University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DIVERSITY COURSES ON STUDENTS’
VALUES, ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS

by

Matthew Nelson

_______________________________________________________________

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

December 2010

Copyright 2010 Matthew Nelson
ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my father Randall Nelson. He once told me
that I had surpassed his academic achievements by pursuing a doctoral degree. The
truth is my doctoral degree would not have been possible without his example as a
first generation college student. I am forever grateful for to him, he has instilled in
me a curiosity for life and a love of learning. With his guidance and support as well
as that of my mother, Marilyn Nelson, I have learned what is possible with
education.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the individuals whose support, dedication and
encouragement made this degree possible. To my dissertation committee, Dr. Pat
Tobey, Dr. Melora Sundt and Dr. Darnell Cole for their patience and support, they
were truly invested in my learning. I want to say a special thank you to Dr. Cole for
giving me a chance, he is a strong researcher but I admire him most because he is a
fantastic teacher, mentor and friend. Without his guidance and encouragement I
might not have finished.
The Doctor of Education program is set up in cohorts and as such there were
individuals who helped me along the way. In year one Yvette Altuna and Dora Lee
helped me to find my way as a doctoral student. In the second year of the program I
was grateful for Maria Blandizzi, Frank Chang, and Mike Marion. In the dissertation
process I was lucky to find a Thematic Group whose support made completing the
dissertation possible. The Diversity Project Group consisted of Emily Caviglia,
Kevin Bolen, Karen Ravago, Nadine Singh, Wendy Stewart, Sonja Daniels,
Veronica Estrada and Mark Pearson. While the entire group was a great support I
want to single out Karen Ravago and Kevin Bolen who helped me to get through the
proposal and final defense. They both were there through late nights and many drafts
to hold each other accountable and make sure we graduated. I also want to say a
special thank you to Kevin Bolen, he is a very giving person who has been a great
friend and colleague.
iv
Most importantly to my family, for the sacrifices they have made in my
pursuit of this degree. Especially to my two girls, Charlie and Annabelle, and to my
wife Kelly who has been a great partner in life and who pushed me to achieve in my
education and career.
v
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature 18
Chapter 3: Methodology 48
Chapter 4: Results 83
Chapter 5: Summary, Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions 115
References 138
Appendices 144
Appendix A: 2004 CIRP Survey Instrument 144
Appendix B: 2008 Western University Senior Survey Instrument 148
Appendix C: Organizing Framework Combined with Theoretical 160
Foundation
Appendix D: Variables Used to Measure the Extent of Values and 161
Attitude Shifts
Appendix E: Western University Diversity Committee Guidelines 164
for Designation as a Diversity Course Requirement
Appendix F: Western University Committee on Diversity 165
Requirement Courses (DRC)
Appendix G: Western University Diversity Course Requirement 166
Guidelines
Appendix H: Role and Mission of Western University 168
Appendix I: All Variables Used in the Study, Including Recodes, 170
Value Labels and Coding
Appendix J: Diversity Courses Offered at Western University 176
2004-2008
Appendix K: Notes Regarding Diversity Course Syllabi 179
vi
Appendix L: Number of Students in the Transcript Data That Took 180
a Course by Course Number
Appendix M: Information on the Diversity Course Variables 181
vii
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Theory of Diversity and Learning (Hurtado, 2007) 27
Table 2.2: Variables Used in Empirical Studies on Diversity Courses 46
Table 3.1: 2004 Enter First Year Student Characteristics 51
Table 3.2: Descriptive Data for Student Participants by Racial/Ethnic 56
Group (N=553)
Table 3.3: Value Labels, Scales and Coding of Senior Survey Variables 63
Table 3.4: Potential Variables to Indicate Major 71
Table 3.5: Composite Measures with Factor Loadings and Reliabilities 72
Table 3.6: Diversity Courses Taken Through 40 Courses 76
Table 3.7: Typology of First Diversity Course Taken 77
Table 3.8: Research Questions and Corresponding Statistical Analysis 79
Table 4.1: Descriptive Data for Student Participants by Racial/Ethnic 85
Group (N=553)
Table 4.2: Composite Measures with Factor Loadings and Reliabilities 89
Table 4.3: Regression Coefficients for the Impact of the First Time 92
a Student Took a Diversity Course Taken Over 40 Courses
on Measures of Humanism, Individualism, Artistic Orientation,
and Materialism (without Major)
Table 4.4: Regression Coefficients for the Impact of the Total Number 98
of Diversity Courses Taken over 40 Courses on Measures of
Humanism, Individualism, Artistic Orientation, and Materialism
(without Major)
viii
Table 4.5: Regression Coefficients for the Impact on Measures of 105
Humanism, Individualism, Artistic Orientation, and
Materialism, Depending on the Level of Complexity of
the First Diversity Course Taken by a Student, per the
Diversity Course Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008) (without
Major)
Table 4.6: Significant Results 110
Table 5.1: Significant Results 118
Table M.1: Frequency of the Variable "The Year in Which the First 181
Diversity Course was Taken"
Table M.2: Frequency of the Variable "The Number of Diversity Courses 181
Taken by the Students"
Table M.3: Frequency of the Variable "The Typology Level of the first 182
Diversity Course Taken"
Table M.4: The Overall Number of Diversity Courses Taken per Year 182
and Overall Number of Diversity Courses Taken from Each
Typology
ix
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008) 65
Figure 3.2: Research Model for Examining Diversity Course Impact on 68
Students’ Values, Attitudes and Beliefs
Figure 4.1: Research Model for Examining Diversity Course Impact on 88
Students’ Values, Attitudes and Beliefs
x
Abstract
Globalization and changing demographics in the United States have resulted
in the need for higher education to prepare students for a global society. To this end,
college and universities have responded in a number of ways including in the
curriculum with required diversity courses. However the impact of this intervention
on students is an area in need of further study. As a result, this quantitative study
explores the impact of required diversity courses on measures of students’ values,
attitudes, and beliefs.
A large, private research university in the western United States was used the
site for this study. Students in the 2004 cohort were given two quantitative college
experience surveys, one before they began in 2004 and a follow-up survey in 2008.
This data was used along with adminissions and transcript data to comprise the data
set for the study.
The findings suggest that diversity course impact is significant and
measurable as a college student experience. More specifically, the total number of
diversity courses taken by a student is significant on two measures (Humanism and
Individualism) of students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. Both speak to preparing
students for a global society in terms of promoting awareness and becoming civically
engaged. Additionally, there were interesting findings in terms of the background
characteristics of students where white students were negatively impacted by
diversity courses. Finally, the impact of diversity related experiences was shown to
xi
be significant and in some cases negatively impact students’ values, attitudes and
beliefs.
Implications for future study include: 1) determining the critical number of
diversity courses needed to maximize student impact 2) comparing within and
between groups to determine differential impact of required diversity courses 3)
reviewing the content of all undergraduate courses per the Diversity Typology to
find if diversity content exists across the curriculum, 4) reviewing the role of
diversity related experiences in magnifying or hindering the impact of diversity
courses and 5) examining the classroom dynamic between students and faculty to
determine the influence on course outcomes.

1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
If the mission of higher education is to prepare students with the skills
necessary for functioning in a complex and increasingly diverse
society, then an institutional commitment to structural diversity,
classroom diversity, and enhancing opportunities for informal
interactional diversity all become central to this educational process
(Hurtado et al, p.178).

