), the environment (diversity courses and student
diversity experiences) and post-test outcomes regarding democratic values (empathy
values, leadership values, liberal values, social values, spiritual values).
130
The findings from the analysis completed from answering research question 1
and the sub-questions showed a strong relationship between taking four or more
diversity courses and higher change in empathy and liberal democratic value scores
(Table 5.6). Additionally, a typology level 2 or higher for the first diversity course
taken was statistically associated with having more change in liberal democratic value
scores. These findings were consistent with prior theory and the research on the
association of diversity course work and democratic values.
Moreover, the findings show a strong relationship between attending a racial
awareness workshop and stronger democratic values in the empathy, liberal, social and
spiritual categories (Table 5.6). In addition, participating in community service had a
strong relationship with greater change in leadership democratic value scores, and
student participation in studying abroad programs was related to the endorsement of
social democratic values. Hence, this study found greater gain in democratic values for
those students who participated in extracurricular activities, particularly attending a
racial/cultural workshop. The findings of this study contribute in important ways to the
evidence demonstrating a new way to assess the uniqueness of diversity courses as well
as clearly delineate the value of diversity initiatives (both co-curricular and curricular)
relative to five important democratic values needed to prepare students to live in a
democratic society.

131
Table 5.6: Concept Synthesis Table of Findings
Research
Question – 1
Empathy
N=367
p
Liberal
N=367
p
Leadership Social Spiritual
1a)Total
number of
Diversity
Courses taken
p=.038*

p=.005**
Total diversity
courses taken

Mean Std.
Err.
Mean Std.
Err.

1.00 3.060
b
.049 2.820
a
.048
2.00 3.153
b
.081 2.974
a
.080
3.00 3.040
b
.144 2.955
a
.143
4.00 3.481
a
.155 3.301
a
.153
1b)Diversity
Course
typology level
p=.030*
Typology of
1
st
diversity
course taken
Mean Std.
Err.

DC Level 1 2.859
a
.092
DC Level 2 3.106
a
.080
DC Level 3 3.006
a
.078
DC Level 4 3.079
a
.098
Research
Question -2
Empathy
p
Liberal
p
Leadership
p
Social
p
Spiritual
P
2a)Attending
racial/cultural
workshops
p=.009** p=.001*** p=.003** p=.010*
2b) Studying
abroad
p=.028*
2c)Community
Service
p=.023*

132
REFERENCES
Algers, J.R. (1998). The educational value of diversity. Academe. 20
(January/February 1998).
Almond, G. & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.
Antonio, A. (1998.). The impact of friendship groups in a multicultural university.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Astin, A. W. (1984.). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College STudent Personnel(25), 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1993.). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus: How are students
affected? Change., 23, 44-49.
Astin, A. W. (1993, 2002). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. Westport, CT: ORYX Press.
Astin, A.W., & Astin, H.S. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education
in social change. Battle Creak, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Astin, A.W., Astin, H.S., Lindholm, J.A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college
can enhance students' inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Banks, J. A. (1993.). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural
education,. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4-14.
Barber, B. R. (Ed.). (1997.). Afterward. Washington, DC:: American Association for
Higher Education.
Barr, J.J. & Higgins-D'Lessando, A. (2007). How adolescent empathy and prosocial
behavior change in the context of school culture: a two-year longitudinal study.
The journal of genetic psychology: Research and Theory of Human
Development, 168(3), 231-250.
Battistoni, R. (2002). Civic Engagement across the curriculum. Providence, RI:
Campus Compact.
Bok, D. (1982.). Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social Responsibility of the Modern
University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bok, D. (2006.). Improving the quality of undergraduate education. In Our
underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why
they should be learning more. Princeton, New Jersey.: Princeton University
Press.
133
Bowen, H. R. (1977.). Investment in learning: The individual and social value of
American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E. L. (1994, March). Creating the New American College. Chronicle of Higher
Education.
Cacioppo, J. T. P., R.E. (1982.). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
Carlson, J.S., Burn, B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). The experience of
american undergraduates. New York: NY: Greenwood Press.
Chang, M. J. (1996). Racial diversity in higher education: Does a racially mixed student
population affect educational outcomes?
Chang, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). The positive educational effects of racial diversity on
campus. Cambridge.: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Chang, M. J., Seltzer, M., & Kim, J. (2001). Diversity of opinion among entering
college students: Does race matter? Paper presented at the American
Educational Researcher Association Conference.
Chang, M. J. (2002.). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on
student's racial views and attitudes. The Journal of General Education., 51(1),
24-42.
Chang, M. J. (2002a.). An exploratory study of the role of race in selecting a student
body with a broader range of viewpoints. Promoting inclusion., 5, 4-13.
Chang, M. J. (2003). Racial differences in viewpoints about contemporary issues among
entering college students: Fact or fiction? NASPA Journal, 40(4), 55-71.
Chang, M.J., Astin, A.W., & Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among
undergraduates: Some causes and consequences. Research in Higher Education.
Checkoway, B. (2001, April). Renewing the Civic Mission of the American Research
University. The Journal of Higher Education., 72(2), 125-147.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., and Stephen, J. (2003). Educating Citizens:
Preparing america's undergraduates for lives of moral and civic responsibility.
San Francisco.: Jossey-Bass.
Cole, D. (2007.). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty
contact and intellectual self-concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 248-
272.
134
Coser, R. (Ed.). (1975.). The complexity of roles as a seedbed of individual autonomy.
New York.: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (second ed.). Thousand Oaks; CA: Sage Publications.
Crowne, D. P. M., D. (1960.). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Daly, H., Prugh, T., & Constanza, R. (2000). The local politics of global sustainability.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Dillon, S. (December 21, 2004). U.S. Slips in Status as Global Hub of Higher
Education. New York Times,
Ehrenberg, R. (2007, April). How government can improve access to college. . The
Chronicle Review, 53(31), 1-5.
Erikson, E. (1946.). Ego development and historical change. Psychoanalytic study of the
child., 2, 359-396.
Erikson, E. (1956.). The problem of ego identity. Journal of American Psychoanalytic
Association., 4, 56-121.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S. &Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Galston, W. (1991.). Liberal purposes: Goods, virtues, and diversity in the liberal state.
Cambridge, England.: Cambridge University Press.
Glass, G.V. & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). Statistical methods in education and psychology
(second ed.). Needham Heights; MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Grant, C.A. & Secada, W.G. (1990). Preparing teachers for diversity. In W.R.
Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.145-166). New
York: Macmillan.
Grutter v. Bollinger. 2003. 539 U.S. 306. 2003.).
Guarasci, R., & Cornwell, D. . (1998.). Democratic education in an age of difference:
Redefining citizenship in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guarasci, R., & Cornwell, G.H. & Associates. (1997.). Democratic education in an age
of difference: Redefining education in an age of difference. San Francisco::
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
135
Gurin, P. (1999.). The compelling need for diversity in higher education, Expert
testimony in Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. . Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 5,
363-425.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., and Gurin, G. (Fall 2002). Diversity and higher
education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. [Electronic Version].
Harvard Educational Review., 72, 330-367. Retrieved August 29, 2007., from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=239823621&Fmt=4&clientld=4676&RQT
=309&VName=PQD
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton University Press.
Hauptman, A. (Spring, 1997.). Financing American Higher Education in the 1990's.
New Directions for Institutional Research, 93, 115-126.
Henderson-King, D. &. Stewart, A.J. (1999.). Educational experiences and shifts in
group consciousness: Studying women. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,, 25(390-399.).
Hogan, D. a. M., M. (2005). Changing racial prejudices through diversity education.
Journal of College Student Development, 46(2), 115-125.
Humphreys, D. (Fall, 2000.). National survey finds diversity requirements common
around the country. Diversity Digest., 5(1), 1-2.
Hurtardo, S., Milem, J.F., Clayton-Pederson, A.R. & Allen, W.R. (1998). Enhancing
Campus Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity Through Educational Policy and
Practice. The Review of Higher Education Anniversary Edition 21(3).
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse
learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in
higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hurtardo, S. (1996). How diversity affects teaching and learning: A climate of inclusion
has a positive effect on learning outcomes. Educational Record, 77(4), 27-29.
Hurtardo, S. (2001). "Linking diversity with educational purpose: How diversity
impacts the classroom environment and student development". In diversity
challenged: Legal crisis and new evidence, ed. G. Orfield. Cambridge: Harvard
Publishing Group.
Hurtardo, S. (Winter, 2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions
of higher education. The Review of Higher Education., 30(2), 185-196.
Institute for the Study of Social Change, (1991). The diversity project: Final report.
Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.
136
Jacoby, B. a. A. (2009). Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and
Practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kauffman, N., Martin, J. D., Weaver, H.D., & Weaver, J. (1992). Students abroad:
Strangers at home. Education for a global society. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural
Press.
Komives, S.R, Woodard, D.B. & Associates. (1996). Student Services: A handbook
for the profession. (third ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G.D. (2003). "What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE."
Change 35,no. 2:24.
La Belle, T.J. & Ward, C.R. (1996). Ethic studies and multiculturalism. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Langer, E. J. (Ed.). (1978.). Rethinking the role of thought in soical interaction. (Vol.
3). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Levine, P. (2007). The future of American democracy: Developing the next generation
of American citizens. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liu, G. (1998). Affirmative action in higher education: The diversity rationale and the
compelling interest test. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 33.
381-442.
Macedo, S. (2000). Diversity and distrust: Civic education in a multicultural
democracy. Cambridge, MA:: Harvard University Press.
McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B.B., & Batt, V. (1981.). Has racism declined in America?
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25(4).
Milem, J.F. (1992). The impact of college on students' racial attitudes and levels of
racial awareness . Doctoral dissertation, UCLA. Ann Arbor: University
Microforms International (UMI), Order Number 9301968.
Milem, J.F. (1994). College, students , and racial understanding. Thought & Action (9),
2, 51-92.
Milem, J. F., Chang, M.J., Antonio, A.L. (2005.). Making diversity work on campus: A
research-based perspective. Association of American College and Universities.
Milem, J.F., & Hakuta, K. (2000). The benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in higher
education. In minorities in higher education: Seventeenth annual status report,
ed. D.Eilds, 39-67. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
137
Morrill, R.L. " Educating for democratic values." Liberal Education, 1982, 68(4), 365-
376.
Musil, C.M. (2003). Educating for citizenship. Peer Review 5(3): 4-8.
Musil,C,M, 2006a. Assessing global learning: Matching Good Intentions with Good
Practice. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
NCES. (1996c). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved. from.
Nelson Laird, T. F., Engberg, M.E., and Hurtado, S. (2002.). Modeling the effects of a
diversity course on students' preparation for a diversity democracy. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher
Education.
Nelson Laird, T., Engberg, M., and Hurtado, S. (Jul-Aug., 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.
Newcomb, T. (1943.). Personlity and social change. Attitude formation in a student
community. New York:: Dryden Press.
Olguin, R., & Schmitz, B. (Ed.). (1997.). Transforming the curriculum through
diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Orfield, G. (Ed.). (2001). Diversity challenged: Legal crisis and new evidence.
Cambridge, MA:: Havard Publishing Group.
Orrill, R. (Ed.). (1997). Education and democracy: Re-imagining liberal learning in
America. New York:: Colege Entrance Examination Board.
Pascarella, E., Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini. (March/April 1996.). Influences on
student's openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. Journal
of Higher Education, 67(2).
Paige, M., Stallman, E., & Josic, J. (2008, May). Study abroad for global engagement:
A
preliminary report on the Study Abroad Global Engagement (SAGE) research
project. Presentation at SAGE annual conference, Washington, DC.: NAFSA:
Association of International Educators. Conference Presentation.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International
Universities Press.
138
Piaget, J. (1971.). The theory of stages in cognitive development. (Vol. 1-111.). New
York:: McGraw-Hill.
Piaget, J. (1985.). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of
intellectual development. Chicago;: University of Chicago Pres. ( Original work
published 1975).
Putnam, R. D. (1995, January). Bowling alone: American's declining social captial. .
Journal of Democracy, 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (2000.). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York.: Simon & Schuster.
Ruble, D. (1994.). Developmental changes in achievement evaluation: Motivational
implications of self-other differences. Child development., 65, 1095-1110.
Saltmarch, J. (2005). The Civic promise of service learning. Liberal education, 91(2),
50-55.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.
Skopol, T. & Fiorina, M. (Eds). (1999). Civic education in american democracy.
Washington, D.C.: Brooking Press.
The Teagle Foundation Website. (2009). The Teagle Foundation: Our mission.
http://www.teaglefoundation.org/
Tudge, J. R. H. & Winterhoff, P.A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura:
Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive
development. Human Development, 36, 61-81.
U.S. Department of Commerce, C. B. (2001a.). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin.
Retrieved. from.
Universities., A. o. A. C. a. (1995a). American pluralism and the college curriculum:
Higher education in a diverse democracy. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., and Brady, H. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic
Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Villalpando, O. (1994). Comparing the effects of multiculturalism and diversity on
minority an White students' satisfaction with college. Paper presented at the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Tucson, AZ.