Introduction of the Problem
The goal of higher education reflected in many institutional missions is one
that prepares students for a global society (Hogan & Mallot, 2005). The Association
of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) asserts “given the changing
demographics of the US and the importance of issues of diversity in this nation’s
history…every college student should learn about issues of diversity in the US as
part of their undergraduate curriculum” (Humphreys, 2000, retrieved on 8/15/09 at
http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/F00/survey.html). Additionally, many
institutions in the AAC&U American Commitments Project purport that a liberal
education is central to the role of higher education, namely to expose students to
diverse individuals and experiences so that they might then be better prepared to
engage in a global society. The goal of a liberal education in higher education is
further described by Hurtado (2007) as “to move students from their provincial
worldviews” (p.189). Educational experiences are intended to impact students so that
they will have interactions with individuals who are different from them. The goal is
that this will in turn impact their values, attitudes, and beliefs to being more open and
2
tolerant regarding future interactions. For this reason, measuring the extent to which
this is occurring as a result of diversity courses is important and relevant.
The impact of diversity courses in higher education at the undergraduate level
is the focus of this study. The extent of the impact of diversity courses on students’
values, attitudes, and beliefs were examined. This chapter first provides an overview
of the identified problems in higher education regarding diversity and then discusses
the context of diversity courses, including the argument concerning the need for this
study. Additionally, the research questions and importance of the study are covered
as are key terminology and the assumptions made by the researcher.
Background of the Problem
Over the past several decades, diversity has become an increasingly
prominent issue in higher education that has been manifested in admissions,
curriculum and in the purpose of higher education. Discussions about diversity have
been influenced by and coincided with a dramatic shift in demographics in the
United States and in higher education (Tatum, 2003). Institutions of higher
education, in recognizing the changing needs of students and society, have responded
to diversity through multiple avenues. For example, the mission statements of many
institutions have reflected societal changes by including commitments to diversity
and in some cases social justice (Humphreys, 1997). Additionally, institutions have
focused on correcting long standing social injustice through affirmative action both
in student admissions and in faculty hiring.
3
These college and university policies have led to legal cases opposing the
policy-based inclusion of diversity (Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (1996) and at
the University of Michigan (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). A major
impact of these legal cases regarding affirmative action is that they have resulted in
the need for a scholarly effort to define the importance of diversity in higher
education (Gurin, 1999; Shaw, 2005; Smith & Shonfeld, 2000; Hurtado, 2001; Gurin
et al, 2002; Chang, 2001).
The resulting scholarly effort has included categorizing and defining different
types of diversity exposure in higher education: (i.e. structural, informal interactional
and diversity initiatives both curricular and co-curricular) as well as their impact on
students’ educational gains (Gurin, 1999; Hurtado, 2007). Much of the scholarship
on the impact of diversity is included under the heading of college impact literature,
an area which has been well studied and documented (Feldman & Newcomb, 1969;
Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). These studies of college impact discuss
the overall experience of students as well as the experiences, individuals, and
environments that influence student outcomes. This study is situated in the genre of
college impact literature and focuses on the impact of diversity courses on students.
Among the genre of college impact literature, specific aspects of college have
been examined such as the impact of student body diversity. One type of diversity
studied includes specific numbers of different types of students and is frequently
described as “structural diversity” (Gurin, 1999). Several empirical studies have
examined the impact of structural diversity on student outcomes including the impact
4
of diverse students and faculty (Milem, 1991, 1998) as well as interactional diversity
concerning the impact of diverse peer interactions on student outcomes (Antonio,
1998, 2001a; Chang et al, 2006; Whitt, 1999; Cole, 2007). In addition, researchers in
higher education have focused on the different impacts of diversity including the
importance of diversity in higher education (Antonio, 2003; Gurin, 1999; Gurin &
Nagda, 2006; Shaw, 2005; Smith & Schonfeld, 2000) and the impact of diversity on
the college environment (Hurtado et al, 2003). Additionally, Hurtado (2007)
discusses linking diversity with missions of higher education as both a goal for all of
higher education but also at the institution level. The linkage of diversity and mission
at the institution level is relevant to the scope of this study.
Hurtado (2007) describes how diversity can be linked with the mission of
higher education through the goal of preparing students for democratic outcomes.
Democratic outcomes include specific behaviors such as participating in a pluralistic
society and engaging with a diverse population. At the institution level the linkage
between diversity and the missions of many institutions in higher education is
manifested in many areas. The first includes structural diversity whereby institutions
recruit a variety of students and faculty to create a diverse population on campus.
Additionally, institutional agents create opportunities to maximize interactions
between students as well as between students and faculty. Interactions can occur
informally inside and outside of the classroom as well formally within the
curriculum, which Gurin (1999) places under the category of “diversity initiatives.”
5
Gurin (1999) describes that diversity initiatives encompass both curricular
and co-curricular activities that allow students to interact with and discuss diversity.
One example of a diversity initiative is required diversity courses as part of a general
education curriculum. Many institutions have adopted this practice with the goal of
developing global citizens (Humphreys, 1997). Chang (2002) states that diversity
requirement courses help to achieve “immediate and broader goals of higher
education” (p.39). The AAC&U (Humphreys, 1997) describes that the broader goals
of higher education are pluralism and democratic values.
In this study the researcher explored the interaction of diversity and
university mission at the curricular level through a specific diversity initiative,
required diversity courses.
Statement of the Problem
The benefits of diversity have been chronicled (Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al,
2002); however, the specific impact of diversity initiatives in general and diversity
courses, in particular, is an area in need of further exploration (Chang, 2001; Hogan
& Mallot, 2005). The following paragraphs highlight the gaps in the literature as they
relate to diversity course impact, as well as situate diversity courses in the context of
institutional missions and connect the theoretical foundation to the need for this
study.
College impact studies address a number of areas including student
satisfaction, student learning, cognitive growth, and values and attitude shifts (Astin,
1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). It is the latter, values and attitude shifts, that is
6
the focal area of college impact examined in this study. Values and attitudes are
important to study because the extent to which students will interact with someone
different from themselves is informed by their values, attitudes and beliefs.
Additionally, they are a way to conceptualize changes in students as a result of the
college experience beyond traditional academic measures. The importance of
students’ values, attitudes and beliefs is demonstrated by their inclusion in two
national quantitative instruments used to measure the college student experience. The
College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ) and the Cooperative Institute
Research Project (CIRP) both have multiple items to measure students’ self reported
values, attitudes, and beliefs. The two instruments can be used individually or
together to measure changes in students as a result of specific aspects of the college
experience.
The relevant subset of college impact studies that address the impact of
diversity requirements on students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs have been confined
to a number of areas. For example Chang (1999, 2002) and Hogan and Mallot (2005)
explore student levels of racial prejudice before and after taking a required diversity
course. Nelson-Laird et al. (2005) inquire into the impact of required diversity
courses on a student’s social action engagement and Whitt et al. (2001) examine
diversity course impact on a student’s openness to diversity. McFalls and Cobb-
Roberts (2001) extend the study of diversity course impact to the values, attitudes,
and beliefs of graduate students in regards to the impact diversity courses have on
reducing resistance to diversity. While these studies provide a foundation for
7
examining the impact of required diversity courses, this is still an emergent area of
study where the impact of these courses on students is not fully known (Hogan &
Mallot, 2005).
The identified gap in the literature highlights the need for more examination
of diversity courses; however, it does not contextualize the research. Diversity
courses fit within the broader goals of higher education. The AAC&U purports that a
goal of higher education is to prepare students for a global society, one that is
pluralistic and democratic (Humphreys, 1997). Tatum (2003) describes that it is even
more important for institutions of higher education to address diversity because of
the segregated nature of the United States where students have been limited in their
interactions “with those racially, ethnically, or religiously different from them” (p.
212). Diversity courses are a place in the curriculum where the broader goals of
higher education and student outcomes concerning values, attitudes, and beliefs
intersect. Students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs provide a measure of the impact of
required diversity courses but also to the extent an institution’s mission statement has
been realized. As a result, diversity courses were important to study for two
compelling reasons: the gap in the literature concerning the full impact of diversity
courses and how diversity courses may or may not actualize the stated importance of
diversity in university mission statements.
Theory further supports the importance of values, attitudes and beliefs and
provides a lens by which to view the impact of diversity courses. The theoretical
foundation for this study is divided into two groups of theories. The first describes
8
why values, attitudes and beliefs are salient for traditional college age students and
the second discusses the extent that the college environment impacts values, attitudes
and beliefs.
Psychosocial and cognitive theory provides an underpinning that describes
how adolescents learn or are impacted by certain environments, experiences, and
peers. Many theorists examine the development of adolescents and suggest that the
traditional college age of 18-22 is an ideal time for the development of values to
occur (Erikson, 1980; Alwin et al, 1991; Ruble, 1994). For example, theorists such
as Erikson (1980) suggest that late adolescence is a unique time of development
where an individual first has the cognitive complexity to address the question of
“who am I?” Alwin et al (1991) suggests that this is also a time where individuals’
political and social views are “malleable.” As a result, the college environment
should theoretically have an impact on traditional age college students. The extent to
which college can impact students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs is described by two
theories of attitude acquisition.
The two theories utilized in this study to examine changes in values,
attitudes, and beliefs are Symbolic Politics Theory (Sears, 1993) and the
Impressionable Years Model (Jennings & Stoker, 1999). Both theories describe the
impact of college on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs, but differ in how they
view the malleability of students as they enter college. Symbolic Politics Theory
(Sears, 1993) is a theory of “attitude acquisition” that examines political
predispositions over the lifespan. Sears (1993) describes that attitudes exist on a
9
continuum from a non-attitude to one that is crystallized. An individual’s attitudes
are influenced by a number of factors including homogeneity of the environment,
information flow, and the ability to practice the attitude (Sidanius et al., 2008).
Symbolic Politics Theory is based on the assumption that young adults have some
crystallized attitudes from their early years that are persistent through adulthood.
Those attitudes that are not yet crystallized may reach a mature level of development
depending on the factors above. The Impressionable Years Model differs slightly in
describing that young adults have much weaker attitudes than adults and thus are
“especially vulnerable to influence” (Sidanius et al., 2008). Late adolescence is
described as a critical time for development and that “shifting of personal values and
ideologies is to be expected” (Sidanius et al., 2008).
Together, these theories describe traditional age students at the post
secondary education level and the extent that college impacts their values, attitudes,
and beliefs. What remains unexplored however is the malleability of students’
values, attitudes and beliefs when exposed to a specific intervention (such as
diversity courses). As a result, the extent of the impact of diversity courses on
students’ values, attitudes and beliefs is the focus of this inquiry.
Additionally, mission statements of institutions in higher education are
explicitly including diversity and diversity courses with the goal of preparing
students to be more tolerant of the global, pluralistic society they inhabit. The
question then becomes examining the extent to which students are impacted by a
specific diversity course through the lens of values, attitudes, and beliefs. The
10
problem is further supported by the theoretical foundation that suggests that students
should be cognitively and developmentally ready for the challenges and benefits of
diversity during traditional college age; however, the extent of the impact is the
conversation of contrasting theories. As a result, not only is there an institutional
vision for diversity and preparing students for a diverse society but students of
traditional college age are primed cognitively to engage in issues of diversity even
though they might have had little previous experience.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine the identified gaps in the literature
regarding the extent of the impact of required diversity courses on measures of
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. This is supported by relevant theory and
accomplished through an examination of the intersection of college impact literature,
university mission and the goals of higher education at a single institution on the
west coast of the United States, Western University.
This study extends from work on diversity course impact (Chang, 1999,
2002; Hogan & Mallot, 2005; Nelson-Laird et al., 2005; Whitt et al., 2001) to
include the impact of required diversity courses taken on students’ values, attitudes
and beliefs. Gurin’s (1999) work on the importance of diversity and the types of
diversity in higher education is also extended. By connecting the foundation
provided by Gurin (1999) this study connects the university mission with diversity
initiatives through measuring the extent of the impact of a curricular intervention on
11
students. The curricular intervention (diversity courses) is situated within the context
of university mission and goals.
The research questions used in this study are formed based on the
background and statement of the problem. The research questions are further
informed through the review of literature in the examination of relevant theoretical
and empirical work. The review of literature provides the foundation for exploring
the extent of the impact of diversity requirement courses on students’ values,
attitudes, and beliefs.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The research questions of this study address the identified problems and gaps
by examining the impact of diversity courses on measures of students’ values,
attitudes and beliefs as a stated goal of diversity requirements at the chosen single
site institution. In particular the research questions for this study inquire:
1. Are there differences in the kinds of impacts on students’ experiences in
diversity courses depending on when in their academic sequence they
took their first diversity course?
2. Are there differences depending on the total number of diversity courses
taken over five years/ 40 courses?
3. Are there differences depending on the level of complexity of the first
diversity course taken by a student, per the Diversity Course Typology
(Cole & Sundt, 2008)?
12
4. Within each of the above questions:
a. Are there differences depending on a student’s major
(aggregated)?
b. Are there differences depending on demographic characteristics
(i.e. race and gender)?
Importance of the Study
Diversity has been demonstrated to be important to a wide range of
educational outcomes (Gurin, 1999). This study makes a contribution to the body of
literature on the importance of diversity and specifically diversity initiatives through
an examination of the impact of diversity courses. The extent of the impact of
diversity courses extends from prior empirical work to include university mission.
The impact of diversity courses is viewed through the context of university mission
at the individual institution level as well as in the larger discussion of the purpose of
higher education in society. The extent of the impact of a specific curricular
intervention (diversity courses) on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs is examined
to determine if the university mission is being realized.
Assumptions
An assumption is made that students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs as
impacted by diversity requirement courses can be measured in a linear way over five
years/ 40 courses in college. In addition, a methodological assumption is made that
this can be done using multiple regressions to identify the impact of the single course
on their values, attitudes, and beliefs.
13
Definition of Terms
Key terminology and acronyms frequently used in this study are identified
and defined below.
AAC&U: Association of College and Universities
American Pluralism: Addressing the current pluralistic nature of the United
States while also addressing past issues of injustice,
inequality, to create a more democratic pluralistic
society (Humphreys, 1997).
Attitudes “Represents an organization in interrelated beliefs that
are all focused on a specific object or situation”
(Rokeach, 1960; in Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005 p.
271).
Beliefs Individual student self reported thoughts on what is
important to them. A collection of beliefs are
reflections of “attitudes and values” (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005, p. 272).
CIRP: Cooperative Institute Research Program: a survey
facilitated by UCLA that measures student views and
satisfaction.
Diversity courses: “Those courses that have content and methods of
instruction that are inclusive of the diversity found in
society” (Nelson Laird et al., 2005). Additionally, they
14
will be defined by the standards that the site institution,
Western University, uses to approve all diversity or
social issue courses; see Appendix G for site specifics
information. It is also relevant to define “society” more
broadly to include not only United States specific
content in courses but also an international focus
(Humphreys, 1997).
Liberalism: “A political or social philosophy advocating the
freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of
government, nonviolent modification of political,
social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted
development in all spheres of human endeavor, and
governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil
liberties” (Retrieved July 21, 2009, from
Dictionary.com).
Pluralism: “A condition in which minority groups participate fully
in the dominant society, yet maintain their cultural
differences.” “A doctrine that a society benefits from
such a condition” (Retrieved July 21, 2009, from
Dictionary.com).
Values: “Generalized standards of the means and ends of
human existence that transcend attitudes toward
15
specific objects and situations (Rokeach, 1960; in
Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005 p. 271).
Organization of the Study
There are several primary areas addressed in the literature review as well as
in the methodology that define the context of research on students in regards to
diversity requirement courses. The review of literature in chapter two brings together
various theories and empirical research studies to provide the historical foundation to
inform the impact of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. The
chapter is structured using a primary organizational frame, the Theory of Diversity
and Learning (Hurtado, 2007; Hurtado et al., 2003; Gurin et al, 2002). Astin’s (1984,
1993) I-E-O research model is used as well to organize variables in general but is
described in more detail in chapter three.
The Theory of Diversity and Learning is used to introduce the types of
diversity exposure in the college environment as well as to provide the theoretical
foundation in regards to learning theory (i.e. Erikson, 1980), values and attitudes
(Sears & Valentino, 1993) and environmental (Astin, 1984, 1993) theory. These
theories and data points inform the outcome of this study regarding students’ values
and attitudes.
Theories on the importance of diversity in higher education are discussed
particularly as they relate to diversity requirement courses. This provides a
theoretical rationale for the study of the impact of diversity courses on students’
values, attitudes and beliefs. The theoretical foundation on individual development
16
and learning leads into a discussion of diversity in higher education broadly as well
as how the theories relate to the higher education context. In combination, the
theoretical foundation established regarding learning and individual development
and the importance of diversity are used as a lens by which to examine the empirical
literature on college impact.
The review of empirical literature briefly examines diversity broadly before
narrowing to focus on diversity requirement courses in particular. The organizing
frame of the I-E-O model (Astin, 1984, 1993) is used to identify the relevant
variables and inputs in the empirical literature that have been demonstrated to lead to
values and attitude shifts. The empirical studies in the review of literature inform
which variables are used in this study.
Chapter three describes the research methodology, design, and analysis. This
includes discussion of the theoretical organizing frame (Astin, 1984, 1993) for the
analysis as well as the specific instruments used and where they fit in the temporal
sequence. In chapter three, Astin’s (1984, 1993) I-E-O model is used to situate the
data points within the theoretical and structural foundation of the study. Data
collection and procedures are covered including validity and reliability. The sample
is also discussed including site selection, and participants, and the chapter concludes
with the specifics of data analysis along with the limitations of the study and the
research paradigm.
Chapter four is a presentation of the data gathered and analyzed for the study.
The data is presented by research questions and within each research question by
17
outcome variables measuring students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. Chapter four
presents all of the data both visually and through narrative and begins to
contextualize the information through past theoretical and empirical literature.
Finally, chapter five summarizes the entire study and discusses the key findings. This
includes a discussion of the key findings as well as implications, contributions to the
literature and recommendations for future research.
18
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature
Introduction
The previous chapter described the impetus for studying diversity courses in
higher education. Chapter one also included an introduction to the problem identified
for this study as well as the purpose and importance of the study. The research
questions were introduced and important terminology was defined in addition to the
outline of the entire study.
One of the rationales for diversity courses as part of general education in
higher education in a pluralistic society is to encourage and facilitate interactions
between diverse students. Interactions between diverse students about diverse
content may impact students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs that then inform the extent
to which students interact with people who are different.
Chapter two extends from the discussion began in chapter one to provide the
theoretical and empirical foundation for this study on the extent of the impact of
diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. Included in the analysis
are specific theoretical/conceptual constructs identified in the literature. In addition,
the theoretical foundation for the importance of diversity is also explored and then
extended to the context of diversity requirements. Theories about the importance of
diversity provide a foundation and a lens to examine the empirical literature on
college impact concerning values and attitudes in college. Within the empirical
literature specific factors that impact values and attitudes are identified and the
theoretical foundation is used to hypothesize the role these factors might play in
19
diversity requirement courses. Next a linkage is made that what is theorized to
happen in diversity courses will significantly impact students’ values and attitudes.
Diversity in Higher Education
As established in chapter one, diversity is a prominent issue in higher
education. The prominence of diversity has been particularly evident over the past
two decades both in terms of empirical and theoretical work. This section examines
diversity in higher education including the theoretical and empirical importance of
diversity as well as its impact on students. Additionally, relevant theories that
support the importance of diversity are discussed.
Importance of diversity.
Court cases involving the University of Michigan for example (Grutter v.
Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), have resulted in an academically focused effort to
quantify the theoretical foundation regarding the importance of diversity (Gurin,
1999; Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 1996; Hurtado, 2007). This section explores the
theoretical and empirical evidence for the importance of diversity. Included are
psychosocial and cognitive theorists whose work was not intended to address the
need for diversity or for the higher education context, but has relevance to this topic
in general. The psychosocial and cognitive theories provide a foundation for why
diversity is relevant to traditional college age individuals.
A number of authors have theorized about the importance and benefits of
diversity within higher education (Gurin 2002; Hurtado, 2007). Gurin et al (2002)
make a comprehensive argument on the importance of diversity, which is
20
summarized below and connected to values and attitude changes in diversity courses.
Gurin et al (2002) describe that traditional college age is a time of “malleability” for
students in terms of their cognitive development and their openness to new
experiences. This is particularly true of political and social attitudes (Newcomb,
1943). In addition, higher education provides an environment where students can
experiment and explore different identities safely in what Erikson (1980) calls a
“psychosocial moratorium.” Gurin et al. (2002) argue that as a result diversity is
relevant and important because the ideal environment for student impact (identity
development and cognitive growth) is one that is different than a student’s
background. Gurin et al. (2002) further state that environment involves a
“confrontation with diversity and complexity” so that their commitments are based
on more than just their upbringing (p. 334). This indicates that exposure and
engagement in diversity may result in “disequilibrium” and subsequently
development (Erikson, 1980). This “malleability” is particularly true of students’
political and social attitudes, or what Erikson (1980) calls the “core of social
identity.” And these political and social attitudes are influenced by peer interactions
(Newcomb, 1943).
Theoretical foundation for the importance of diversity.
The previous section provides an overview of the importance of diversity in
higher education. The focus of the current section is on a number of theories that
comprise the conceptual frame of this study. Included are theories that form the
foundation for the impact of diversity in general, for example, the work of Erikson
21
(1980) concerning identity development, Newcomb (1943) and Alwin et al. (1991)
concerning cognitive development all provide a lens by which to examine empirical
work on diversity courses.
The theory most applicable to this study is the work of Erik Erikson (1980)
on identity development that describes a “psychosocial moratorium” in adolescence
whereby individuals are open to different experiences and different social and
political groups/ideas. While not the intended focus of his work, the theory of
lifespan development can be extended to traditional college age students because it
describes the age appropriate identity crises that set the stage for the malleability of
values and attitudes that exist in college. For example, Erikson (1980) in his theory
concerning the Stages of Psychosocial Development describes identity challenges in
the life span that healthy individuals experience. He further defines the ages that
these stages are typically experienced, two of which occur during the traditional
college age range. The first of the stages Erikson (1980) describes as occurring
between the ages of twelve and twenty is identity v. role confusion. This stage
describes the essential challenge of young adulthood in answering the question,
“who am I?” Because individuals in this stage are concerned with developing a
“core of social identity,” which Erikson (1980) describes as being both political and
social, their views are malleable and susceptible to peer and environmental influence.
This stage of identity v. role confusion leads into the next stage, also the first stage of
adulthood, intimacy v. isolation. In this stage the challenges of identity development
continue with a focus on fitting in with peers including intimate relationships and
22
cooperation. Erikson (1980) describes the “counterpart of intimacy…distantiation”
that occurs as individuals define their own identity in relation to and apart from
others (p.101). In this stage individuals may join groups that are homogeneous and
feel in competition with the “other.” That may explain why diversity courses play a
muting effect on prejudice, not reducing it, but acting as a buffer as it has been
shown to do for students who have not taken a course (Chang, 2002). In
combination, these two stages span the years of traditional age college students and
as a result have a theoretical relevance to this study. If what Erikson (1980) describes
is accurate then students’ values and attitudes should be malleable in college and
may be affected by challenges to their values in diversity courses.
Newcomb (1943) and Alwin et al. (1991) in the landmark longitudinal study
of students’ political and social attitudes examine female students at Bennington
College, providing one of the first studies of values and attitudes. While Erikson
addresses values and attitudes in general, Alwin at al. (1991) focus more specifically
on socio-political attitudes in college students. For the initial Bennington Study,
Newcomb (1943) describes the theoretical foundation for sociopolitical attitudes
over the life span offering a lens to view the impact of diversity. Alwin et al. (1991)
describe several explanations for individual change regarding socio-political
orientations including the life cycle, cohort explanations, and historical explanations.
Life-cycle explanations refer to periods of development as a stage of life (Linz, 1954,
in Alwin et al., 1991). Lipset et al. (1954) describe that adolescence is “the period in
the life cycle where the individual first encounters strong influences outside of the
23
family” (in Alwin et al., 1991, p. 11). Alwin et al., (1991) provide cohort
explanations for values and attitude changes linked to age instead of aging. Finally,
there are historical effects, societal level changes that may impact individual changes
in socio-political attitudes (Alwin et al., 1991). All of these explanations are relevant
to the importance of diversity, for example a recent societal level change in higher
education is the significant demographic shift (Hurtado, 2007) in the United States.
In addition, discussion of life stage changes connects with the theory of Erikson
regarding adolescence development. And the changing demographics within higher
education connect with both cohort explanations for changes in values, attitudes and
beliefs as well as societal level change explanations.
Alwin et al. (1991) contribute to this theoretical background by offering three
“crucial issues in understanding the development of socio-political attitudes over the
life course” (p.19). The first issue involves the question of when attitudes are
formed, the extent of the stability of the attitudes, and patterns of change in the
stability (Alwin et al., 1991). Each of these issues identified above informs two
theories of socio-political attitudes used in this study as a conceptual lens, the
Impressionable Years Model (Jennings & Stoker, 1999) and Symbolic Politics
Theory (Sears, 1993). Both theories are described in further detail under the heading
“theoretical foundation: values and attitudes.”
Empirical evidence for the impact of diversity.
The theoretical impact of diversity provides a foundation for predicting what
might happen as a result of diversity but it does not provide evidence for the impact.
24
This section extends from the theoretical impact of diversity to examine the
empirical impact of diversity on student outcomes. To begin, diversity in higher
education is shown to be impactful to a range of students’ educational outcomes
(Astin, 1993; Gurin et al., 2002). For example, in her project titled “Preparing
College Students for a Diverse Democracy,” Hurtado (2007) examines the amount,
quality, context and variety of interactions with diverse peers. Hurtado (2007)
reported a connection between positive informal interactions with diverse peers with
“higher scores on measures of more complex thinking about people and their
behavior, cultural and social awareness” as well as with an increase in democratic
sensibilities like a “pluralistic orientation” (p. 191).
Astin (1993) suggests that an institutional diversity emphasis (increasing
minority representation in students and faculty) and emphasizing multiculturalism
have positive effects on student development. These positive effects include self-
reported growth (on CIRP survey instrument) in cultural awareness and a
“commitment to the goal of promoting racial understanding” (Astin, 1993, p. 347-
348). Negative effects include the view that “racial discrimination is no longer a
problem in America” (Astin, 1993, p. 348).
Gurin et al. (2002) state that diversity impacts student learning outcomes
such as active thinking andintellectual engagement and motivation in addition to
democratic outcomes like perspective taking and racial and cultural understanding.
Gurin et al., (2002) use both single and multi-institutional data to examine the impact
of classroom and informal interactional diversity (defined as race-ethnic diversity)
25
on learning and democratic outcomes. Their work suggests that the experience
students have with diversity “consistently and meaningfully affects important
learning and democracy outcomes” (Gurin et al., 2002 p. 358). A significant result in
the work of Gurin et al. (2002) is the development of a “theoretical rationale for the
impact of diversity” (p. 361). The Theory of Diversity and Learning provides a
theoretical rationale for diversity describing that the impact of racial/ethnic diversity
on educational outcomes comes primarily from engagement with diverse peers in the
informal campus environment and in college classrooms” (Gurin et al., p. 333).
Theory of diversity and learning.
Theoretical and empirical research on the importance of diversity has resulted
in a categorization of types of diversity in higher education. Hurtado (2007)
describes an overarching organizing theory that encompasses the cognitive and
developmental theories and connects them to student outcomes called the Theory of
Diversity and Learning (Hurtado, 2007; Gurin 1999, Gurin et al., 2002). The theory
provides a link between diversity in college and learning and democratic skills. It
was developed during the University of Michigan affirmative action case (Grutter v.
Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and was built “on the theory and research of
developmental and cognitive psychologists…” (Hurtado, 2007, p. 189). The primary
hypothesis 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).

26
The Theory of Diversity and Learning identifies and defines three different
types of diversity in college as experienced by students (see Table 2.1). The first is
structural diversity, which includes the number of diverse faculty and students at an
institution. Structural diversity can be used to examine context at a campus-wide
level or in “sub-environments” (i.e. peer friendship groups) to examine differences in
college effects or to identify structural characteristics that “vary within particular
institutional contexts” (Hurtado et al., 2003, p. 159). The numbers of different types
of students is relevant to this study in regards to the class make-up in diversity
requirement courses and the mitigating effect it may have in student outcomes.
The second type of diversity categorized is informal interactional diversity
represented by the frequency and quality of inter-group interactions both inside and
outside the classroom (Gurin et al., 2002). Gurin et al. (2002) describe that the
impact on students is primarily from “engagement with diverse peers” in and outside
the classroom. Informal interactional diversity highlights the role peer interactions
play in affecting student outcomes. The importance of peer interactions is supported
in the literature on college impact (Astin, 1993; Pascarella &Terenzini, 2005). Gurin
at al. (2002) describe that the success of “curricular initiatives” (diversity courses) is
“facilitated by the presence of diverse students and a pedagogy that facilitates
learning in a diverse environment” (p. 359), meaning that interactions with peers is
affected by the amount and types of diversity on campus (structural diversity), the
opportunities for and quality of interaction (interactional diversity), and the specific
programs and events in which students interact and learn from each other (diversity
27
courses, initiatives) (Gurin et al., 2002). Interactions between diverse peers are of
particular interest in defining the impact of diversity as it highlights the importance
and need for structural diversity.
The final type of diversity is what Gurin et al. (2002) call “diversity
initiatives” (both curricular and co-curricular); these include learning with and about
diverse people in courses, workshops, and residence halls (Gurin et al., 2002).
Diversity courses are situated formally under the heading of diversity initiatives;
however they sometimes also contain aspects of structural diversity and interactional
diversity depending on the class make-up and content meaning that diversity courses
can contain structural diversity if there are a variety of students represented in the
class. Additionally, interactional diversity can exist in a diversity course if students
are given an opportunity to interact with diverse peers and diverse content in the
class through formal and informal opportunities (pedagogy and curriculum).