139
Whitt, E., Edison, M., Pascarella, E., Terenzini P., and Nora, A. (2001). Influence on
students' openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third year of
college. The Journal of Higher Education., 72(2), 172-204.
Winston, R. B. J., Creamer, C., Miller, T., & Associates. (2001). The professional
student affairs administrator: Educator, leader, and manager. New York,:
Taylor & Francis Group.

140
Appendix A
Western University Diversity Committee Guidelines for Designation
as a Diversity Course Requirement

DIVERSITY COURSE REQUIREMENT GUIDELINES (Revised 04/22/09)

Purpose and rationale
The Diversity Course Requirement is designed to meet an important educational need of
undergraduates. The current generation of undergraduates, and those for some years to
come, will increasingly be faced with issues arising from the diversity of the human
condition. These issues, for example, about equity and equality between men and women,
about racial and other biases and their social and cultural consequences, will have
important ramifications for students’ personal, professional, and intellectual lives. We
must equip our students with the background knowledge and analytical skills which will
enable them to understand and respect differences so that they may view unfamiliar
customs and perspectives not with suspicion born of ignorance, but with an
understanding of the opportunities this diversity makes possible for our private and public
aspirations.

The Diversity Course Requirement represents institutional recognition of the
importance of issues arising from human diversity and of the University’s commitment
to educate students about these issues. Such education is particularly important in light
of an ASCUS strategic focus on having a global presence and our commitment to
preparing undergraduate students (both domestic and foreign born) to be global citizens.

Guidelines for courses
Human diversity has many dimensions. The dimensions addressed in courses
satisfying the Diversity Course Requirement may include but are not limited to: age,
disability, ethnicity, gender, language, race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, and
social class. Courses satisfying the Diversity Course Requirement must examine two or
more dimensions of human diversity and must consider these dimensions in terms of
their social and/or cultural consequences. These consequences need to explore how
differences among social groups have led to conflicts, and may include possible solutions
to those conflicts or address how living in a diverse society can function as a form of
enrichment. As a rule, at least one third of the course should be addressed to these issues,
and this should be proportionately reflected in the assigned readings, lectures, and topics
for papers, quizzes, tests, or other graded formal course requirements. Although courses
must include at least two dimensions of human diversity, it is not the case that equal or
near equal attention must be given to each; in many cases the main focus will be on one
dimension of diversity, with the other dimension brought in to illuminate general issues.
Interdisciplinary approaches to these issues are especially encouraged.

The Diversity Course Requirement was adopted so that students will understand issues
and conflict arising from human differences in contemporary American and
141
international environments. Each course should give students the opportunity for personal
reflection on the formation of their own attitudes toward other groups and the effect of
those attitudes on the institutions (e.g., cultural, professional, political). Courses
carefully focused on issues of diversity in specific societies outside the Anglo-
American world may also be considered. Courses that examine diversity from an
international or historical perspective should include some discussion of (or connection
to) an American context.

All syllabi are expected to show how the topics addressed related to issues facing
students in a contemporary context. No particular ‘slant’ or conclusion regarding the
issues addressed in the course is mandated by the requirement; the Diversity
Requirement Committee affirms that academic freedom is a fundamental value, and that
it will take no action which threatens to infringe the legitimate academic freedom of
any member of the faculty.

Any course which satisfies the Diversity Requirement satisfies the University
requirement for any student who passes the course, regardless of his or her major or
other academic program. This does not mean that courses satisfying the requirement
cannot be restricted in enrollment to students in a particular academic program, or to
students who have satisfied certain prerequisites for admission to the course. Courses
satisfying the Diversity Requirement may also satisfy General Education and/or major
requirements.

Procedure for approving course proposals
The Diversity Requirement Committee reviews course proposals to determine
whether or not they satisfy the Diversity Requirement. Approved courses will be listed
in the University Catalogue, and Schedule of Classes, as satisfying the Diversity
Requirement. The committee will consider new and revised courses as they are
proposed, and will conduct periodic (every five years) reviews of the courses listed as
satisfying the requirement to insure that they continue to be effective in meeting the
relevant educational needs of the students.
To be considered for inclusion in the list of Diversity Requirement courses, a faculty
member or academic department must submit a proposal including the following
information:

 Names and qualifications of faculty members in the department who would
teach the course
 All information on the UCC course approval form (even if the course in
question has previously been approved by UCC)
 A syllabus including a week by week breakdown of readings and topics, and for
those weeks containing material addressing issues of diversity, a brief description
of how that material relates to these issues;
 A complete bibliography of required and recommended readings;
 A general statement in the syllabus briefly explaining how the course
meets the criteria for satisfying the Diversity Requirement (e.g., “This
142
course fulfills the Diversity Requirement by focusing on two different
forms of difference: race, and to a lesser extent, class. Students will learn
about race and racism in several ways, including housing segregation, the
racialized nature of the economy, and how institutional racism works,
and how learning about and living in a diverse society can function as
a form of enrichment
 • An indication of the comparative and/or interdisciplinary elements, if
any, of the methodology of the course.

The submissions are to be sent the Curriculum Coordination Office, which will coordinate
the Diversity Requirement course selection process. Faculty whose proposals are not
at first accepted are encouraged to respond to committee comments and to revise their
courses before the Diversity Requirement Committee arrives at a final decision on that
proposal.

143
Appendix B
Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008)

Advanced
(Mean range= .95-
1.0)
Intermediate
(Mean range= .74-
.94)

Basic
(Mean range= .52-
.73)

Introductory
(Mean range= .25-
.51)

Typology of Diversity
Courses

 Introductory Diversity Courses, on average, meets WU’s Diversity requirements.
 Basic Diversity Courses, on average, marginally exceed WU’s Diversity requirements
 Intermediate Diversity Courses, on average, exceed WU’s Diversity expectations
 Advanced Diversity Courses, on average, far exceed WU’s Diversity expectations
Note: Scores are derived from a 4 point likert-scale on each of the 5 criteria used by WU to
designate a diversity course as an approved option to fulfill the diversity course requirement.
All Diversity
Courses
Avg. Mean =
.73
Std. = .22
Example Course:
(ARCH 440) Women’s spaces in
history
Example Course:
(SWMS 301) Intro. Feminist
Theory
Example Course:
(SOCI 342) Race
Relations
Example Course:
(SOCI 360) Social Inequity:
Class, Status, & Power
144
Appendix C
2004 CIRP Survey Instrument