Table 2.1: Theory of Diversity and Learning (Hurtado, 2007)

Structural diversity
Informal interactional
diversity Diversity initiatives
• Diversity of faculty
and students
• Class composition in
diversity courses
• Interactions with
diverse peers
• Frequency and quality
of interactions
• Diversity courses
• Typology of
diversity course
• Co-curricular
activities
28
Both the theoretical foundation for this study as well as the relevant empirical
research that informs this study can be situated within the organizational framework
of the Theory of Diversity and Learning. For example there are studies that focus on
one or more of the three types of diversity, structural diversity, interactional diversity
and diversity initiatives. These studies are discussed in detail under the heading the
“diversity courses impact: empirical.” Before examining the literature based on the
impact of diversity courses, it is relevant to introduce theories that inform the
conceptual frame of this study with a focus on values, attitudes, and beliefs.
Theoretical and Empirical Foundation: Values and Attitude Changes
In the previous sections the importance of diversity and the impact of
diversity have been discussed along with the Theory of Diversity and Learning. This
section introduces the focus of this study, values and attitudes of college students.
Included is an examination of the college impact literature on values and attitude
changes as well as relevant theories that provide a conceptual lens for values and
attitude changes in college students.
College impact literature: values and attitude changes.
There is a strong body of research in college impact literature on values and
attitude changes as a result of college (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
For example, Pascarella et al (1996) state that the evidence suggests “during college,
students tend to change in the direction of greater openness and tolerance” (p.175).
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) also describe this change in students in the 1990s but
state that “changes in students’ social liberalism during the college years report
29
smaller shifts over time than those reported in earlier, more activist decades” (p.
276).
Astin (1993) reports that there are a “number of substantial changes in beliefs
and attitudes in the college years” (p.159). Among these Astin (1993) describes that
the largest “positive” changes are in the areas of “feminism, commitment to
participating in programs to clean up the environment, promoting racial
understanding, developing a meaningful philosophy of life, and support for legal
abortion” (p. 159). By contrast the largest declines for undergraduates are in
“Materialism values: the notion that the chief benefit of a college education is
monetary, and the goal of being very well off financially” (p.159-163). Pascarella
and Terenzini (2005) suggest similar changes in students’ attitudes and values
concerning abortion and racial-ethnic attitudes, stating that “the evidence points to
higher education-related increases in political attitudes toward racial equality and
tolerance as well as increases in awareness and understanding of, and interactions
with, people of different racial-ethnic or cultural backgrounds” (p. 279).
Astin (1993) goes on to describe that there are positive and negative
influences on students’ values and attitudes, which impact student outcomes. For
example “promoting racial understanding” is positively influenced by factors such as
“leaving home to attend college,” and “institutional diversity emphasis” and is
negatively influenced by different majors like business and engineering (Astin, 1993,
p.162-163). Astin (1993) also describes specific factors that impact students’ values
and attitudes within the college environment. Among them are the values and
30
attitudes of faculty and student peers, as well as diversity activities (Astin, 1993).
While faculty attitudes have been shown to influence students’ values and attitudes
(Alwin et al., 1991), Milem (1998) describes that peer norms are more influential
than faculty norms in influencing student attitudes. Milem (1998) suggests that “the
normative influence of faculty is frequently amplified or attenuated by the interaction
students have with their peers” (p. 120). Milem (1998) measured this effect through
the use of the CIRP for the 1985 cohort and the 1989 Survey of College and
University Faculty conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI).
In regards to the impact of peers, Astin (1993) suggests that “students’ views
on social issues tend to change in the direction of the dominant view of the peer
group” (p. 164). Pascarella et al. (1996) describe interactions with peers further
commenting on the diversity of peers stating that,
the more students interact with diverse peers and the greater the extent to
which such interactions focus on controversial or value-laden issues that may
engender a change in perspective or opinion, the greater one’s development
of openness to diversity and challenge (p. 188).

Together these views suggest the importance of peers in shaping the values and
attitudes of students in general and the importance of diverse peers in particular.
Pascarella et al. (1996 in Hurtado, 2001) describe that in general, interactions with
diverse peers result in openness to diverse perspectives and willingness to challenge
beliefs in the first year of college.
Overall, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) and Astin (1993) provide an
empirical lens by which to review the results of this study within the larger context
31
of work on values, attitudes, and beliefs. This includes defining some of the
limitation of the results from previous empirical work. For Example, Astin (1993)
notes that the college environment is not responsible for all of the changes in student
values and attitudes; one other prominent factor includes broader changes in societal
views (Astin, 1993). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) also note the impact of what
they call “attributional problems” such as normal maturation, specific events that
affect the generational cohort or changes in the historical period (p. 272).
Additionally, the shifts in students’ values and attitudes, particularly regarding views
of race and ethnicity may “mask variations within subsets of undergraduates that are
related to gender, race-ethnicity, and social class (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p.
280). All of these attributional problems make interpreting the results of studies on
“net college effects” difficult (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Finally, while there is a strong empirical base of literature regarding the
impact of college on values and attitude changes, the impact is in the aggregate
(Astin, 1993). Astin (1993) describes that it is difficult to identify any one specific
intervention having an impact on students’ values and attitudes. Hogan and Mallot
(2005) contrast this view describing the importance of examining the impact of
individual interventions on student outcomes. Pascarella et al. (1996) also support
the need for more specific research, stating that “a major shortcoming of the existing
body of literature is that it fails to address directly the impact of specific dimensions
of the college experience on students’ appreciation and acceptance of cultural, racial
, and value diversity” (p. 175). As a result of the empirical evidence to date detailed
32
above and given the need for more specific examination of specific college
experiences, diversity course are relevant and important to study. In addition to the
empirical evidence, theory provides a conceptual foundation for this study.
The goal of the Bennington Study was to measure changes in the “levels of
progressivism” as measured through the “Political and Economic Progressivism
Scale (PEP) (Alwin et al., 1991, p. 35). The data collected included a measure for the
PEP scale, a 26-item questionnaire in addition to reports on students by “College
offices” and individual student interviews (Alwin at al., 1991, p.35). The findings of
the 1935 cohort study (Newcomb, 1943) suggested that “attitudes generally moved
away from those of their parents and toward the ‘liberal’ orientation of the college
environment” (in Alwin et al., 1991, p. 36).
Theoretical foundation: values and attitudes.
Theories that specifically address values and attitude changes such as
Symbolic Politics Theory (Sears, 1993), the Impressionable Years Model (Jennings
& Stoker, 1999), and the longitudinal study of the Bennington Women (Alwin et
al.1991) provide a conceptual lens by which to examine values and attitude changes
in higher education. Erikson’s (1980) lifespan development theory describes why the
traditional age college years are a time for potential values and attitude changes.
However this theory does not provide a frame or an explanation for how this occurs
in the college environment. Symbolic Politics Theory (Sears, 1993) and the
Impressionable Years Model (Jennings & Stoker, 1999) provide a frame for
understanding how the college environment influences students’ values and attitudes.
33
Symbolic Politics Theory is a socio-cultural learning theory that examines
“attitude acquisition” over the lifespan, particularly focused on “political
predispositions” (Sidanius et al., 2008, p. 11). The theory posits that attitude
acquisition is a learning process that occurs over time and that attitudes vary in their
strength (Sidanius et al., 2008). There are two ends to the continuum of attitude
strength, from a “non-attitude” also described as weak attitudes, to “symbolic
predispositions” which represent the strongest attitudes (Sidanius et al., 2008).
Attitudes reach a “mature” level when they reach “asymptote” (Sidanius et al.,
2008). Sidanius et al. (2008) state that there are several factors that influence when
an attitude reaches a “mature level of acquisition” in an individual life span. Sears
(1993) as well as Sears & Valentino (1998) describe these factors as the “intensity of
information flow” from the social environment and media, the “homogeneity” of an
individual’s environment, and the “opportunity to practice the attitude” (in Sidanius
et al., 2008). The factors above all speak to the kind of information a student is
receiving, how often s/he is receiving it and how this information may or may not be
supported by like-minded individuals.
Symbolic Politics Theory is tested empirically through the work of Sidanius
et al., (2008) at the University of California Los Angeles. The study of UCLA
students in diversity initiatives has relevance to this study not only because of the
topic but also because of the population. The study examines the effects of campus
diversity, including policies and environment, on students’ inter-group interactions,
identity formation, and racial and political attitudes (Sidanius et al., 2008). The
34
examination of racial and political attitudes has particular relevance to this study in
regards to the impact of diversity courses on students’ attitudes.
A second theory is used as a conceptual frame for this study. The
Impressionable Years Model is a life span developmental theory about the
crystallization of an individual’s attitudes, particularly those related to politics
(Sidanius et al., 2008; Jennings & Stoker, 1999). This theory is connected to and
utilized in the results of the Bennington study assessing the value changes of women
over the life span and as influenced by peers and the environment (Alwin et al.,
1991). The Impressionable Years Model (Jennings and Stoker (1999) explores
questions about when in the lifespan individuals develop “sociopolitical
orientations,” and the factors that shape those values. The model assumes that “a
period in the life cycle exists in which the individual is particularly vulnerable to
attitude formation and change… referred to as impressionable years” (Alwin et al.,
1991, p. 21).
In their study of UCLA, Sidanius et al. (2008) utilize both Symbolic Politics
Theory as well as the Impressionable Years Model to examine socio-political attitude
changes. The UCLA study employed a longitudinal design for the 1996 cohort of
incoming students. Data were collected at six points in time, first before college
entry and then at the end of each year including the fifth (Sidanius et al., 2008). The
measures of the study focus on a number of aspects of students’ college experience,
with a focus on attitudes towards four ethnic groups: Whites, Asians, Latinos, and
Blacks (Sidanius et al., 2008). The variables for the UCLA study are grouped into
35
seven categories which include several relevant to this study: demographics, group
identification and sociopolitical attitudes, orientations, and behavioral intentions
(Sidanius et al., 2008, p. 54). The conceptual frame of Symbolic Politics Theory and
the Impressionable Years Model provided a point from which to compare the
findings of the study.
Sidanius et al. (2008) stated that they were more surprised by the values and
attitudes that remained constant than by those that changed. For example white
students’ political and racial attitudes were more crystallized and stable during the
college years, in terms of Symbolic Politics Theory, than non-white students
(Sidanius et al., 2002). The Impressionable Years Model was shown to be somewhat
accurate. There were changes in students’ attitudes attributable to the college
experience, however Sidanius et al. (2002) suggest that “students do not undergo
radical change in college but rather build on and develop what they enter college
with” (p. 323). This quote is more in line with Symbolic Politics Theory and the
notion of strength of attitudes than the Impressionable Years Model.
In sum, Symbolic Politics Theory and the Impressionable Years Model are
useful as a lens to explore the impact of required diversity courses on students’
values, attitudes, and beliefs. Both provide nuanced ways of viewing the outcomes of
students’ experience in the college experience in the aggregate as well as in specific
environments. One such experience in the college environment is required diversity
courses as part of an institution’s diversity initiatives.
36
Overview of Diversity Courses
The primary focus of this section is to examine the empirical literature that
addresses diversity courses directly. Included is a summary of relevant findings but
also linkages to the previous sections on theory and values and attitude changes. To
begin, diversity courses are required in the vast majority of colleges and universities
(Humphreys, 1997). This section details the percentages of colleges and universities
that have diversity requirements and what they entail. The work of the AAC&U on
the American Commitments project is relevant to this discussion (Humphreys,
1997).
Responding to the need to prepare students for a diverse future, many
colleges and Universities have adopted diversity requirements. The American
Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) provides data on diversity
requirements nationally as well as the philosophical foundation for diversity
requirements. For example, a study conducted by the AAC&U showed that 94% of
national public opinion agreed that because of the diverse population of the United
States, being able to understand those who are different is “more important than
ever” (Humphreys, 2000). 63% of institutions stated they “either have in place a
diversity requirement or they are in the process of developing one” (Humphreys,
2000, p. 1). The AAC&U (Humphreys, 1997) further described that a goal of
diversity courses is to create opportunities for student learning about U.S. pluralism.
Pluralism is defined as the notion that the United States is comprised of many
distinct cultures and individuals where its identity is complex.
37
Typology of diversity courses.
What remains to be explored are the impacts of variations in diversity
requirement courses, for example, how the complexity of a course or the specific
content of the course affects the student’s experiences.. To this end a typology is
used as a way to compare student outcomes data across all diversity requirement
courses. Cole & Sundt (2008) describe that the “‘Typology of Diversity Courses’
already poses a significant contribution to our thinking about how to ‘make sense’ of
the variety of diversity courses and to the literature on assessing diversity courses.”
The Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008) is described in more detail
in chapter three.
The researcher hypothesizes that values, attitudes, and beliefs are affected by
diversity courses. This hypothesis is based on the knowledge of the goals of higher
education to develop critical thinking and democratic values and diversity courses
that contain all three types of diversity (structural, formal interactional, and
curricular) in the institutional context. As a result because all three types of diversity
have been shown to contribute to student impact (Gurin et al. (2002)diversity courses
are thought to impact student outcomes. In this study, the impact of diversity on
student values and attitudes in a specific environment, diversity requirement courses,
is examined.
Impact of Diversity Courses
This section extends from the importance of diversity and the impact of
diversity on student outcomes to focus on diversity initiatives and in particular
38
required diversity courses. The goal is to demonstrate why there is something unique
about diversity courses that influence students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. The
analysis includes information on what is known about diversity requirement courses
(i.e. what theory says about their impact) and then linking this to the empirical
college impact literature concerning what has been demonstrated to be their impact.
Both this section and the one previous will help in identifying relevant factors (from
the literature) that are part of diversity courses hypothesized in this study to impact
values and attitudes. A variation of diversity initiatives occurs in the classroom in the
form of general education courses. Nelson Laird et al. (2005) describe that the
classroom is an “important location” for students to engage with diversity as well as
“communicate across difference” (p.2).
Diversity course impact (theoretical).
Diversity courses are hypothesized to impact college students in a number of
ways, including critical thinking, peer interaction, and prejudice reduction (Gurin et
al., 2002). This section explores what is theorized to happen as a result of taking a
diversity course and then compares this to the actual empirical findings in the next
section. In theory, diversity requirements create the opportunity for students to
engage with diverse peers around diverse content (Gurin et al., 2002). Diversity
courses exist for a number of reasons, among them: to make education more diverse
and inclusive, develop students’ critical thinking, and to help students engage
through difference with others (Chang, 2002). In describing students engaging
through difference, Chang (2002) is referring to students’ level of comfort and
39
persistence in choosing to continue to interact with students different than
themselves. The finding suggests that students will persist in engaging through
difference if they have taken a diversity course (Chang, 2002).
Humphreys (1998) also describes that diversity courses challenge students to
think in a complex way helping students to “avoid cultural stereotyping” (p. 3).
Diversity courses are also thought to increase students’ complexity of thought and
engagement in social problems (Gurin, 1999, in Nelson Laird et al., 2002). Diversity
courses give students skills such as “listening, empathy, fairness, dialogue,
intercultural communication, conflict resolution, and collective problem solving,” all
of which are necessary to successfully address contemporary issues in society
(Humphreys, 1998, p 2). Diversity courses also provide students with perspective of
the cultural foundations for their own background (Humphreys, 1998).
Chang (2002) describes that in theory, diversity requirements where students
are required to only take one course assumes that if students can think critically
about difference in regards to one group or area of diversity that it will then extend to
other areas. The findings by Chang (2002) have implications for the Typology of
Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008) as it relates to student outcomes.
Specifically, are there differences in the impact of a course depending on the content,
complexity, and pedagogy? Do they have the same impact on students in regards to
their values and attitudes? Chang (2002) describes the lack of empirical work on the
impacts of diversity courses as a gap as there is little research done to determine if
40
learning extends from one type of diversity to understanding/ tolerance/ prejudice
reduction in another.
The goals of diversity courses as described by the AAC&U (Humphreys,
1997) and their theoretical impacts mirror that of the general benefits of diversity
that include, learning and democratic values (Chang, 2002; Gurin et al., 2002). The
connection between diversity courses and the benefits of diversity in general is not
surprising as diversity requirements are an operationalization of diversity in higher
education, meaning that they combine the three types of diversity described by
Hurtado (2007), structural, informal interactional, and in diversity initiatives
(diversity courses). However, even though there are goals for diversity courses the
outcomes are less clear, in fact there has been little evaluation on their impact
(Hogan & Mallot, 2005). This is where empirical studies of diversity courses may
provide data to evaluate the theory of diversity course impact.
Diversity course impact (empirical).
There are many outcomes associated with diversity in general that have been
studied empirically (Astin, 1993; Gurin et al., 2002). This is true to a lesser extent for
diversity requirement course outcomes. Hurtado (2001) notes that while diversity
requirements are one aspect of “diversity-related campus activities” on college
campuses, it is one that is bounded and worthy of further study.
Other diversity-related experiences are community service and study abroad
as well as attending a racial awareness workshop. Study abroad in particular has
received a good deal of attention empirically, particularly in its impact on students’
41
values and attitudes. Kitsantas (2004) found that study abroad positively impacts
students’ cross cultural skills and global understanding. Diversity related experiences
are important to study in conjunction with diversity initiatives such as required
diversity courses because of the potential for overlap of impacts on student
outcomes.
Furthermore, diversity initiatives in college are important to study because
while in theory diversity impacts student development, “educators must create
certain conditions to maximize the potential for learning” (Hurtado, 200l, p.189).
Several empirical studies address the conditions and factors that impact students in
diversity courses. The impacts have been observed in a number of areas from values
and attitudes, to prejudice reduction and cognitive development.
To begin, diversity courses impact the values and attitudes of students. For
example Women’s Studies courses have positive effects on socio political views,
feelings about different groups, and “new ways of thinking about human differences”
(Henderson-King & Stewart, 2002; Musil, 1992; in Chang, 2002). Also “courses
affiliated with women’s studies and ethnic studies programs positively enhanced
students’ attitudes towards gender and racial differences more than courses not
affiliated with those departments” (Palmer, 2000, p.2). And according to a study
conducted by Penn State University in 1998 there are impacts from diversity courses
on students’ behaviors including their beliefs. For example, 60% of students
described they look at multiple perspectives now because of their experience in
diversity courses, while 40% describe being more aware of intolerance on campus”
42
(Palmer, 2000, p.4). Unfortunately, there seems to be a disconnect described by the
Penn State study concerning what students think about intellectually and what
behavior they demonstrate (Palmer, 2000, p.3). The disconnect between thought and
behavior may be explained by the work of Hogan & Mallot (2005) in their work on
prejudice reduction. They describe three core characteristics of “old-fashioned”
racism: denial that racism is “still a social problem,” resentment “about the social,
educational, and political gains of minorities” and antagonism towards “programs
that promote social equality” (Sears, 1988; Swim et al., 1995; cited in Hogan and
Mallot, 2005, p. 115). They go on to describe that of the three, denial is the easiest to
address because it is intellectually based and involves ignorance reduction that can
be accomplished through information, whereas the other two are connected to
experience and emotion and are much more entrenched and thus difficult to
overcome with a single course (Hogan & Mallot, 2005). The challenges cited by
Hogan and Mallot (2005) link to what Palmer (2000) describes regarding students
intellectually thinking differently but not acting on it. Finally, Hogan & Mallot
(2005) comment that, students' intergroup tolerance improved because of diversity
courses, however when examining the three core characteristics of racism they found
that each was impacted differently. For example, denial was reduced by courses
because it is caused primarily by ignorance, however resentment was not reduced
and antagonism was only temporarily reduced on the Modern Racism scale.
The findings above are consistent theoretically and empirically regarding the
negative impact of diversity courses in general and racial awareness in particular on
43
white students. McIntosh (1988) describes the feelings of guilt white individuals feel
when confronted with their privilege. The work of Case (2004) measured these
feelings empirically and found that as a result of diversity courses white students
showed increases in white guilt and awareness. This is a finding replicated by
Kernahan & Davis (2007) who found white students had increased awareness but
also increased feelings of guilt and responsibility. These findings suggest that white
students experience diversity courses differently than do non-white students.
Chang (2002) describes that students nearly completing diversity courses had
more favorable judgments of Blacks than those just beginning the class. Henderson-
King and Stewart (1999) report similar findings in a study on feminist consciousness
regarding those that had taken a women’s studies course and those who were
interested but didn’t actually take a course. In fact, those that had not taken the class
decreased in their level of sensitivity to sexism (Henderson-King & Stewart, 1999).
These two studies suggest that diversity courses have an impact on students’ values
and attitudes when compared with students who had not yet taken a course.
Chang (2002) reports the impacts gained in diversity courses with content
about one specific topic or group (ie women’s studies) may translate to prejudice
reduction concerning another disparate group. This is worth further exploring
considering the curricular model favored by most institutions that allows for students
to select one course among many options (Humphreys, 2007). Diversity courses also
have had positive effects on students’ “openness to cultural awareness, interest in
racial understanding, and greater appreciation of multiple cultures” (Astin, 1993;
44
Hurtado, 1996; Institute for the Study of Social Change, 1991; Villalpando, 1994)
(Chang, 2002, p. 23).
In addition to the impact of diversity courses on values and attitudes and
prejudice reduction, there are also impacts on cognitive factors. For example Astin
(1993) reports improvement in cognitive development for students participating in a
multicultural course while Hurtado (2007) reports that “students who enrolled in
diversity courses showed higher scores on 17 of 24 educational outcomes” (p. 192).
The educational outcomes impacted include “beliefs in social equality” as well as
democratic sensibilities, such as “concern for the public good” and an interest in
“poverty issues” (Hurtado, 2007, p.192).
Finally many of the empirical studies in their limitations and future research
sections offer items that tie directly to this study. For example, Dey (1997) describes
that studies on values may have a shelf life and need to be revisited because of the
impact of changes in society and higher education.As a result it is important to
consider societal shifts in values when measuring student shifts, studies may need to
be reconsidered with this in mind (Dey, 1988).
In addition, some of the challenges with multiple institutional studies are that
they are too broad to use “proximal” measures to examine the student experience.
Many times the environmental measures only look at structural characteristics that
are not proximal enough to the student experience (Dey, 1988; Milem, 1998). As a
result there is a need to develop a better way to assess peer subgroups within
institutions. Dey (1988) suggests focusing on a single value issue and assessing
45
students’ values through that. There is also a lack of empirical study regarding the
extent to which diversity requirements impact (enhance) students’ abilities to study
one area of diversity that then extends to other areas of diversity (Chang, 2002).
Hogan and Mallot (2005) describe that there is little evaluation or assessment
done on diversity course outcomes on students while Chang (2002) describes that
Diversity course requirements not explicitly studied but rather the “closest
approximation” (Chang, 2002) i.e. a diversity workshop. Similarly, the work of
Hogan and Mallot (2005) describes a direct gap in the literature and speaks to the
need for this study. While the work of Hogan and Mallot (2005) focuses on prejudice
reduction this one focuses on values and attitude changes within which prejudice
reduction may occur. Additionally, Henderson-King and Stewart (1999) cite a
limitation of many studies regarding how long the impacts of diversity courses last.
The variables identified in the literature as being relevant to the study of
required diversity courses are listed below in Table 2.2. The variables are identified
by each study and connected to those that are available in the secondary source data
to be used by the study. Of particular importance are any longitudinal studies and the
subsequent variables they identify.
46