145

146

147

148
Appendix D
2008 Western University Senior Survey Instrument
Name Label (question text)
WUID
PID
time_degree How long has it taken you to earn your degree?
deg_1
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Changed major one or more times
deg_2
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Added additional majors and/or minors
deg_3
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Couldn't get courses when I needed them
deg_4
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Poor advising
deg_5
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Took extra time to improve my GPA
deg_6
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Internship
deg_7
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Travel or study abroad
deg_8
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Extracurricular activities
deg_9
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Work/employment
deg_10
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Family commitments
deg_11
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Illness or accident
deg_12
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took to earn your
degree: Other
prof_1
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: Encouragement to
pursue graduate/professional study
prof_2
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: An opportunity to
work on a research project
prof_3
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: Advice and
guidance about your educational program
prof_4
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: Respect (treated
you like a colleague/peer)
prof_5
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: An opportunity to
publish a paper
prof_6
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: Emotional support
and encouragement
prof_7
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: A letter of
recommendation
prof_8
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: Assistance to
improve your study skills
149
prof_9
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: Negative feedback
about your academic work
prof_10
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: Intellectual
challenge and stimulation
prof_11
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: An opportunity to
discuss your coursework outside of class
prof_12
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: Help in achieving
your professional goals
first_1
In your first year at WU, did you: Participate in Learning Communities offered by the
College of LAS
first_2 In your first year at WU, did you: Take a Freshman Seminar course
first_3
In your first year at WU, did you: Participate in programs sponsored by the residential
hall or college where you lived (if applicable)
first_4 In your first year at WU, did you: Participate in other programs designed for freshmen
first_5 In your first year at WU, did you: Perform community service work as part of a course
first_6
In your first year at WU, did you: Perform community service work that was not
required by a course
ever_1 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Had a part-time job on campus
ever_2 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Had a part-time job off campus
ever_3 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Worked full-time while attending school
ever_4 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in student government
ever_5 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Attended a racial/cultural awareness workshop
ever_6 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in an internship program
ever_7 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in leadership training
ever_8 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Studied abroad
ever_9
Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in undergraduate research or creative
projects
ever_10 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in a WU Honors Program
freq_1 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Worked on independent study projects
freq_2
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Discussed course content with students
outside of class
freq_3 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Worked on group projects in class
freq_4 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Had been a guest in a professor's home
freq_5 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Participated in intramural sports
freq_6 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Failed to complte homework on time
freq_7 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Felt bored in class
freq_8 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Studied with other students
freq_9 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Challenged a professor's ideas in class
freq_10 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Voted in a student election
freq_11
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Performed community service work as
part of a course
freq_12 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Missed class due to employment
freq_13 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Tutored another college student
freq_14 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Felt supported by my family
freq_15
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Participated in Student Affairs-
sponsored activities
freq_16_myWU How often do you use the MyWU student portal?
freq_17
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Smoked cigarettes
150
freq_18
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Felt lonely or homesick
freq_19
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Socialized with someone from another racial/ethnic group
freq_20
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Felt depressed
freq_21
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Felt overwhelmed by all I had to do
freq_22
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Attended a religious service
freq_23
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Drank beer
freq_24
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Drank wine or liquor
freq_25
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Performed volunteer work
freq_26
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Participated in organized demonstrations
freq_27
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Discussed politics
freq_28
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Overslept and missed class or appointment
freq_29
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Sought personal counseling
freq_30
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Visited an art gallery or museum
freq_31
Please indicate how often you engaged in each of these activities during the past year:
Discussed religion
org_1
In the past academic year, indicate the types of organizations that you have been
involved in and your level of involvement: WU-based
org_2
In the past academic year, indicate the types of organizations that you have been
involved in and your level of involvement: Off-campus
hours_1
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Studying/homework
hours_2
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Socializing with friends
hours_3
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Talking with faculty outside of class
hours_4
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Exercising/sports
hours_5
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Partying
hours_6
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Working (for pay)
hours_7
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Volunteer work
hours_8
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Student clubs/groups
hours_9
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Watching TV
151
hours_10
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Housework/child care
hours_11
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Reading for pleasure
hours_12
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Using a personal computer
hours_13
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Commuting
hours_14
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Playing video games
hours_15
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Prayer/meditation
hours_16
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical week doing the
following activities: Classes/labs
self_1
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Academic ability
self_2
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Artistic ability
self_3
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Athletic ability
self_4
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Competitiveness
self_5
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Cooperativeness
self_6
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Creativity
self_7
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Drive to achieve
self_8
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Emotional health
self_9
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Leadership ability
self_10
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Mathematical ability
self_11
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Physical health
self_12
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Popularity
self_13
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Public speaking ability
self_14
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Self-confidence (intellectual)
self_15
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Self-confidence (social)
self_16
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Self-understanding
self_17
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Spirituality
self_18
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Understanding of others
152
self_19
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Writing ability
self_20
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the average person your
age: Religiousness/religiosity
change_1
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Think critically
change_2
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Place current problems in
historical/cultural/philosophical perspective
change_3
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Formulate/create original ideas and solutions
change_4
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Evaluate and choose between different courses
of action
change_5
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Understand the process of science and
experimentation
change_6
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Evaluate the role of science and technology in
society
change_7
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Acquire new skills and knowledge on my own
change_8