Table 2.2: Variables Used in Empirical Studies on Diversity Courses

CIRP 2004 Variable(s)
and Composite variable
name
Type Item Importance Citation(s)
Parents’ education level
FATHEDUC,
MOTHEDUC
Statistical
Chang (2002)
(Dey, 1997)
Pre-college political view
IV/
DV
POLIVW04 Theoretical
Dey (1988);
Dey (1997)
Wealthy people should pay
more taxes
DV VIEW0408 Statistical Milem (1998)
Be very well off financially DV GOAL0408 Statistical Milem (1998)
Gender IV SEX
Statistical,
theoretical
Chang (2002)
Race IV RACE1-9
Statistical,
theoretical
Chang (2002);
Dey (1997)
Humanism IV
GOAL 0404-05, 0409
0414-17
Statistical Milem (1998)
Materialism IV
GOAL 0402-03, 0407-
08, 0413
Statistical Milem (1998)
Social Liberalism IV VIEW 0403, 0408, 0413 Statistical Milem (1998)
Libertarianism IV VIEW 0402, 0404 Statistical Milem (1998)
Authoritarianism IV VIEW0405, 0412, 0414 Statistical Milem (1998)
Artistic Orientation IV GOAL0401, 0411-12 Statistical Milem (1998)
DV
VIEW 0402, 0413, 0404,
0412, 0405, 0415,
POLIVW04
Statistical Dey (1988)

VIEW 0406, GOAL
0417
Statistical Astin (1993)
47
Summary
The review of related literature expanded upon the statement of the problem
and the importance of this study through theoretical and empirical work. This
included a review of the literature on the importance of diversity in higher education
narrowing to required diversity courses. The research questions used in this study are
informed by the review of literature and guide the analysis described in chapter
three. In addition, chapter three draws upon the empirical studies on diversity
courses in choosing an appropriate research design to respond to the research
questions.
48
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of diversity courses on
students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. The previous chapters set the foundation for
the importance of diversity courses. Chapter one includes the importance of
examining diversity requirements as a line of inquiry and frames the problem of the
extent to which diversity courses impact students’ values, attitudes and beliefs, and
achieve the goals set out in the university mission. Chapter two provides the
theoretical foundation for the importance of diversity courses and the empirical
evidence to date that describes the impacts of diversity courses on students. Based on
the information presented in the first two chapters the following research questions
are addressed in this study:
To what extent do diversity courses impact students on measures of values,
attitudes, and beliefs (Humanism, Individualism, Artistic Orientation, and
Materialism)?
1. Are there differences in the kinds of impacts on students’ experiences in
diversity courses depending on when in their academic sequence they
took their first diversity course?
2. Are there differences depending on the total number of diversity courses
taken over five years/ 40 courses?
49
3. Are there differences depending on the level of complexity of the first
diversity course taken by a student, per the Diversity Course Typology
(Cole & Sundt, 2008)?
4. Within each of the above questions:
a. Are there differences depending on a student’s major
(aggregated)?
b. Are there differences depending on demographic characteristics
(i.e. race and gender)?
Creswell (2003) describes that a quantitative approach is best if “the problem
is identifying factors that influence an outcome,…or understanding the best
predictors of outcomes” (p.21-22). Exploring the impact of diversity courses on
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs is best captured by a quantitative approach
because the problem concerns testing already developed theories rather than the
creation of new theories (Creswell, 2003). The data gathered are intended to measure
the extent of the impact and factors that influence the impact, not whether or not
there is an impact. As a result, a quantitative approach best addresses the research
questions of the study in identifying factors that might affect the outcome of the
study, students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. Additionally, a quantitative approach is
consistent with many of the studies on diversity and diversity courses (i.e. Chang,
2002, Gurin at al., 2002; Gurin, 1999). These studies empirically examine the impact
of diversity and required diversity courses on a number of student outcomes.
50
Sample and Population
In this section the population is described as well as the specific sample
selected for analysis. The description of the population includes a discussion of the
context and background of the site selected. Additionally, participants are described
and disaggregated by relevant characteristics identified in the literature. Finally, the
specific numbers of participants from the data sets are introduced.
Site selection.
The site selected for this study is a large private research I university in the
western United States, Western University (WU). WU provides a rich and relevant
environment for a study on the impact of diversity requirement courses. Western
University was selected for several reasons including its location, structural diversity
of the student population, and relevance of the diversity requirement as compared to
other institutions of higher education. WU is representative of the majority of other
institutions in terms of the type of diversity course requirement curricular model
used, as well as the inception and longevity of the diversity requirement, and in the
relevance to the university mission (Humphreys, 1997, 2000). Finally, Western
University was selected because this study is part of a larger examination of diversity
requirement courses through a 2008 Teagle Foundation Grant that utilizes Western
University as the site institution.
As a large private institution on the west coast of the United States, WU has a
diverse student population as evidenced by a comparison of the demographics of the
incoming class of 2004 as compared with National Averages of four-year
51
institutions. The structural diversity of Western University has relevance to the study
of diversity courses for a few reasons. First, more analysis can be done on individual
populations because of the structural diversity in the classroom. In addition, the
impact of diverse peers on each other and the intersection of diverse peers and
diverse content can be examined.

Table 3.1: 2004 Enter First Year Student Characteristics

Western University (2004)
National Average -
US Dept of Ed. (2004)
African American: 7% 12.5
Latino/ Hispanic: 16% 10.5
Native American/ Pacific Islander: 1% 1.0
Asian/ Asian American: 18% 6.4
Caucasian: 48% 66.1
International: 7% 3.4
Not Indicated: 3% Not Listed

Western University is also representative of many institutions that have
diversity requirement courses in terms of the curricular model used. The American
Association of Colleges and Universities (Humphreys, 2000) identifies categories of
curricular models used for required diversity courses. Most institutions that have a
diversity requirement require students to take one course from an offered listing of
courses (Humphreys, 1997). Western University utilizes a similar curricular model,
one that is categorized as “allowing students to choose among many courses”
52
(Humphreys, 2000). Humphreys (1997) describes this type of curriculum for
diversity courses as the “majority choice by institutions…that had a cultural diversity
requirement” (p.32). Given that most institutions utilize this kind of curriculum in
providing diversity requirement courses, Western University is a representative
institution in terms of the curricular model used.
Additionally, Western University fits within the norm of accredited
institutions of higher education in the United States in regards to the time period in
which a diversity course requirement was adopted. The AAC&U reports on the
amount of time each institution has had a diversity requirement in existence
(Humphreys, 2000); the results range from 25% having them for ten or more years to
45% having them for five to ten years and 30% reporting having a diversity
requirements for five years or fewer (Humphreys, 2000). Western University fits
within the 45% category of institutions as of 2000 because they began their diversity
requirement in 1993. Since 1993, Western University has since revised their
diversity requirement a number of times, most recently in 2005. The 2005 stated
purpose and rationale for the WU diversity requirement is stated below:
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 for 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
53
diversity makes possible for our private and public aspirations. (Western
University, 2005).

This statement of purpose strongly suggests that Western University takes a strong
role in educating students on diversity and that liberal concepts of tolerance and
understanding are an expected outcome of the diversity courses. As a result, the
statement of purpose presents a relevant and measurable student outcome for
determining the impact of required diversity courses on students’ attitudes, values,
and beliefs.
Western University’s mission for the institution and for its diversity courses
is to prepare students for a diverse global society. The mission of Western University
is relevant to the goals of a liberal education and mirror those put forward by Gurin
et al. (2002) in support for the need for diversity in higher education. As described in
chapter two, Gurin et al. (2002) highlight the importance of the need for diversity in
higher education to achieve outcomes that are in line with a liberal education.
Diversity initiatives are one way to achieve the goals of a liberal education. In this
study, student outcomes are compared with the stated institutional goals of diversity
requirements to determine the impact of diversity courses.
Finally, this study contributes to a 2008 Teagle Grant study at Western
University. The primary outcome of the Teagle Study is to assess the impact of
diversity courses on students’ higher order thinking skills (Cole & Sundt, 2008).
Several individual studies are part of the grant and each examines a specific aspect of
diversity course impact that when combined result in a fuller picture of student
54
outcomes as a result of required diversity courses. The site selected for the Teagle
grant is Western University and as a result provides a foundation for this study as
well.
Participant selection.
The population for this study includes all of the undergraduate students that
began attending Western University in 2004 and were seniors in 2008. The specific
sample of this population includes those that completed two surveys, the 2004 CIRP
and the 2008 Western University Senior Survey. The 2004 class cohort group was
surveyed at two points for data: students at WU for the entering class of 2004-2005,
and the final academic year 2007-2008. The sample is comprised of respondents to
two surveys, the 2004 CIRP and the 2008 Western University Senior Survey. The
final number of participants includes those students who completed both surveys.
The CIRP survey data gathered from 2004 had a response rate of 87.6% and an
N=2429. By contrast, the exit survey data from the Western University Senior
Survey in 2008 had a response rate of 20% and an N=553. As a result the total
number of participants for the sample in this study is N=553 or a 20% return rate in
relation to the overall 2004 cohort Western University undergraduate population
(2770). Both surveys were used to create a longitudinal data file, with the addition of
course taking patterns obtained from students’ academic transcripts. Of the 553
students, 170 were non-white students and women were overrepresented among both
White and Non-White students (see Table 3.2).
55
Instrumentation
As described above, Western University provides a rich site to examine the
impact of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. WU is
representative of many institutions of higher education in the type of general
education curriculum in which their diversity courses are situated. Additionally, the
structural diversity of the university provides a rich environment to examine the
impact of diversity courses on a number of populations.
The research design for this study is non-experimental, and utilizes a
secondary source analysis of quantitative survey data that comprise two of the three
data points utilized for this study. The third data point includes transcript data on the
2004 cohort of undergraduate students at Western University. Each of the data points
is described in further detail later in this chapter but first an organizational
framework is introduced. The organizational framework provides a way to
conceptualize the data points and where they fit within the college experience.
56
Table 3.2: Descriptive Data for Student Participants by Racial/Ethnic Group
(N=553)

Student Background & College
Entry Variables
a

White
(n=383)
69.3%
Non-White
(n=170)
30.7%
Gender of Student
Men 27.9% 9.2%
Women 41.4% 21.5%
Level of Parental Education
High School or Less 1.8% 4.7%
Some College or Degree 27.3% 12.5%
Grad Degree or less 39.6% 13.4%
Major
Agriculture 0.0% 0.0%
Biological Sciences 6.0% 3.6%
Business 12.7% 6.7%
Education 0.2% 0.2%
Engineering 7.8% 3.3%
English 1.3% 0.2%
Health prof 2.9% 3.4%
Hist/Poli Sci 4.5% 2.0%
Humanities 4.7% 1.6%
Fine Arts 6.2% 0.5%
Math/Stat 0.2% 0.5%
Physical Sci 1.8% 0.4%
Social Sci 1.8% 1.8%
Oth Technical 1.1% 0.4%
Other 9.0% 2.9%
Undecided 7.8% 2.4%
a
Data collected in 2004.
57
The “Taxonomy of Student Outcomes” (Astin, 1993) provides a justification
for the use of survey data to respond to the research questions in this study. Astin
(1993) defines the “taxonomy of student outcomes” as a conceptual scheme to guide
the selection of relevant measures of student outcomes. The taxonomy is used as a
justification for the data points used in this study in that the taxonomy identifies the
appropriate measures for values and attitudes. The three dimensions of the taxonomy
are outcome type, data type, and time. The two most relevant to this study are
outcome and data type. In regards to outcome type Astin (1993) describes that there
are two broad domains of outcomes, cognitive and non-cognitive. This study has as
its focus the non-cognitive domain focusing on “affective” outcomes that refer to the
students’ “attitudes, values, self-concept (and) aspirations” (Astin, 1993, p.9). In
context this means that variables that address students’ values, attitudes and beliefs
are identified for their statistical and theoretical importance. In terms of types of data
this refers to the information gathered to assess the outcomes and is divided into
psychological and behavioral data. Psychological data is indirect, examining student
responses to surveys whereas behavioral data is interested in the interaction between
the student and the environment (Astin, 1993). Based on the research questions as
well as the empirical and theoretical support for this study, the focus of this inquiry
is on the psychological (data) and affective (outcome) domains. In the taxonomy of
student outcomes Astin (1993) describes that psychological data and the affective
domain are used for values, attitudes, and beliefs (p. 10). As a result, the use of
survey data to gather information on students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs as
58
impacted by diversity courses is appropriate. In the following sections the specific
data collection procedures are described.
Organizing Framework
Astin (1984) provides a model for conceptualizing the impact (outcomes) of
college on students. His “conceptual framework” is called the “input-environment-
outcome model” (I-E-O) whereby “inputs” refers to entering characteristics of
students, “environment” refers to all experiences (i.e. programs, people, education)
that a student experiences in college, and the “outcomes” are the student’s
characteristics after experiencing the environment (Astin, 1984). The I-E-O research
model (Astin, 1984) is used in this study to organize the relevant independent
variables (inputs & environment) that have been empirically shown to impact
students’ values, attitudes and beliefs (outcome). The I-E-O model provides a second
organizing frame in addition to the Theory of Diversity and Learning (Hurtado,
2007; Gurin, 1999) to illustrate the empirical foundation of the study identified in
chapter two. See Appendix C for an illustration of the overlay of the two organizing
frameworks. In combination these are used to illustrate the argument that what
happens in diversity courses impacts students’ values and attitudes. Astin’s (1984) I-
E-O research model organize data in a linear relationship between students’
background characteristics (gender, race, parents’ education, major, and pre-test for
the outcome variable), the environment (diversity courses) and outcomes (values,
attitudes and beliefs). The link between inputs, environment and outcome are made
explicit through variables identified through the empirical literature that address
59
diversity courses and value and attitude shifts. The variables identified originate in
surveys that comprise the data points of this study.
Appendix C provides an illustration of the I-E-O model with the specific data
points to be used in this study. Additionally the table merges the three types of
diversity identified in the Theory of Diversity and Learning (Hurtado, 2007), the I-E-
O model (Astin, 1984) and the specific data sources used in this study. Data sources
include two surveys as well as transcript data. Each data source is described and
links are drawn to demonstrate how each addresses the research questions regarding
values and attitude shifts as they relate to or correlate to students’ participation in
diversity courses.
Data Sources
The full data set for use in this study includes transcript data from the 2004
cohort attending Western University that is merged with the 2004 CIRP and 2008
Senior Survey. The data sources include two separate survey instruments: one
national, the Cooperative Institute Research Program (CIRP) and one institution
specific, the Western University Senior Survey. In the following sections each
instrument is described, including the number of items, purpose, and psychometrics
of the surveys, as well as the number of student participants. In addition, the editions
of the surveys and the relevant demographics of those that completed the surveys
(race, ethnicity, gender, class standing) are presented.
60
Cooperative Institute Research Project.
The Cooperative Institute Research Program (CIRP) began in 1966 as part of
the American Council on Education (ACE). It is housed at the University of
California Los Angeles (UCLA) and is facilitated by the Higher Education Research
Institute (HERI) (Astin, 1993). The CIRP is described as being the “largest ongoing
study of the American higher education system” with data of 500,000 students in
1300 institutions (Astin, 1993, p.4). It is viewed as a relevant survey of student
outcomes, particularly those that are a self reported examination of students’ values
and attitudes (Astin, 1993).
There are a total of forty-one items on the 2004 CIRP with an additional
twenty-one optional items (see Appendix A for survey instrument). The items
address several areas of student self reported information such as demographics from
race, ethnicity, and gender. Additionally there are items that ask students to rate
themselves in relation to other students of the same age, as well as to indicate how
often they engage in certain behaviors. Some items on the CIRP address “affective”
student outcomes such as those that are the focus of this study, and afford the
“opportunity to examine how the college experience affects more that eighty
different measures of attitudes (and) values…” (Astin, 1993, p.4). Additional
measures examine variables concerning “behavior, learning, achievement, career
development, and satisfaction” (Astin, 1993, p.4).
For the purposes of this study, only the responses of a single institution for
the 2004 CIRP freshman survey were used for analysis. For the 2004 administration
61
at Western University the number of participants was N=2,429. The Western
University Office for Student Outcomes Research (SOR) facilitates the CIRP online
to all first year students. SOR describes that “the response rate for this survey has
ranged from 85% to 92%, with over 2,500 students completing the survey each year”
(Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/student_surveys/surveys.html on
August 13, 2009). This response rate range is consistent with the 2004 CIRP survey
where data gathered had a response rate of 87.6%.
The CIRP (2004) survey is used as an input data source for this study,
providing pre-college characteristics and college expectations. In the context of this
study the pre-college characteristics provide a base line of students’ values, attitudes,
and beliefs from which to measure any changes based on diversity courses. As a
starting point, CIRP variables were identified through the empirical literature and
were tested to respond to the research questions on the extent of the impact of
diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. The 2004 CIRP items
identified through the literature are listed in chapter two in Table 2.2 as researchers
in empirical studies have used them.
Western University Senior Survey.
Western University administers a Senior Survey to seniors every three years.
The most recent administration of the survey was in 2008 and the data from this
administration comprises the post college experience data point used in this study.
The Senior Survey instrument was designed by Western University and is modeled
after the CIRP survey. The purpose of the Senior Survey is to address both student
62
experience and satisfaction at Western University (See Appendix B for survey
instrument). The Senior Survey has 224 items, and has items that address self-
reported information on student satisfaction, views, and time spent in college
activities. Additional items include engagement and demographic questions as well
as the importance of identified activities and future academic and personal plans. The
number of participants completing the Spring 2008 administration of the survey was
553.
Within the context of this study the Senior Survey provided variables that are
situated as both environmental and outcome variables. The outcome variables in the
Senior Survey represent the last data point in the temporal sequence for the 2004
cohort. The outcome variables identified for use in this study were variables that
were also contained in the 2004 CIRP survey. The same four composite variables
were created to match the composite variables created from the 2004 CIRP survey
(see Table 3.3). Three Senior Survey items were identified as additional
environmental variables. These variables measure diversity related experiences to
determine what other experiences in the environment might confound the impact on
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. Table 3.3 contains all of the Senior Survey
variables used in the study.
63
Table 3.3: Value Labels, Scales and Coding of Senior Survey Variables

Variables Label Scale Code
Environment - Senior
Survey

Community ServiceR
(first_5+ freq_11R)
In your first year at WU, did
you: Perform community
service work as part of a
course

Since enrolling at WU,
indicate how often you:
Performed community service
work as part of a course
1 = Yes
2 = No
1-2
Awareness Workshop
(ever_5)
Since enrolling at WU, have
you ever: Attended a
racial/cultural awareness
workshop
1 = Yes
0 = No
0-1
Study Abroad (Ever_8) Since enrolling at WU, have
you ever: Studied abroad
1 = Yes
0 = No
0-1
Outcome - Senior Survey
Composite variable #1
Humanism “ssHumanismR”
Import_9R, 16R, 17R
Help others in difficulty
Take part in community
action program
Helping to promote racial
understanding
1-3 = 1 Not Important
4-6 = 2 Somewhat
important
7-9 = 3 Very important
10-12 = 4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #2
Individualism
“ssIndividualismR”
Impor_2R-3R, Import_4R
Become Authority in My
Own Field
Obtain Recognition from
Colleagues
Influence Political Structure
1-3 = 1 Not Important
4-6 = 2 Somewhat
important
7-9 = 3 Very important
10-12 = 4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #3
Artistic Orientation
“sensurartisticR”
Impor_1R, Import_11R,
12R
Achieve in a performing art
Write original works
Create artistic works
1-3 = 1 Not Important
4-6 = 2 Somewhat
important
7-9 = 3 Very important
10-12 = 4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #4
Materialism
“ssMaterialismR”
Impor_1R, Import_11R,
12R
Have administrative
responsibility
Be very well off financially
Be successful in own business
1-3 = 1 Not Important
4-6 = 2 Somewhat
important
7-9 = 3 Very important
10-12 = 4 Essential
1-4
64
Transcript data.
Transcript information is the final data source utilized in this study.
Transcript information is provided by the Office of the Registrar at Western
University and includes information on courses taken, term in which they were
taken, and grades obtained in course work. Participant data is also taken from
transcripts to examine information like GPA or the number of diversity courses a
student took. Relevant variables to the research questions posed in this study
included factors such as the first time a diversity course was taken, how many total
diversity courses were taken, and the type of course a student took first, per the
“Typology of Diversity Courses” (Cole & Sundt, 2008).
Diversity Course typology.
The Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008) was created as a
way to measure variation among the required diversity courses. Conceptually the
idea is that courses may differ in their level of complexity as measured by the
requirements for diversity courses at Western University (see Appendix E). As a
result, the impact of diversity courses on students may be different dependent upon
the complexity of the course taken as well.
To this end a typology was created through an analysis of the required
diversity course syllabi between 2004-2008. Each syllabus reviewed was from a
course designated as an approved diversity course at Western University. A 4-point
likert scale was created to measure each course per the 5 required guidelines for
diversity course approval (Appendix E). Each syllabus was reviewed and given a
65
score (1-4) for each of the five required guidelines that were then totaled to give a
composite score. Then, after all of the collected syllabi were rated, a mean score and
standard deviation were identified. This information was used to identify the four
categories of variation in the diversity courses (introductory, basic, intermediate, and
advanced (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1: Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008)

66
Data Collection
This study utilizes a non-experimental, single institution research design. The
incoming first year students in the fall of 2004 at Western University are the
beginning of the temporal sequence in a four-year cohort of students. The students
that comprise the participants for the study were surveyed at two points providing
longitudinal data. The study is longitudinal because the students that are identified in
the 2004 data are the same students in the 2008 data as well.
Student Outcomes Research (SOR) in the Division of Student Affairs at
Western University is responsible for the site administration procedures for both the
2004 CIRP and the 2008 Western University Senior Survey. The Director of SOR
supervised the data collection and the administration of the surveys to the data
collection and analysis. The 2004 CIRP was administered to all incoming first year
students at Western University during the summer of 2004 and garnered a return of
2429 respondents. The 2008 Senior Survey was administered during the spring 2008
semester and resulted in 553 respondents.
This is a non-experimental study, which used secondary data analysis and
Astin’s (1984) I-E-O research model to organize data in a linear relationship between
students’ background characteristics (gender, race, parents’ education, major, and
pre-test for the outcome variable), the environment (diversity courses) and outcomes
(values, attitudes and beliefs). Astin (1993) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005),
among others, have identified relevant input variables useful for exploring students’
values, attitudes, and beliefs. While Dey (1997), Milem (1998), and Antonio (2001a)
67
have explored the impact of diversity courses, few studies have investigated the
impact of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. As such, a
regression analysis is used to examine the data in a temporal analysis to determine
relationships between students’ background characteristics, diversity courses,
diversity related experiences, and students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs.
The input (I) variables were based on data collected during students’ first
year of college and were conceptually organized by students’ background
characteristics (i.e. gender, race, and level of parental education, major). Three
conceptual categories of environmental (E) variables measuring diversity courses
were identified: diversity course typology level of the first diversity course taken (i.e.
introductory, basic, intermediate, and advanced), total number of diversity courses
taken, and when a student took his/her first diversity course (through five years/ 40
courses). Figure 3.2 provides a visual representation of the full research model for
examining diversity course impact on measures of students’ values, attitudes and
beliefs.
68
Figure 3.2: Research Model for Examining Diversity Course Impact on Students’
Values, Attitudes and Beliefs

Data Analysis
The survey information (CIRP 2004, Senior Survey 2008) was collected and
merged with transcript data for the 553 students that completed both surveys. The
combination of the three data sources comprises the master data file that is used for
statistical analysis. All data analysis in this study is done through the statistical
program, SPSS Version 16. The data file was first prepared for statistical analysis by
running descriptives and frequencies to identify any missing data or other problems
with the input data.
The first step in the analysis was to identify variables for use in the study.
Previous empirical work informed the variable selection process for all variables
69
including background characteristics in the “input” section as well as environmental
and outcome variables. Background characteristics (race, gender, parent education)
were used in several studies (Chang, 2002; Dey, 1997) and as a result were included
in this study as well. These same input variables in the data representing the 2004
cohort provided comparison points to look for differences between student
background information.
Several variables were recoded for this study and are listed in Appendix I.
These include items on both the CIRP and Senior surveys. Recoding was done with
two background characteristic variables that needed to be merged with other
variables to be consistent with previous empirical work or needed to be recoded to be
more meaningful. For example, to reduce the amount of variation in the data and per
the literature (Dey, 1997; Chang, 2002) two background characteristic variables
(mother and father education) were combined into a single variable to represent
parent education. As a result, parent education measures whether the average of both
parents’ education included high school graduation or less, undergraduate education
or less or graduate degree or less. Each recode was followed by descriptives and
frequencies to ensure there are no problems with the new variables (Table 3.3
provides a figure coding scale of all recodes in the study as well as factor analyses
completed).
A second background characteristic, race, was changed to match prior
empirical work. The nine Race variables contained on the 2004 CIRP survey were
narrowed down to one, RACE1 to include only white/ non-white. Viewing race in
70
this dichotomous way is consistent with prior research on diversity courses (Dey,
1997; Chang, 2002).
Major.
The final input variable included in the final model was for a student’s major.
This variable was selected to see if there were differences between majors in terms
of diversity course impact. There were variables that measured a student’s major on
all three data points (CIRP, Senior Survey, transcript). The variable selected was on
the 2004 CIRP (MAJOR04A) survey and was included because it has the most data
in it after determining how much data was missing (see Table 3.4).
The major variable that is most viable and reliable is from the 2004 CIRP
survey and as a result it is situated in the research model as an input variable. Major
was therefore able to be controlled for in the analysis. The goal for examining a
student’s major was to see if it was significant in its impact on the outcome. In order
to prepare the MAJOR variable for analysis, the original variable MAJORO4A had
to be separated out into sixteen separate dichotomous variables. Each individual
variable then measured how many students indicated they were in that major field
(See Appendix I).
71
Table 3.4: Potential Variables to Indicate Major

Variable Variable Description
Total
Missing
Total # of
students with
major identified
MAJOR04A (CIRP)
Students probable major
aggregated-coded 1-16
13 540
MAJORO4D
(CIRP)
Students probable major
disaggregated-coded 1-85
13 540
CurrMajor
(Senior Survey)
Major codes letters-values not
listed (string variable)
44 509
Major1
(Senior Survey)
Major code letters-values not
listed (string variable)
0 553
ACTIVEMAJOR
(Transcript)
A lot of data is missing, values
not listed (string variable)
472 81
LASTMAJOR
(Transcript)
Seems to have the most among
the transcript data, values not
listed (string variable)
106 447

Composite variables.
The next step was to use the existing empirical literature to identify variables
that exist on both the 2004 CIRP and the 2008 Senior Survey. To this end seventeen
variables were identified as being on both surveys and in the empirical literature as
indicators of values, attitudes, and beliefs. The identified variables for the 2004 CIRP
were GOAL0401-0417 ((Milem, 1998; Nelson-Laird et al., 2005) and the same items
on the Western University Senior Survey labeled impor_1-17. Having the same
items on both surveys allowed for a pre and post test of specific measures of
students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. The only difference was that the Senior
Survey variables were initially reverse coded in relation to the 2004 CIRP variables.
72
A recode was done to bring the Senior Survey variables in line with the CIRP
variables (See Appendix I).
After identifying potential variables in the two surveys, a factor analysis was
done to determine the most reliable indicators of values, attitudes and beliefs. For
this study four composite variables were created as indicators of students’ values,
attitudes and beliefs.

Table 3.5: Composite Measures with Factor Loadings and Reliabilities
a

Constituent Variables
Humanism CIRP
! = .7
Humanism Senior Survey
! = .7
Help others in difficulty
Take part in community action program
Helping to promote racial understanding
Individualism CIRP
! = .7
Individualism Senior Survey
! = .7
Become Authority in My Own Field
Obtain Recognition from Colleagues
Influence Political Structure
Artistic Orientation CIRP
! = .7
Artistic Orientation Senior Survey
! = .7
Achieve in a performing art
Write original works
Create artistic works
Materialism CIRP
! = .7
Materialism Senior Survey
! = .7
Have administrative responsibility
Be very well off financially
Be successful in own business
a
Based on Data collected from 2004 and 2008.
73
Taken from the I-E-O model above (see Figure 3.2), the variables include
Humanism (3-items; Pre-test CIRP survey, std. ! = .8; Follow-up Senior Survey, std.
! = .7; see Table 3.5), Individualism (3-items; Pre-test CIRP survey, std. ! = .7;
Follow-up Senior Survey, std. ! = .7), Artistic Orientation (3-items; Pre-test CIRP
survey, std. ! = .7; Follow-up Senior Survey, std. ! = .7), and Materialism (3-items;
Pre-test CIRP survey, std. ! = .7; Follow-up Senior Survey, std. ! = .7). These four
composite variables are supported in the literature (Milem, 1998; Nelson-Laird et al.,
2005) and contain items from the CIRP survey and the Western University Senior
Survey. Each of the composite variables was created and recodes were done to have
them match the initial coding of the CIRP and Senior Survey individual variables
(see Appendix I).
Environmental variables.
The final variables indentified and created were the environmental variables
including the diversity course and diversity related experiences. The first step in
preparing the data for analysis of diversity courses was to identify the variable that
indicated the courses a student took in the transcript data. The variables labeled
COURSE1-73 provided course information in chronological order of every course a
student took in his/her college career. As a result, the COURSE variables in the
transcript data were used in all recodes and new variables created. The first 40
courses were selected to represent the point at which most students in the sample
would have graduated. This assumes that most courses taken by a student would be
either three or four credits. With this assumption most students graduated by 40
74
courses (120-160 units assuming an average of three to four units for each course).
Per the WU requirements this would meet the minimum amount needed for
graduation. Western University 2004 Catalogue states the following “unit
requirement:”
Students are required to take a minimum of 128 baccalaureate units at the
undergraduate level (of which not more than four units may be physical
education units). Of the 128 unit minimum at least 32 units must be upper
division course work. Students must also complete all upper division course
work in the major at WU. The university will not deviate from the minimum
unit requirements stated above or the additional unit-specific requirements
(retrieved from: http://www.usc.edu/dept/publications/cat2004/academic/
graduation_requirements_undergrad.html).

Appendix L provides a table with COURSE41-73 and the corresponding number of
students that took a course and those that did not. For example, 104 students took
more than 40 courses. These students in the sample are outliers (they may be
students that continued for another degree) but were included because they were in
the initial 2004 cohort.
The second part of the preparation for the diversity course environmental
variable was to indentify all diversity courses offered. Members of the Teagle grant
diversity project identified all Western University approved diversity requirement
course syllabi from 2004-2008. They then gathered as many syllabi as possible for
use in the Diversity Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008). Of the 143 identified courses
offered from 2004-2008 24 syllabi were not gathered (see Appendix K for more
details). The remaining 117 courses comprise the full list used in the data analysis.
75
The diversity environmental variables were created using the COURSE
transcript variable. To identify diversity courses in the transcript data each individual
course 1-40 was recoded into a dichotomous variable to indicate whether or not it
was a diversity course. This then created new variables that represented the number
of diversity courses taken by the sample for each course. The diversity COURSE
variables were used to create three separate variables for use in the final model. The
final diversity variables created were designed to respond to the research questions,
specifically focusing on the total number of diversity courses taken by students in the
sample, the year a student took his/her first diversity requirement course, and the
Diversity Typology score of the first diversity course taken by a student. Each of
these variables was coded differently to address each research question individually.
The variable measuring the total number of diversity courses taken was
created by taking each of the COURSE1-40 variables and adding them together into
semesters and years. Four courses were added together for each semester and eight
for each year. This is consistent with the assumption that most courses taken by
students were three or four units each. This would put the total number of units for
each semester at 12-16 units and each year at 24-32 units. The final variable
measures through five years and forty courses. Table 3.6 below displays the resulting
descriptive data for how many diversity courses were taken over forty courses and
five years.
76
Table 3.6: Diversity Courses Taken Through 40 Courses

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
No diversity courses taken 158 28.6 28.6 28.6
1 diversity course taken 289 52.3 52.3 80.8
2 diversity courses taken 75 13.6 13.6 94.4
3 diversity courses taken 17 3.1 3.1 97.5
4 diversity courses taken 12 2.2 2.2 99.6
5 diversity courses taken 2 .4 .4 100.0
Valid
Total 553 100.0 100.0

The second diversity course variable measures the year a student took his/her
first diversity requirement course. This variable builds on the variables created for
the total number of diversity courses. However this variable was coded so that only
the first diversity course taken by each student would be measured (see Appendix I).
The final diversity requirement course variable created measures the
complexity of the first diversity course taken per the Diversity Course Typology
(Cole & Sundt, 2008). This variable was created by taking the COURSE1-40
variables and creating a new variable that assigned a Diversity Typology Level to
each course taken individually for those on the list of 93 identified diversity courses
(see Appendix I for coding). The next step for the typology variable was to compute
IF statements for each individual COURSE1-40 using the variable that measured the
first time a student took a diversity course. For each course the variable measured if
77
a diversity course was taken and then assigned the typology level to the course (see
Table 3.7 for descriptives).