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Understand myself: abilities, interests,
limitations, personality
change_9
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Develop self-esteem/self-confidence
change_10
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Develop a healthy lifestyle
change_11
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Appreciation of the cultural arts
change_12
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Function independently, without supervision
change_13
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Plan and execute complex projects
change_14
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Work cooperatively
change_15
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Resolve interpersonal conflicts positively
change_16
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Identify moral and ethical issues
change_17
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Get along with people from different
races/cultures
change_18
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Understand different religions/belief systems
change_19
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Understand issues related to gender
change_20
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Understand issues surrounding lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender people
153
change_21
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Understand the problems facing the
community that surrounds WU
change_22
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Understand social problems facing our nation
change_23
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Understand global issues
change_24
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your ability or skill
level has changed in the following areas: Become an informed citizen
success_1
Since enrolling at WU, how successful have you been in: Understanding what your
professors expect of you academically
success_2
Since enrolling at WU, how successful have you been in: Adjusting to the academic
demands of college
success_3
Since enrolling at WU, how successful have you been in: Managing your time
effectively
success_4 Since enrolling at WU, how successful have you been in: Getting to know faculty
success_5
Since enrolling at WU, how successful have you been in: Developing close friendships
with other students
success_6
Since enrolling at WU, how successful have you been in: Utilizing campus services
available to students
satis_1
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: General education
courses
satis_2
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Courses in your
major field
satis_3
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Overall quality of
teaching by faculty
satis_4
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Overall quality of
teaching by TA’s
satis_5
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: The degree to
which you can experience intellectual growth
satis_6
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Academic advising
before declaring a major
satis_7
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Academic advising
in your major
satis_8
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Advising on other
matters (careers, life plans, etc.)
satis_9
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: WU's commitment
to academic excellence
satis_10
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Relationships with
other students
satis_11
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Relationships with
faculty members
satis_12
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Relationships with
student affairs administrative personnel
satis_13
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Relationships with
administrative personnel in other offices
satis_14
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Racial harmony on
campus
satis_15
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Services provided
by the Division of Student Affairs
154
satis_16
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Services provided
by other offices at WU
satis_17
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: The degree to
which you have been able to find out what's happening on campus
satis_18
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: The degree to
which you can monitor your academic progress and personal development
satis_19
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: The degree to
which you can resolve problems and express complaints
satis_20
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: WU's concern for
you as an individual
satis_21
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: The degree to
which you feel a sense of belonging on campus
satis_22
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: The degree to
which you feel safe and secure on campus
satis_23
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas: Overall college
experience
choice_over If you could make your college choice over, would you still choose to enroll at WU?
continue Do you plan to continue your studies beyond the bachelor's degree?
degree_1
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Law (L.L.B. or J.D.) - Immediately upon
graduation
degree_2 Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Law (L.L.B. or J.D.) - Future plans
degree_3
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Medicine (M.D.) - Immediately upon
graduation
degree_4 Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Medicine (M.D.) - Future plans
degree_5
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Other Medical - Immediately upon
graduation
degree_6 Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Other Medical - Future plans
degree_7
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Second Bachelor's Degree - Immediately
upon graduation
degree_8 Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Second Bachelor's Degree - Future plans
degree_9
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Master's Degree - Immediately upon
graduation
degree_10 Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Master's Degree - Future plans
degree_11 Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Doctorate - Immediately upon graduation
degree_12 Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Doctorate - Future plans
grad_program What graduate/professional degree program is of primary interest to you?
V191
ug_influence
To what extent has your overall undergraduate experience influenced your future plans
for graduate or professional studies?
accepted Have you already been accepted to a graduate or professional program?
school Which graduate or professional program will you attend?
grad_activity What is most likely to be your principal activity upon graduation?
other_activity If you answered "other" what is your principal activity?
employ_plan
If employment will most likely be your primary activity, which of the following best
describes your current state of plans for employment immediately after graduation?
employ_type If you have accepted a position, in what type of organization or sector will you work?
other_employ If you answered "other" what is the type of organization?
occup_cat
Which occupation category best describes the position you have accepted or are
seeking?
related_ug Is your prospective position related to your undergraduate field(s) of study?
155
related_minor Is your prospective position related to your undergraduate minor?
prep_job How well do you think WU has prepared you for the job market?
job_offer If you plan to work after graduation, do you have a job offer yet?
impor_1
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Becoming
accomplished in one of the performing arts
impor_2
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Becoming an
authority in my field
impor_3
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Obtaining
recognition from my colleagues for contributions to my special field
impor_4
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Influencing
the political structure
impor_5
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Influencing
social values
impor_6
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Raising a
family
impor_7
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Having
administrative responsibility for the work of others
impor_8
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Being very
well off financially
impor_9
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Helping others
who are in difficulty
impor_10
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Making a
theoretical contribution to science
impor_11
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Writing
original works (poems, novels, short stories, etc.)
impor_12
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Creating
artistic work (painting, sculpture, decorating, etc.)
impor_13
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Becoming
successful in a business of my own
impor_14
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Becoming
involved in programs to clean up the environment
impor_15
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Developing a
meaningful philosophy of life
impor_16
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Participating
in a community action program
impor_17
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Helping to
promote racial understanding
impor_18
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Keeping up to
date with political affairs
impor_19
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Keeping up to
date with issues related to third world development and human rights
impor_20
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Becoming a
community leader
impor_21
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Integrating
spirituality into my life
impor_22
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Becoming a
life-long learner
impor_23
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Identifying
myself as a Trojan
impor_24
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following items: Remaining
active in the Trojan Network
156
social_class Which of the following best describes your social class when you were growing up?
register_vote Are you registered to vote?
current_zip What is your current local zip code
amt_borrowed
At the time you graduate, approximately what will be the total amount borrowed to
finance your undergraduate education that you are personally responsible for repaying?
benefit_cost
Reflecting back, do you now think that the benefits you have received from attending
your undergraduate institution were worth the financial costs to you and your family?
comments Please provide any additional comments or questions you have

157
Appendix E
Western University Committee on Diversity Requirements Courses (DRC)

Committee on Diversity Requirement Courses (DRC)
The Committee on Diversity Requirement Courses (DRC) reports to the office of the
president through the office of the provost and recommends to the provost courses to
meet the Diversity Requirement that all undergraduate students must fulfill. These
courses, which will be designated by the letter "m," may range from general education
courses to courses restricted to students in a certain major. Any of these courses must
satisfy the requirement for any major in the event that a student transfers from one
major to another. Approval of a course will be based upon the committee's review of its
syllabus or a set of typical syllabi, which will then be a model for instructors teaching
the course. The committee also reviews sets of required major courses that academic
units may present as alternatives to the single-course method of fulfilling this
requirement and comments upon their comparability to the single courses that are
approved. Finally, the committee may be asked to take up any larger issues that may
arise concerning the requirement, in the event, for instance, of an insufficient number of
courses being approved to meet students' needs.
The DRC makes its recommendations directly to the provost and reports its decisions as
information items on the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) agenda.
6/98

158
Appendix F
Diversity Committee Course Review Sheet

Course: _________________________________________ Instructor
(s):_____________________________________________

Is this a: ____________ new course; ___________ existing course being proposed for diversity; ___________ 5-year
review

To the faculty: The following materials should be provided to the diversity committee:

For courses undergoing a 5-year review: syllabi should be provided for each time the course was offered over the last
five years. Please note that syllabi should include an explicit (brief) statement regarding how the course meets
diversity requirement. For new courses, the committee also requires form 301. These materials (including the brief
diversity statement in the syllabus) are very important for the committee to have in order to answer the questions
below regarding the key elements of the diversity designation requirements. You also should feel free to provide
answers to these questions, and attach a cover memo or other materials in order to facilitate the committee’s
deliberations. Thank you for your cooperation!

Questions for the committee (and the faculty, if s/he so desires): Check if material was provided:

____SYLLABUS (one or more), including:

____ week-by-week breakdown of topics, and for those weeks containing material addressing issues of
diversity, a brief description of how that material relates to the diversity dimensions being addressed

____ complete listing of readings relating to the diversity issues addressed by the course

____ general statement that briefly explains how the course meets the criteria for the diversity requirement.
An exampleof such a statement might be: “This course fulfills the Diversity Requirement by focusing
on two different forms of difference: race, and to a lesser extent, class. Students will learn about race
and racism in several ways, including housing segregation, the racialized nature of the economy, and
how institutional racism works, and how learning about and living in a diverse society can function as
a form of enrichment.”

____ #301 FORM (not needed for 5-year reviews)

CRITERIA FOR REVIEW:

1. List the primary and secondary dimensions of diversity covered in the course. Potential dimensions are: age,
disability ethnicity, gender, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and social class:

First dimension: ___________________________ Second dimension (or dimensions): ___________________

2. Is at least one-third of the course devoted to these topics? (Please be sure to consider lectures, readings, topics for
papers, exams, and other graded assignments when answering this question.)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Does the course examine the social and/or cultural consequences of diversity?

4. Does the course show how its topics are related to issues facing students in a contemporary American context?

5. Does the course encourage comparative and analytical thinking about issues of diversity?

6. Should the course receive an “m” designation?_______________________________________________________
159
Appendix G
Role, Mission and Freshman Profile of Western University