Table 3.7: Typology of First Diversity Course Taken

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Non-Diversity Course 158 28.6 28.6 28.6
DC Level 1 69 12.5 12.5 41.0
DC Level 2 136 24.6 24.6 65.6
DC Level 3 133 24.1 24.1 89.7
DC Level 4 57 10.3 10.3 100.0
Valid
Total 553 100.0 100.0

Data analysis techniques.
A number of statistical analysis techniques are used to answer each research
question by finding correlations in the data (listed in Table 3.8). For the primary
research questions regarding the extent of the impact of diversity courses on
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs, a regression analysis is used. Many studies on
college impact use multiple regressions as a way to isolate specific variables that
affect student outcomes, in this case, values, attitudes and beliefs. For example,
empirical studies on diversity course impact have utilized multiple regressions (Dey,
1997; Milem 1998; Antonio, 2001a). Using regression analysis, this study examined
the influence of diversity courses by statistically controlling for inputs, to determine
relationships between students and environmental impacts. To this end the I-E-O
78
model of Astin (1984) is used to show a linear relationship between the environment
(diversity courses) and outcomes (values, attitudes and beliefs).
Astin (1993) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) provide specific input
variables that they have identified as relevant which can in turn be used to examine
the extent that input variables impact the outcome. A linear relationship is explored
through the data in a temporal analysis to determine relationships between variables.
Blocked hierarchical regression included sets of independent variables that are
combined into groups "representing different conceptual components of Astin's
model." Hierarchical regression is used because it is a "more appropriate method of
analysis when a researcher seeks to test the relationship among variables in a more
systematic way that is informed by theory" (Milem, 1998, p. 125).
In this study the regression analysis was entered in blocks beginning with
pre-college characteristics (gender, race, parental level of education), institutional
characteristics, and then the composite variables individually that are indicators of
values and attitude shifts. In the second block, environmental variables were entered
including the diversity course variables, and the diversity related variables such as
participation in study abroad. Separate regressions were run for each of the four
composite variables with the Senior Survey composite variable as the dependent
variable. Each of the variables measuring diversity courses were run in separate
regressions as an environmental variable. As a result there were twelve regressions
run in total, four individual regressions for each of the three diversity course
variables. The method of analysis used was the enter method (instead of a step-wise
79
regression) in order to allow for the computer to determine the most statistically
salient variables in the analysis.

Table 3.8: Research Questions and Corresponding Statistical Analysis

Research Questions Analysis
Overarching question: To what extent
do diversity courses impact measures of
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs
(Humanism, Individualism, Artistic
Orientation, and Materialism)?
Regression
Factor analysis
Are there differences in the kinds of
impacts on students’ experience in
diversity courses depending on when in
their academic sequence they took their
first diversity course?
Four separate regressions for each
outcome composite variable:
Humanism, Individualism, Artistic
Orientation, Materialism
Are there differences depending on the
total number of diversity courses taken
over five years/ 40 courses?
Four separate regressions for each
outcome composite variable:
Humanism, Individualism, Artistic
Orientation, Materialism
Are there differences depending on the
level of complexity of the first diversity
course taken by a student, per the
Diversity Course Typology (Cole &
Sundt, 2008)?
Four separate regressions for each
outcome composite variable:
Humanism, Individualism, Artistic
Orientation, Materialism
Within each of the above questions:
a. Are there differences depending
on a student’s major
(aggregated)?
b. Are there differences depending
on demographic characteristics
(i.e. race and gender)?

80
Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of both the 2004 CIRP and the 2008 Western
University Senior Survey are described in this section. To begin, the CIRP survey,
facilitated by the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), provides a document
on its website that describes the validity and reliability of the survey
(http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/PDFs/CIRP_Reliability_Validity.PDF retrieved on
November, 28, 2009). HERI (2009) describes reliability as the “accuracy of a given
measurement.” Accuracy refers to the survey items where each of the items “yields
similar results when administered repeatedly to similar samples or populations”
(HERI, 2009). Because it has been administered for almost forty years HERI (2009
reports that they have been able to “observe the stability of survey questions.”
Validity is described by HERI (2009) as “to whether a given survey question
actually taps into the true underlying concept it attempts to measure.” The validity of
the CIRP has been tested in terms of “clustering related items together” in order to
observe how they “hold together in a statistical sense.” Astin (1993) has found that
the CIRP survey has a .70 validity on most clusters (As cited in HERI, 2009).
The Western University Senior Survey’s validity and reliability are similar to
those found with the 2004 CIRP. The Senior Survey is modeled after the CIRP
survey, asking many of the same items of students and creating a post-test for the
CIRP pre-test. Where there are items that are different they are largely satisfaction
based and institution specific. As a result the validity of the Western University
81
Senior Survey is unlisted by the site institution, however the similarities to the CIRP
instrument make it a relevant survey for use in this study.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations and delimitations that exist because of the nature of this
inquiry in general. Many of the limitations are beyond the control of the researcher
and primarily concern internal validity. The primary delimitation of this study
concerns the external validity and generalizability of the findings. This study utilizes
a single site and as such it will be difficult to generalize the results to other
institutions and contexts. Additionally the use of the Typology of Diversity Courses
(Cole & Sundt, 2008) also makes generalizing findings difficult because the
typology is site specific to Western University. The typology used in this study is
based on the guidelines and rubrics that the Western University Diversity Committee
uses in the curricular review process for diversity courses. Even though the use of
the typology limits the generalizability of the study it is a benefit in terms of the
overall analysis because it is based on the curriculum at Western University and
provides a lens to examine differences between diversity courses.
There is also a limitation concerning the use of self-reported survey data.
While surveys are appropriate for studying the impact of an experience on an
outcome there are limitations in that students are self-reporting the impact. However,
the third data point garnered from student transcripts provides a non-self reported
measure of impact in terms of GPA.
82
Chapter three provided the foundation for how this study is conducted.
Included in the chapter were descriptions of the site, sample and population that are
used in this study on the impact of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes,
and beliefs. Additionally, the research design, data collection and data analysis
methods were discussed. Chapter four addresses the results of the data collection and
analysis through the theoretical and empirical lens established in chapter two.
Chapter five then concludes the study with a discussion of key findings, implications
and recommendations for future research.
83
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which diversity courses
impact undergraduate students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. In particular, specific
measures of students’ Humanism, Materialism, Artistic Orientation, and
Individualism are assessed as indicators of values, attitudes and beliefs. To this end
the research questions inquire:
1. Are there differences in the kinds of impacts on students’ experiences in
diversity courses depending on when in their academic sequence they
took their first diversity course?
2. Are there differences depending on the total number of diversity courses
taken over five years/ 40 courses?
3. Are there differences depending on the level of complexity of the first
diversity course taken by a student, per the Diversity Course Typology
(Cole & Sundt, 2008)?
4. Within each of the above questions:
a. Are there differences depending on a student’s major
(aggregated)?
b. Are there differences depending on demographic characteristics
(i.e. race and gender)?
84
Outline of the Study
In this chapter, the results of the data analysis are reported and discussed.
First, the treatment of the data is described, including the sample, survey response
rate and a description of student and institutional characteristics. Pre-test
characteristics that may be impacted by diversity courses are covered including a
focus on any groups with an overrepresentation among identified subgroups.
Treatment of the Data
In the next section the I-E-O Model (Astin, 1984) used in this study is
discussed. The model is grouped by research question and includes descriptions of
all input, environment and outcome variables. This section will discuss variables that
measure values, attitudes, and beliefs, reports on the factor analysis conducted and
the resulting composite variables created, as well as the use of CIRP and Senior
Survey items. Included are the reliability coefficients for the scale items used as
indicators of values, attitudes, and beliefs. Finally, the results are reported by
research question and include the purpose of each research question as well as the
type of analysis used. In addition, any sub-questions are discussed and conclusions
are drawn in relation to the research questions.
Data sample.
The population used in this study was the 2004 cohort (freshman in 2004,
seniors in 2008) at Western University. The sample was determined by including
only those students from the 2004 cohort who completed both the 2004 CIRP survey
and the 2009 Western University Senior Survey. The number of students who
85
completed the 2004 CIRP was 2429 and the amount of students who completed the
2008 Senior Survey was 553. As a result, the final sample includes those 553
students who completed both surveys, or 20% of the 2004 cohort (Table 4.1 provides
the descriptive data of the sample).

Table 4.1: Descriptive Data for Student Participants by Racial/Ethnic Group
(N=553)

Student Background & College Entry
Variables
a

White
(n=383)
69.3%
Non-White
(n=170)
30.7%
Gender of Student
Men 27.9% 9.2%
Women 41.4% 21.5%
Level of Parental Education
High School or Less 1.8% 4.7%
Some College or Degree 27.3% 12.5%
Grad Degree or less 39.6% 13.4%
Major
Agriculture 0.0% 0.0%
Biological Sciences 6.0% 3.6%
Business 12.7% 6.7%
Education 0.2% 0.2%
Engineering 7.8% 3.3%
English 1.3% 0.2%
Health prof 2.9% 3.4%
Hist/Poli Sci 4.5% 2.0%
Humanities 4.7% 1.6%
Fine Arts 6.2% 0.5%
Math/Stat 0.2% 0.5%
Physical Sci 1.8% 0.4%
Social Sci 1.8% 1.8%
Oth Technical 1.1% 0.4%
Other 9.0% 2.9%
Undecided 7.8% 2.4%
a
Data collected in 2004.
86
Methods
Astin’s (1984) I-E-O research model was used to organize data in a linear
relationship from input to environmental to outcome variables. Two secondary
source surveys along with transcript and admissions data from Western University
became the data set for the study. The input variables included background
characteristics (gender, race, parents’ education, major, and pre-test for the outcome
variable), with the environmental variables being the diversity courses and diversity
related experiences and finally the outcome variables (post-test for the outcome
variable, measuring values, attitudes and beliefs). Variables were identified using
past empirical work concerning diversity course outcomes as well as values and
attitudes (i.e. Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005. In particular, Chang (2002)
utilized many of the same background characteristics in his work, for example,
creating a dichotomous variable for race (white/ non-white). Similarly, empirical
work was instructive in identifying relevant variables from the CIRP and Western
University Senior Survey for use as pre and post-test variables for the outcome (Dey,
1997; Milem, 1998; & Chang, 2002). Additionally their research methods were
helpful in determining the best way to analyze the impact of diversity courses on
students’ values attitudes and beliefs. Among the methods used were regression
analyses to organize data chronologically from background characteristics to the
outcome variables. The analysis was particularly important in identifying
relationships between variables from the background characteristics, to diversity
courses and finally, values, attitudes, and beliefs.
87
Figure 4.1 provides a visual representation of the full research model utilized
in this study. The background characteristics (gender, race, parental education) were
collected from the 2004 CIRP survey and organized conceptually by those that are
fixed being first. An additional background characteristic, Major, was removed from
the final analysis because of issues with multicollinearity. There were three separate
environmental variables measuring diversity courses including a variable measuring
when a student took his/her first required diversity course (ie 1
st
, 2
nd
, 3
rd
year, etc),
the total number of diversity courses taken, and the complexity of the first course
taken per the Diversity Course Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008). Additionally, three
other environmental variables were identified as diversity related experiences to
determine what other experiences in the environment might confound the impact on
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. These other diversity related experiences
include study abroad, racial/cultural awareness workshops and a composite measure
of community service.
The outcome variables measuring values, attitudes and beliefs were
composite variables created from pre and post-test data from the CIRP and the
Western University Senior Survey. In total there were four composite measures of
values, attitudes, and beliefs: . These composite variables are similar to those used in
past empirical work on values, attitudes, and beliefs (Milem, 1998; Nelson-Laird et
al., 2005). The four composite variables are situated in the I-E-O model above
(Figure 4.1) and include Humanism (3-items; Pre-test CIRP survey, std. ! = .7; Post-
test WU Senior Survey, std. ! = .7; see Table 4.2), Individualism (3-items; Pre-test
88
CIRP survey, std. ! = .7; Post-test WU Senior Survey, std. ! = .7), Artistic
Orientation (3-items; Pre-test CIRP survey, std. ! = .7; Post-test WU Senior Survey,
std. ! = .7), and Materialism (3-items; Pre-test CIRP survey, std. ! = .7; Post-test
WU Senior Survey, std. ! = .7). A fifth composite variable (community service) was
created to examine diversity related experiences that may also have an impact on
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs. (See Table 4.2).

Figure 4.1: Research Model for Examining Diversity Course Impact on Students’
Values, Attitudes and Beliefs

89

Table 4.2: Composite Measures with Factor Loadings and Reliabilities

Constituent Variables
Humanism CIRP
! = .7
Humanism Senior Survey
! = .7
Help others in difficulty
Take part in community action program
Helping to promote racial understanding
Individualism CIRP
! = .7
Individualism Senior Survey
! = .7
Become Authority in My Own Field
Obtain Recognition from Colleagues
Influence Political Structure
Artistic Orientation CIRP
! = .7
Artistic Orientation Senior
Survey
! = .7
Achieve in a performing art
Write original works
Create artistic works
Materialism CIRP
! = .7
Materialism Senior Survey
! = .7
Have administrative responsibility
Be very well off financially
Be successful in own business
Community Service (Senior
Survey)
! = .8
In your first year at WU, did you: Perform
community service work as part of a course
Since enrolling at WU indicate how often you:
Performed community service work as part of
a course
90
Overview of Findings
The findings in the following sections are grouped by research question
beginning with the first question regarding the impact of the first diversity course
taken by the students over five years (40 courses). The purpose of each research
question is briefly described. Within each individual research question the findings
are further narrowed by composite variable (Humanism, Individualism, Artistic
Orientation and Materialism). Included as well are significant findings concerning
background characteristics, as well as diversity related experiences. Finally, where
appropriate the significance of the results is briefly discussed for each research
question using theory and empirical evidence.
The analysis for each of the regressions was the same, running descriptive
statistics, factor analyses and multivariate regressions to examine the research
questions set forth in this study. Descriptive statistics were used in the analysis to
examine the input variables (background characteristics, pre-test variables) as well as
all environmental variables. A principal component factor analysis was conducted on
each of the composite variables mentioned previously including calculating
Cronbach’s Alphas. The analysis also included an examination of statistical
significance as well as multicollinearity between variables.
Since there were four factors measuring the outcome variable, separate
analyses were run for each, making a total of 12 regressions for the three specific
Diversity Course related variables (see Figure 4.1). Each of the 12 regressions
completed included variables that were entered in two blocks. The first block was
91
comprised of student background characteristics such as gender and race, as well as
the pre-test variables. Block two included the environmental variables such as the
diversity course typology, number of diversity courses taken, and the year in which a
student first took a diversity course were taken in addition to the diversity related
experiences.
Research Question 1: Findings
The purpose of this research question is to test the assumption that the earlier
a student takes a required diversity course the greater the impact. This is able to be
measured because students are allowed to take a diversity course at any point in their
academic sequence and in some cases students did not take any diversity courses.
The first set of findings below report on the first research question regarding
differences in the students’ self-reported changes in their values, attitudes, and
beliefs,depending on when they first took a diversity course.
Overall the regression models, at best, represented approximately 25.3% of
the variance for students’ Artistic development (adjusted r
2
= .241; see Table 4.3).
Whereas, 22.1% for students’ Materialism (adjusted r
2
= .198), 17.1% for students’
Humanism (adjusted r
2
= .158), and 13.3% for students’ Individualism (adjusted r
2
=
.119) was explained. The variance (R
2
) explained that was attributed to input
variables (i.e. pre-test, student background, and college entry variables) was as high
as 24.9% for Artistic development and as low as 11.9% for Individualism. The
contribution of ‘Year when students first took a diversity Course’ varied and added
92
most in the case of students’ Materialism with 2.3% and the least for students’
Artistic development at 1.2%.
Table 4.3 displays the results of the analysis and is reported below. The
results are divided by the four composite variables and report each indicator of
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs, beginning with Humanism.

Table 4.3: Regression Coefficients for the Impact of the First Time a Student Took a
Diversity Course Taken Over 40 Courses on Measures of Humanism, Individualism,
Artistic Orientation, and Materialism (without Major)

Humanism
N=506
Individualism
N=511
Artistic
N=508
Materialism
N=506
Independent Variables
(All from Model 2)
! ! ! !
Student's Gender (Female) .054 .074 -.051 -.027
White/Caucasian -.103* -.037 -.001 -.024
Parental Education .004 .066 .004 -.051
Racial/Cultural Awareness
Workshop
-.185*** -.040 -.038 -.025
Study Abroad -.043 -.110* .004 .012
Community Service -.071 .039 .056 -.011
CIRP Humanism,
Individualism, Artistic
Orientation, Materialism
.262*** .325*** .499*** .442***
(Model 1) R
2
.130 .119 .249 .209
Year when students first took
a diversity Course (Model 2)
.006 -.010 -.003 -.027
(Model 2) Adjusted R
2
.158*** .119 .241 .198
(Model 2) R
2
.171 .133 .253 .221
Highest Condition Index 34.4 32.9 29.5 32.9
93
Humanism.
The findings in the regression model regarding the impact of the first time
students took a diversity course on a measure of values, attitudes, and beliefs are
described below. To begin, the predictor variables explain 16% (Model 2) of the
variation in the adjusted R
2
in Humanism including the first time a student took a
diversity course. The data indicates that the change in R
2
is significant at p<.001.
Additionally the adjusted R
2
change from 12.3% in Model 1 to 15.8% in Model 2,
which is about a change of less than 4% suggests that the first time a student took a
diversity course had a very limited impact, but it was significant p<.001. As
expected, the pretest for Humanism was a strong positive predictor of the posttest
(measured during students’ 4
th
year of college) for Humanism (! = .262, p < .001).
In terms of background characteristics, the data suggests that being White (!
= -.112, p < .05) negatively affected the outcome variable, Humanism. The same was
true in Model 2 where race remained significant after the inclusion of the first time a
student took a diversity courses (! = -.103, p < .05). Race was the only demographic
characteristic that was statistically significant within the regression model. The other
background characteristics, gender and parental education did not have a significant
impact on the outcome variable, Humanism. Among the environmental variables the
findings also indicate that students taking a Racial Awareness Workshop had a
significant negative impact on Humanism (! =-.185, p < .001). In regards to the
diversity course variable (environment), when a student first took a diversity course
did not have a significant impact on a student’s values in relation to Humanism.
94
Finally, it should be noted that the Collinearity Diagnostics on the regression model
indicated a high amount of overlap between the variables measuring a student’s
major and the outcome variable. As a result, major was not included in the final
mode; in preliminary analysis, none of the major variables were significant with
Humanism.
Individualism.
The second regression analysis run examined another measure of students’
values, attitudes, and beliefs, Individualism. In this regression model the adjusted R
2

indicated that 11.9% the variation in Individualism is explained by the predictor
variables including the first time a student took a diversity course. The data also
suggests, however, that this change is not significant at .079 or at the probability
level less than .05. Additionally, the adjusted R
2
change from 11.2% in Model 1 to
11.9% in Model 2, which is a change of less than 1%, suggests that the first time a
student took a diversity course had a very limited impact, and was not statistically
significant.
Similar to Humanism and as expected, the pretest for Individualism was a
strong positive predictor of the posttest for Individualism (! = .325***, p < .001).
Among the input variables, race, gender and parental education did not have a
significant impact on the outcome variable, Individualism. The same was true for the
environmental variable, when a student first took a diversity course, which did not
have a significant impact on a student’s values in relation to Individualism. The only
environmental variable of significance was the variable that measures the impact of a
95
diversity related experience, study abroad. Here the findings indicate that a study
abroad program had a significant negative impact on students’ interest in becoming
an authority in their own field, obtaining recognition from colleagues and
influencing the political structure (! =-.110*, p < .05).
Artistic Orientation.
Artistic Orientation was the third outcome variable run in determining the
impact of the first diversity course taken on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. In
total, 24.1% adjusted R
2
of the variation in Artistic Orientation is explained by the
predictor variables including the first time a student took a diversity course, however
this change is not significant at .568 or p>.05. Additionally the adjusted R
2
change
from 24.1% in Model 1 to 25.3% in Model 2, which is about a change of less than
2%, suggests that the first time a student took a diversity course had a very limited
impact, and was not statistically significant.
Regarding the impact of background characteristics, the findings indicated
that neither race, gender or parental education was significant. Also as expected, the
pretest for Artistic Orientation was a strong positive predictor of the posttest for
Artistic Orientation (! = .499***, p < .001).And when a student first took a
diversity course (Environmental variable) did not have a significant impact on a
student’s values in relation to Artistic Orientation.
Materialism.
The final regression run in the analysis of the impact of diversity courses was
in regards to a measure of students’ values, attitudes and beliefs, Materialism. In this
96
model 19.8% adjusted R
2
of the variation is explained by the predictor variables.
This includes the first time a student took a diversity however, this change is not
significant at .918 or p>05. The adjusted R Square change from 20% in Model 1 to
19.8% in Model 2, which is a loss of about 1%, suggesting that the first time a
student took a diversity course had a very limited impact, and was not significant.
There was no impact from any of the input variables including gender,
parental education and race. The only variable that was significantly correlated to the
outcome variable was the pretest for Materialism, which was a strong positive
predictor of the posttest for Materialism (! = .442, p < .001). The environmental
variables including the other diversity related experiences as well as when a student
first took a diversity course did not have a significant impact on a student’s values in
relation to Materialism.
Research Question 1: Summary
White students (! = -.103, p < .05) were least likely to report high gains in
Humanism, even after controlling for entering level of Humanism (! =.298, p <
.001), which was positively related to students’ growth in Humanism four years later.
Beyond these background characteristics, major, and pre-test variables, ‘Year when
students first took a diversity Course’ (! = .006, p > .05) did not lead to a significant
gain in Humanism.
Research Question 2: Findings
The second research question examined the differences (in measures of
Humanism, Individualism, Artistic Orientation, and Materialism) depending on the
97
total number of diversity courses taken over five years/ 40 courses (See Table 4.4).
While the first question aimed to measure impacts on students dependent upon when
they first took a course, the purpose of this question is to determine if taking more
classes has more of an impact, the assumption being that there may be compounding
effects the more diversity courses a student takes over his/her undergraduate career.
In total, the amount of variance explained by the regression models ranged
from approximately 25.5% (model 2) for the variance for students’ Artistic
development (adjusted r
2
= .243; see Table 4.4). Whereas, 21.1% for students’
Materialism (adjusted r
2
= .198), 17.7% for students’ Humanism (adjusted R
2
=
.164), and 14.3% for students’ Individualism (adjusted r
2
= .130) was explained. The
percent of variance (R
2
) explained that was attributed to input variables (i.e.
background characteristics) were as high as 24.9% for Artistic development and as
low as 11.9% for Individualism. Finally, the contribution of the variable ‘Total
number of Diversity Courses taken over 40 courses’ was similar for all four
composite variables but added most in the case of students’ Humanism,
Individualism and Materialism with 1.3% and the least for students’ Artistic
development at 1.2%. This is to say that the amount of variance in the dependent
variable (measures of values, attitudes and beliefs) was increased by the inclusion of
the diversity course variable measuring the impact of the total number of courses
taken. Table 4.4 displays the results of the analysis and is reported below. The results
are divided by the four composite variables and reported on separately beginning
with Humanism.
98

Table 4.4: Regression Coefficients for the Impact of the Total Number of Diversity
Courses Taken over 40 Courses on Measures of Humanism, Individualism, Artistic
Orientation, and Materialism (without Major)

Humanism
N=506
Individualism
N=511
Artistic
N=508
Materialism
N=506
Independent Variables
(All from Model 2)
! ! ! !
Student's Gender (Female) .041 .060 -.045 -.021
White/Caucasian -.109* -.045 .004 -.025
Parental Education .009 .072 .002 -.051
Racial/Cultural Awareness
Workshop
-.180*** -.035 -.039 -.025
Study Abroad -.044 -.111** .003 .012
Community Service -.068 .040 .056 -.012
CIRP Humanism, Individualism,
Artistic Orientation, Materialism
.263*** .325*** .497*** .444***
(Model 1) R
2
.130 .119 .249 .209
Total number of Diversity
Courses taken over 40 courses
(Model 2)
.081* .102* -.041 -.027
(Model 2) Adjusted R
2
.164*** .130** .243 .198
(Model 2) R
2
.177 .143 .255 .211
Highest Condition Index 34.5 32.9 29.5 32.5
99
Humanism.
The first regression analysis was done on the composite variable for
Humanism. The intent was to determine the extent of the impact of the total number
of diversity requirement courses taken (over 40 courses/ five years) on students’
values in relation to Humanism. The overall results found that 16.4% adjusted R
2
of
the variation in Humanism is explained by the predictor variables including the total
number of diversity courses taken and this change is significant at .047 or p<001.
Additionally, the adjusted R
2
change from 12.3% in Model 1 to 16.4% in Model 2, a
change of over 4%, suggests that the total number of diversity courses taken by a
student had a limited impact, but it was significant p<.001.
In regards to the input variables, the findings indicated that being White (! =
-.112, p < .01) negatively affected the outcome variable, Humanism. This is similar
to the impact of when a student first took a diversity course as measured in the first
set of regressions for research question one. Race also remained significant and
increased slightly in Model 2 with the inclusion of the total number of diversity
courses taken (! = -.109*, p < .05). As an input variable, the pretest for Humanism
was a strong positive predictor of the posttest for Humanism (! = .263, p < .001).
However, among the remaining input variables none of the majors or level of
parental education had a significant impact on the outcome variable, Humanism.
Among the environmental variables, the findings indicate that students taking
a Racial Awareness Workshop had a significant negative impact on Humanism (! =-
.180, p < .001). The same impact was discovered in regards to the first research
100
question as well. It is interesting to note that when a student first took a diversity
course was not significant to his/her views on Humanism, but the total number of
courses taken was significant. In fact the primary environmental variable, total
number of diversity courses taken through 40 courses, had a significant impact on a
student’s values in relation to Humanism (! = .081, p < .05). This finding is
consistent with prior research which suggests that diversity courses have positive
effects on students’ educational gains, particularly enhanced racial tolerance (Astin,
1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Individualism.
The next regression for the second research question examines another
indicator of students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs, Individualism. In this model,
13% of the adjusted R
2
of the variation in Individualism is explained by the
predictor variables including the total number of diversity courses taken over 40
courses. The data shows that this change is significant at .024 or p<.05. In addition,
the adjusted R Square change from 11.2% in Model 1 to 13% in Model 2, which is a
slight change of about 2%, suggesting that the total number of diversity courses
taken by a student had a very limited but measurable impact that was significant at
the p<.01 level.
Among the input variables (gender, race, parent education) there was no
significant impact indicated in the data. By contrast the pretest for Individualism was
a strong positive predictor of the posttest for Individualism (! = .325, p < .001). The
environmental variables were not significant in this regression model except the
101
findings indicate studying abroad had a significant negative impact on Individualism
(! =-.111, p < .01). Finally, the total number of diversity courses taken through 40
courses (environmental variable) had a significant positive impact on a student’s
values in relation to Individualism (! = .102, p < .05). This is different that the
significance recorded regarding when a student took his/her first diversity course,
meaning that the first time a student took a diversity was not statistically significant
but the total number of courses was statistically significant. These results suggest
that the greater the number of courses, the more significant the impact on students’
Individualism values, attitudes and beliefs.
Artistic Orientation.
Artistic Orientation is the dependent variable for the third regression run for
the second research question. In this model 24.3% adjusted R
2
of the variation is
explained by the predictor variables including the total number of diversity courses
taken over 40 courses. This change however is not significant at p>.05. There was no
change in the adjusted R
2
from 24.3% in Model 1 to 24.3% in Model 2. This suggests
that the total number of diversity courses taken by a student did not have an impact,
and was not statistically significant at the p>.05 level.
Among the input variables (i.e. gender, major), only one had a significant
impact. The pretest for Artistic Orientation was a strong positive predictor of the
posttest for Artistic Orientation (! = .497, p < .001). None of the environmental
variables had a statistically significant impact either including the total number of
diversity courses taken through 40 courses where the impact was not significant at
102
the p > .05 level. These results suggest that diversity courses can have a statistically
significant impact on some but not all measures of values, attitudes, and beliefs.
Materialism.
The final regression run for the second research question is in regards to
another indicator of students’ values, attitudes and beliefs, Materialism. In this model
19.8% adjusted R
2
of the variation in Materialism is explained by the predictor
variables, including the total number of diversity courses taken over 40 (this change
is not significant at p>05). The slight decrease of less than 1% in the adjusted R
Square change from 20.3% in Model 1 to 19.8% in Model 2 suggests that the total
number of diversity courses taken by a student had no impact, and was not
statistically significant (p>.05).
None of the input variables (race, gender, parent education) were significant
except for the pretest for Materialism, which was a strong positive predictor of the
posttest for Materialism (! = .444, p < .001). Similarly, none of the environmental
variables had a significant impact on the outcome variable, Materialism. This
includes the total number of diversity courses taken through 40 courses (p > .05).
Research Question 2: Summary
It is critically important within the context of this study that the total number
of diversity courses taken had a significant impact on a measure of Humanism but
when students took their first diversity course was not significant. In other words, it
was the frequency and volume at which students took diversity courses, not when,
that had a statistically significant impact on their values, attitudes and beliefs.
103
This may speak to Symbolic Politics Theory (Sears, 1993) where individuals
are most impacted when they can practice an attitude. Perhaps diversity courses
allow for heterogeneity of thought, the ability to practice the attitude and a
maximization of information flow. Humanism also spans many types of diversity
courses philosophically with the focus on helping others in difficulty, taking part in
community action programs, and helping to promote racial understanding.
Research Question 3: Findings
The final research question examined diversity courses based on their level of
complexity. The Diversity Course Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008) provides a
framework to rate the diversity courses based on the Western University Diversity
Course Requirement Guidelines (see Appendix G). The analysis run was intended to
examine differences (in measures of Humanism, Individualism, Artistic Orientation,
and Materialism) depending on the level of complexity of the first diversity course
taken by a student, per the Diversity Course Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008) (See
Table 4.5). The first two questions measured diversity course impacts on students’
values, attitudes, and beliefs dependent upon when the first course was taken and
how many total courses were taken by students in the sample. The purpose of this
question was to determine the effect of the course’s complexity, the assumption
being that the more complex the course, the greater its impact on students’ values,
attitudes, and beliefs.
The amount of variance explained by the regression models ranged from
approximately 25.4% (model 2) for the variance in a measure of students’ Artistic
104
Orientation (adjusted r
2
= .242; see Table 4.5). Whereas, 21% of students’
Materialism (adjusted r
2
= .197), 17.5% for students’ Humanism (adjusted R
2
= .162
p<.001), and 13.5% for students’ Individualism (adjusted r
2
= .121) was explained.
The percent of variance (R
2
) explained that was attributed to input variables (i.e.
background characteristics) wasas high as 24.9% for Artistic Orientation and as low
as 11.9% for Individualism. Finally the contribution of the variable level of
complexity of the first diversity course taken (ie per the Diversity Course Typology)
was similar for all four composite variables but added most in the case of students’
Individualism with 1.4% and least for students’ Artistic development at 1.2%. Table
4.5 displays the results of the analysis and is reported below. The results are divided
by the four composite variables and reported separately beginning with Humanism.
105

Table 4.5: Regression Coefficients for the Impact on Measures of Humanism,
Individualism, Artistic Orientation, and Materialism, Depending on the Level of
Complexity of the First Diversity Course Taken by a Student, per the Diversity
Course Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008) (without Major)

Humanism
N=506
Individualism
N=511
Artistic
N=508
Materialism
N=506
Independent Variables ! ! ! !
Student's Gender (Female) .052 .075 -.050 -.025
White/Caucasian -.107 -.041 .003 -.027
Parental Education .005 .067 .004 -.049
Racial/Cultural Awareness
Workshop
-.183*** -.039 -.039 -.024
Study Abroad -.040 -.108* .002 .012
Community Service -.073 .037 .058 -.012
CIRP Humanism,
Individualism, Artistic
Orientation, Materialism
.262*** .324*** .498*** .442***
(Model 1) R
2
.130 .119 .249 .209
Level of complexity of the
first diversity course taken by
a student, per the Diversity
Course Typology
.067 .039 -.033 .005
(Model 2) Adjusted R
2
.162*** .121 .242 .197
(Model 2) R
2
.175 .135 .254 .210
Highest Condition Index 34.8 33.2 29.8 32.8
106
Humanism.
The first composite variable used in the regression analysis concerning the
impact of the complexity of the first diversity course taken, was a measure of
Humanism. In this analysis, 16% (adjusted R
2
) of the variation in Humanism was
explained by the predictor variables including the complexity of the first diversity
course taken per the Diversity Course Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008). The data
suggests that the amount of variance explained is significant at .045 or p<05.
Additionally, the adjusted R
2
change from 12.3% in Model 1 to 16.2% in Model 2, a
change of less than 4%, suggests that the complexity of the first diversity course
taken had a very limited impact, but was significant at p<.001. Similar to the
majority of the regressions run for this study, the pretest for Humanism was a strong
positive predictor of the posttest for Humanism (! = .262, p < .001).
In the analysis none of the input variables (parental education, race, or
gender) were shown to be significant. And among the environmental variables the
complexity of the first diversity course taken did not have a significant impact on a
student’s values in relation to Humanism. The only statistically significant
environmental variable indicated that students taking of a Racial Awareness
Workshop had a significant negative impact on Humanism (! =-.183, p < .001).
Individualism.
The second regression run for the third research question indicated that 12%
of the adjusted R
2
of the variation in Individualism was explained by the predictor
variables. The predictor variables measured the extent of the impact of the
107
complexity of the first diversity course taken, however it would appear that this
change is not significant at .016 or p>05. Additionally, the adjusted R
2
change from
11.2% in Model 1 to 12.1% in Model 2 suggests that the typology level of the first
course taken by students had a very limited impact, and was not significant.
Among the coefficients measured, none of the input variables had any
significant impact on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs, however the pretest for
Individualism was a strong positive predictor of the posttest for Individualism (! =
.324, p < .001). Data analysis on the environmental variables suggests that the
typology variable did not have a significant impact on a student’s values in relation
to Individualism p >.05. However, there was a significant negative impact on the
measure of students’ Individualism for those students that studied abroad (! =-.108,
p < .01).
Artistic Orientation.
For the composite variable of Artistic Orientation 24% of the adjusted R
2
was
explained by the predictor variables including the typology score of the first diversity
course taken by a student (p>05). Additionally, there was a very small change in the
adjusted R
2
from 24.3% in Model 1 to 24.2% in Model 2, which is about a loss of
less than 1%, suggesting that the first time a student took a diversity course was not
significant. More specifically, the Diversity Typology variable measuring the
complexity of the first diversity course taken did not have a significant impact on a
student’s values in relation to Artistic Orientation. In fact none of the input variables
such as gender or parental education had a significant impact on the outcome
108
variable except for the pretest for Artistic Orientation, which was a strong positive
predictor of the posttest for Artistic Orientation (! = .498, p < .001).
Materialism.
The final composite variable measuring the impact of the complexity of the
first diversity course taken was a measure of Materialism. The adjusted R
2
for this
variable was not significant (p>05) and explained 20% of the variation in
Materialism. From model 1 to model 2 the adjusted R
2
changed from 20.3% to
19.7%, which is a loss of about 1%,suggesting no impact based on the inclusion of
the input and environmental variables. Similar to the measure of Artistic Orientation
the pretest for Materialism was the only significant variable in relating to the posttest
for Materialism (! = .442, p < .001). All other input and environmental variables
including the typology score for when a student first took a diversity course
(Environmental variable) did not have a significant impact on a student’s values in
relation to Materialism.
Research Question 3: Summary
The Diversity Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008) did not have a significant
impact on any of the four composite variables. This finding was surprising given the
WU Diversity Course Guidelines. In theory courses that meet all of the guidelines
should at least impact students in terms of their Humanism (i.e. take part in
community action program, helping to promote racial understanding). However the
complexity of the first diversity course taken was not shown to have a significant
impact on measures of students’ values, attitudes and beliefs.
109
Summary
The three research questions in this study each addressed different aspects of
diversity course impact regarding measures of student values, attitudes and beliefs.
Earlier in this chapter each of these research questions was examined in detail and
the regression analysis for each was reported. Table 4.6 below provides a summary
of the statistically significant results as well as a brief discussion of the conceptual
and theoretical importance. The chart is organized by research question in the left
column with the four composite variables measured across the top row. The
individual variables found to be significant are then listed in the remaining boxes
along with beta values and strength of the correlation.
110

Table 4.6: Significant Results

Humanism
N=506
Individualism
N=511
Artistic
N=508
Materialism
N=506
Research Question ! ! ! !
Are there differences in
the kinds of impacts on
students’ experiences in
diversity courses
depending on when in
their academic sequence
they took their first
diversity course?
Race-White
(-.103*)
Racial Workshop
( -.185***)
Pretest Humanism
(.262***)
Adjusted R
2
change
(.158***)
Study Abroad
(-.110*)
Pretest
Individualism
(.325***)
Pretest
Artistic
(.499***)
Pretest
Materialism
(.442***)
Are there differences
depending on the total
number of diversity
courses taken over five
years/ 40 courses?
Race-White
(-.109*)
Racial Workshop
( -.180***)
Pretest Humanism
(.263***)
Adjusted R
2
change
(.164***)
Total # of courses
(.081*)
Study Abroad
(-.111**)
Pretest
Individualism
(.325***)
Total # of
courses
(.102*)
Adjusted R
2

change
(.130**)
Pretest
Artistic
(.497***)
Pretest
Materialism
(.444***)
Are there differences
depending on the level of
complexity of the first
diversity course taken by
a student, per the
Diversity Course
Typology (Cole & Sundt,
2008)?
Racial Workshop
( -.183***)
Pretest Humanism
(.262***)
Adjusted R
2
change
(.162***)
Study Abroad
(-.108*)
Pretest
Individualism
(.324***)
Pretest
Artistic
(.498***)
Pretest
Materialism
(.442***)
111
The findings above suggest that diversity courses did have an impact on some
of the measures of students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. However, the diversity
course impact was isolated to the total number of courses taken, as there were no
statistically significant impacts based on the complexity of a course or when it was
first taken. More specifically, when a student first took a diversity course was not
significant to his/her views on two measures of students’ values, attitudes and
beliefs, but the total number of courses taken was significant on both measures. In
fact, the primary environmental variable, total number of diversity courses taken
through 40 courses, had a significant impact on a student’s values in relation to
measures of Humanism (! = .081, p < .05) and Individualism (! = .102, p < .05).
These findings are different that the significance recorded regarding when a student
took his/her first diversity course, meaning that the first time a student took a
required diversity course was not significant but the total number of courses was
statistically significant. These results suggest that the greater the number of courses,
the more significant the impact on students’ Individualism values, attitudes and
beliefs. This finding is consistent with prior research that suggests that diversity
courses have positive effects on students’ educational gains, particularly enhanced
racial tolerance (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Additionally, some of the diversity related activities such as study abroad and
attending a racial/cultural awareness workshop were shown to impact students’
values, attitudes and beliefs as well. For example, study abroad had a significant
negative impact on students’ interest in becoming an authority in their own field,
112
obtaining recognition from colleagues and influencing the political structure (! =-
.108*, p < .05). And as expected all the pretest composite variables were significant
indicators of the posttest variables. These findings are consistent with Symbolic
Politics Theory (Sears, 1993) that posits that individuals at the traditional college age
can have different levels of attitude crystallization depending on the attitude. As a
result, some attitudes are influenced by a diversity related experience while others
are not. Similarly, the pretest variables being a solid predictor of the post-test speaks
to the amount of attitude crystallization as well in that the views a student has
entering college are the same as when they leave.
Finally, input variables such as race were shown to have a significant
negative impact on the outcome variable. This finding is different from previous
research that suggests that: “participating in a racial or cultural awareness workshop
promotes the development of more favorable attitudes toward diversity on campus
among white students” (Shaw, 2005, p.13). While race was found to be significant
across multiple composite and environmental variables, characteristics like “parental
education” and “gender” were not shown to have any impact. All of the variables
that indicated a student’s major had to be removed because they were causing
multicollinearity issues across all of the diversity course environmental variables.
Chapter Five provides an in depth summary of the significant results, including
implications,recommendations, and conclusions based on the contribution to prior
literature and relevant theory.
113
It should be noted that overall the regression models at best explained 25%
and at worst 13% of the variance in the composite variable measures of students’
values, attitudes and beliefs. There are several reasons that might explain the amount
of variance not explained by the regression models. Astin (1993) and Pascarella &
Terenzini (2005) describe that measuring the impact of specific experiences in
college is difficult because there are so many factors that contribute to college
impact. Therefore the remaining 75-87% of the variance not explained by the
regression models in this study are most likely explained by other college
experiences that impact values, attitudes and beliefs. Symbolic Politics Theory
(Sears, 1993) suggests that factors such as the culture on campus and in particular,
peers and faculty, influence the acquisition of attitudes. Alwin et al. (1991) also
describe the importance of campus climate including the dominant values, attitudes
and beliefs as demonstrated by peers and faculty. As a result there are several
explanations for the amount of variance not explained, however one of the
compelling findings of this study is that required diversity courses explain some of
the variance.
Chapter four has presented all of the findings from this study by research
question and composite variable, resulting in the reporting of 12 individual
regressions. Through reporting on each regression an initial analysis was done to
begin to discuss the impact of the findings. Chapter four primarily focused on the
statistical significance with some references to theoretical impacts. Chapter five,
however, will narrow the analysis to focus on the key findings and examine them
114
through prior empirical and theoretical work. Additionally, chapter five connects all
of the previous chapters in discussing the importance of the study to past and future
research on diversity courses.
115
Chapter 5: Summary, Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions
Introduction
The goal of this study was to examine the impact of required diversity
courses on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. The first two chapters in this study
provided the theoretical and empirical foundation and framework for analyzing new
data. Chapters three and four spoke to the methods and data gathered and analyzed.
This chapter examines the results of this study through the lens of prior empirical
and theoretical work. The first section of this chapter includes a summary of the
study including the purpose and importance for the work. This is followed by a brief
discussion of the methods used. Next, the results reported in chapter four are
interpreted to draw conclusions and report on the implications of this study. The
discussion section is organized by overarching findings with reference to specific
research questions. Finally, limitations are reported as well as the implications
(contributions to the literature) and recommendations for future work.
Summary of the Study
Of the many goals of higher education, one espoused by many institutions of
higher education is to prepare students for a global society (Hogan & Mallot, 2005;
Hurtado, 2007). Hurtado (2007) goes farther to suggest that this goal includes
moving students beyond their “provincial” worldviews. To meet this goal, higher
education institutions must provide experiences and environments where students
can learn from diverse content and people. There is an assumption that exposure to
diverse people, environments and experiences will result in students being more
116
open to, knowledgeable about and tolerant of views and practices that are different
from their own. In other words that exposure to diversity will influence students’
attitudes, values and beliefs. In an attempt to meet this goal of preparing students for
a global society, institutions have utilized several strategies. In particular, there are
co-curricular and curricular strategies to expose students to diverse people, content
and experiences. Such initiatives include academic courses that focus on diversity,
both globally and in regards to underrepresented groups. According to the AACU it
is though required diversity courses that most institutions situate their curricular
commitment to diversity (Humphreys, 1997). The question to be answered is what is
the impact of this curricular intervention? While there have been empirical studies on
the impact of diversity courses (Chang, 2002, Hogan & Mallot, 2005), the work is
not extensive and is in need of further study.
As a result, the purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which
diversity courses impact undergraduate students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. More
specifically, what is the impact of diversity courses on measures of students’
Humanism, Materialism, Artistic Orientation, and Individualism? The research
questions inquire:
1. Are there differences in the kinds of impacts on students’ experiences in
diversity courses depending on when in their academic sequence they
took their first diversity course?
2. Are there differences depending on the total number of diversity courses
taken over five years/ 40 courses?
117
3. Are there differences depending on the level of complexity of the first
diversity course taken by a student, per the Diversity Course Typology
(Cole & Sundt, 2008)?
4. Within each of the above questions:
a. Are there differences depending on a student’s major
(aggregated)?
b. Are there differences depending on demographic characteristics
(i.e. race and gender)?
Methods
This study examined both the cumulative impact as well as the impact of
individual diversity courses. To this end a non-experimental research design was
utilized that used secondary data analysis. The research model used was Astin’s
(1984, 1993) I-E-O model and the data was organized in a linear relationship
between students’ background characteristics (gender, race, parents’ education, and
pre-test for the outcome variable), the environment (diversity courses and other
diversity experiences) and outcomes (measures of values, attitudes and beliefs). To
measure the linear relationships several regression analysis were conducted. The
results of this analysis were reported and discussed in chapter four; below is a
discussion of the most significant findings.
Discussion
As described previously this study of the impact of diversity courses on
students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs is situated within a larger body of literature.
118
The following sections present the key findings and discussion points, and also
include connection to the literature as well as discussion of the implications. The
core findings are presented in Table 5.1 by research question and by each individual
measure of students’ values, attitudes and beliefs.

Table 5.1: Significant Results

Humanism
N=506
Individualism
N=511
Artistic
N=508
Materialism
N=506
Research Question ! ! ! !
Are there differences
in the kinds of impacts
on students’
experiences in
diversity courses
depending on when in
their academic
sequence they took
their first diversity
course?
Race-White
(-.103*)
Racial Workshop
( -.185***)
Pretest Humanism
(.262***)
Adjusted R
2
change
(.158***)
Study Abroad
(-.110*)
Pretest
Individualism
(.325***)
Pretest
Artistic
(.499***)
Pretest
Materialism
(.442***)
Are there differences
depending on the total
number of diversity
courses taken over five
years/ 40 courses?
Race-White
(-.109*)
Racial Workshop
( -.180***)
Pretest Humanism
(.263***)
Adjusted R
2
change
(.164***)
Total # of courses
(.081*)
Study Abroad
(-.111**)
Pretest
Individualism
(.325***)
Total # of courses
(.102*)
Adjusted R
2

change
(.130**)
Pretest
Artistic
(.497***)
Pretest
Materialism
(.444***)
Are there differences
depending on the level
of complexity of the
first diversity course
taken by a student, per
the Diversity Course
Typology (Cole &
Sundt, 2008)?
Racial Workshop
( -.183***)
Pretest Humanism
(.262***)
Adjusted R
2
change
(.162***)
Study Abroad
(-.108*)
Pretest
Individualism
(.324***)
Pretest
Artistic
(.498***)
Pretest
Materialism
(.442***)
119
Significant Findings: Impact of Diversity Courses
Table 5.1 provides a visual representation of the key findings from the
analysis. The most significant finding in this study is that the diversity courses are a
measurable collegiate experience. Additionally, the overall findings suggest that the
total number of diversity courses taken has a significant impact on students’ values,
attitudes, and beliefs, concerning two measures of student values, attitudes and
beliefs, Humanism and Individualism. However, diversity courses were not shown to
impact other measures of students’ values, attitudes and beliefs, such as Artistic
Orientation and Materialism. Additionally, diversity related experiences were shown
to have an impact on student outcomes and race was significant among background
characteristics.
Diversity course impact is measurable.
The most important finding of this study was that the impact of required
diversity courses is measurable and significant in relation to students’ values,
attitudes and beliefs. This finding is contrary to much of the empirical literature
which describes the challenges in identifying specific interventions or experiences in
the college environment that impact students’ values, attitudes and beliefs (Astin,
1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Astin (1993) and Pascarella and Terenzini
(2005) suggest that there is a distinction to be made between college impacts in the
aggregate and the impact of a specific experience. While Astin (1993) suggests that
diversity activities impact students’ values and attitudes within the college
environment, these impacts are in the aggregate and as a result it is difficult to
120
identify any one specific intervention having an effect on students’ values and
attitudes. This study, therefore, challenges the notion of previous research that
suggests it is difficult to measure an individual experience’s impact on students’
values, attitudes and beliefs.
Total number of diversity courses taken matters.
In addition to required diversity courses being shown to be impactful in
general, the findings suggest that the total number of diversity courses taken also
matters. More specifically, the total number of diversity courses taken through five
years and forty courses is significant in impacting students’ values, attitudes and
beliefs. This finding is significant for a number of reasons. First, of the three
environmental variables measuring the impact of diversity courses, this was the only
one found to be statistically significant. It is important to note that this finding is in
contrast to the significance recorded regarding when a student took his/her first
diversity course. The first time a student took a required diversity course in his/her
course sequence was not shown to be significant in relation to impacting his/her
values, attitudes and beliefs. These results suggest that the greater the number of
courses, the more significant the impact on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs.
As a result, it is important to examine the data more closely to determine
explanations for this finding. Most students who took more than one course took 2-3
courses overall, meaning that the difference between no impact and an impact was
only one additional course. Additionally, the findings may suggest a compounding
effect or even self-selection effect as students who enjoy diversity courses may be
121
more inclined to take more than just one. Chang (2002) suggests “the starting point
for those who enrolled in additional courses, whether for individual interest or for
other degree requirements, is different from those who have yet to fulfill their
diversity requirement” and that these students would be reinforcing their already held
beliefs (p. 33-34). This finding may also speak to Symbolic Politics Theory (Sears,
1993) whereby students may be strengthening an existing attitude through diversity
courses. An area of future study is to determine differences within and between
groups as well as the specific juncture at which diversity course impact.
Diversity courses have a positive impact on Humanism and
Individualism.
The impact of the total number of diversity courses taken was described
above in general terms; in this section the specific impact is detailed. Diversity
courses at Western University were shown to have a positive impact on measures of
Humanism and Individualism. Humanism was comprised of three individual items
measuring students’ desire to: help others in difficulty, take part in community action
programs, and help promote racial understanding. In addition, diversity courses are
correlated with an increase in students’ desire for Individualism, also measured by
three items including: becoming an authority in my own field, obtaining recognition
from colleagues, and influencing political structure.
Changes in students’ values, attitudes and beliefs in regards to Humanism
may be explained by the general college experience. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005)
suggest aggregate changes in students’ racial-ethnic attitudes over the college years.
122
They describe that there are student increases in “political attitudes toward racial
equality and tolerance as well as increases in awareness and understanding of, and
interactions with, people of different racial-ethnic or cultural backgrounds” (p. 279).
Astin (1993) describes the impact of the total college experience on one specific
variable of Humanism used in this study, “helping to promote racial understanding.”
Astin (1993) describes a “number of substantial changes in beliefs and attitudes in
the college years…” among them some of the greatest “positive” change is in the
area of promoting racial understanding (p. 159). Finally, this finding, that diversity
courses positively impact students’ values, attitudes and beliefs in relation to
Humanism, confirms the suggestion of Astin (1993) that there are other factors that
may influence the “promotion of racial understanding,” among them being
“institutional diversity emphasis” (p.162-163).
Changes in Individualism might be explained by the dissonance that diversity
courses might create in individual students. In regards to one variable contained in
the composite variable “Individualism” influencing the political structure is
consistent with past literature regarding students’ values and attitudes. Astin (1993)
and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) describe the general liberalizing and moderating
effect of college. Similarly, Lottes and Kuriloff (1994) describe that students score
higher on several measures of “liberalism, social conscience, homosexuality
tolerance and feminist attitudes.”(p.38). As a result, the impact of diversity courses
on a measure of Individualism may speak to stronger values, attitudes and beliefs to
change the political system. However, more exploration is needed to determine the
123
link between Individualism and Humanism and in particular the extent to which
involvement in a community action program (Humanism) is linked to influencing the
political structure (Individualism).
No impact on Artistic Orientation and Materialism.
Despite the measurable impact on two measures of students’ values, attitudes
and beliefs there were also an additional two measures that were not impacted by
diversity courses. The two measures were Artistic Orientation (achieving in a
performing art, writing original works and creating artistic works) and Materialism
(having administrative responsibility, being very well off financially and being
successful in own business). The only variables shown to be significant were the
pretest scores for each composite variable as related to the post-test scores.
The lack of any significant results in regards to Materialism however, is in
contrast to past empirical literature that suggests college in general has a negative
impact on students’ “Materialism values” (Astin, 1993). Materialism values are
defined at the notion that the chief benefit of a college education is monetary, and the
goal of being very well off financially” (Astin, 1993, p.159). As a result the lack of
any significant finding in regards to Materialism is surprising considering past
academic work, however, one explanation is offered by Symbolic Politics Theory.
More specifically Materialism values may have been more crystallized for students
in the sample.
In fact Sidanius et al. (2008) in their study of students at the University of
California, Los Angeles, suggest that lack of influence of diversity courses on
124
students’ outcomes may lend support to Symbolic Politics Theory (Sears, 1993).
SymbolicPolitics theory describes values as being on a continuum from a non-value
to one that asymptote (Sears, 1993). It may be that entering college students already
have their values in relation to Materialism crystallized, causing them to experience
little change as a result of exposure to diversity courses. Interestingly, in their study
of the impact of diversity initiatives on students’ racial and political attitudes,
Sidanius et al. (2008) state that they were more surprised by “the continuity of
students’ attitudes through college than by the changes that occurred” (Sidanius et
al., p. 318). Examining the static attitudes of students in addition to those that are
malleable may be an area of future research.
Background characteristics.
As discussed in chapter four there were several background characteristics
included in the data analysis (i.e. gender, parental education and major), however,
most were not significant factors in this study. The only background characteristic
shown to have an impact was Race, which was measured in this study as white and
non-white. The results suggested that being white was shown to have a negative
impact on Humanism across two of the three research questions. The question is
what might explain the negative impact of diversity courses on Humanism (helping
others in difficulty, taking part in a community action program, helping to promote
racial understanding)? The literature provides a lens by which to contextualize this
finding both theoretically and empirically.
125
The negative impact of diversity courses based on race is inconsistent with
some prior research (Chang, 2002, Gurin et al., 2002). Gurin et al. (2002) describe
that white students who had a diversity experience had more engagement as citizens
and were involved in community service and connected to other races. The