Role and Mission of WU
The central mission of the Western University is the development of human beings and
society as a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit.
The principal means by which our mission is accomplished are teaching, research,
artistic creation, professional practice and selected forms of public service.
Our first priority as faculty and staff is the education of our students, from freshmen to
post-doctorals, through a broad array of academic, professional, extracurricular and
athletic programs of the first rank. The integration of liberal and professional learning is
one of WU's special strengths. We strive constantly for excellence in teaching
knowledge and skills to our students, while at the same time helping them to acquire
wisdom and insight, love of truth and beauty, moral discernment, understanding of self,
and respect and appreciation for others.
Research of the highest quality by our faculty and students is fundamental to our
mission. WU is one of a very small number of premier academic institutions in which
research and teaching are inextricably intertwined, and on which the nation depends for
a steady stream of new knowledge, art, and technology. Our faculty are not simply
teachers of the works of others, but active contributors to what is taught, thought and
practiced throughout the world.
WU is pluralistic, welcoming outstanding men and women of every race, creed and
background. We are a global institution in a global center, attracting more international
students over the years than any other American university. And we are private,
unfettered by political control, strongly committed to academic freedom, and proud of
our entrepreneurial heritage.
An extraordinary closeness and willingness to help one another are evident among WU
students, alumni, faculty, and staff; indeed, for those within its compass the Trojan
Family is a genuinely supportive community. Alumni, trustees, volunteers and friends
of WU are essential to this family tradition, providing generous financial support,
participating in university governance, and assisting students at every turn.
In our surrounding neighborhoods and around the globe, WU provides public leadership
and public service in such diverse fields as health care, economic development, social
welfare, scientific research, public policy and the arts. We also serve the public interest
by being the largest private employer in the city of Los Angeles, as well as the city's
largest export industry in the private sector.
160
WU has played a major role in the development of southern California for more than a
century, and plays an increasingly important role in the development of the nation and
the world. We expect to continue to play these roles for many centuries to come. Thus
our planning, commitments and fiscal policies are directed toward building quality and
excellence in the long term.
Adopted by the WU Board of Trustees, February, 1993.

161

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study extends the findings from previous research on the benefits of diversity courses and diversity experiences on student democratic outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate to what extent diversity courses and student diversity experiences correlated with democratic values. Two research questions guided the investigation: 1. To what extent do diversity courses correlate with undergraduate students’ democratic values? 1a). To what extent is the number of diversity courses taken correlated with democratic values? 1b). To what extent is the diversity course typology level correlated with democratic values? 1c). To what extent does the year student first took diversity course correlate with democratic values? 2. To what extent do student experience variables correlate with democratic values? 2a). To what extent does participating in student government correlate with democratic values? 2b). To what extent does attending a racial/cultural workshop correlate with democratic values? 2c). To what extent is studying abroad correlated with democratic values? 2d). To what extent is community services correlated with democratic values? 2e). To what extent is registering to vote correlated with democratic values? ❧ The methodology used for this single institutional investigation was a non-experimental longitudinal research design utilizing a secondary data analysis of student transcripts and self-reported data. The secondary data analysis provided detailed pre-college characteristics (gender, race, parents’ education and pre-test for the outcome variables) as well as student experiences while attending Western University. Astin’s (1984, 1993) I-E-O model was used as the organizational frame to investigate pretests of selected democratic values (empathy values, leadership values, liberal values, social values, spiritual values), the environment (diversity courses and student diversity experiences) and the democratic values posttest outcomes (empathy values, leadership values, liberal values, social values, spiritual values). ❧ The findings from the analysis showed a strong relationship between taking four or more diversity courses with having higher changes in the empathy and liberal democratic value scores. Additionally, a typology level 2 or higher for the first diversity course taken was statistically associated with having more change in the liberal democratic value scores. These findings were consistent with prior theory and the research on the association of diversity course work and democratic values. ❧ Moreover, the findings showed a strong relationship between attending a racial awareness workshop and stronger democratic values in the empathy, liberal, social and spiritual categories. In addition, participating in community service had a strong relationship with greater change in leadership democratic value scores, and student participation in studying abroad programs was related to the endorsement of social democratic values. Hence, this study showed a greater gain in democratic values for those students who participated in extracurricular activities, particularly attending a racial/cultural workshop. The findings of this study contribute in important ways to the evidence showing a new way to assess the uniqueness of diversity courses as well as clearly showing the value of diversity initiatives (both co-curricular and curricular) relative to five important democratic values needed to prepare students to live in a democratic society.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses

PDF

Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions

PDF

The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs

PDF

Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement

PDF

Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses

PDF

The effect of diversity courses on international students from China and Hong Kong: a focus on intergroup peer relationships

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

And yet, still, they rise: a qualitative study on the persistence of Black undergraduate women at a predominantly White institution

PDF

An awareness of local identity: influence of Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific (HAP) issues course at Kapi‘olani Community College

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

PDF

Whiteness: a narrative analysis on student affairs professionals, race, identity, and multicultural competency

PDF

Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...

PDF

Values and beliefs related to diversity amongst students being prepared as teachers

PDF

Coloring the pipeline: an analysis of the NASPA Undergraduate Fellows program as a path for underrepresented students into student affairs

PDF

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

Defining values in smaller college athletic programs: athletics effect on graduation rates

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

A comparative study of motivational predictors and differences of student satisfaction between online learning and on-campus courses

Asset Metadata

Creator Estrada, Veronica Emily (author)

Core Title Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/30/2012

Defense Date 06/20/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag democratic values,diversity courses,diversity outcomes,diversity requirement,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,student diversity experiences,undergraduate students

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cole, Darnell G. (committee chair), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee member)

Creator Email bellateak@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-78157

Unique identifier UC11290616

Identifier usctheses-c3-78157 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-EstradaVer-1069.pdf

Dmrecord 78157

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Estrada, Veronica Emily

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA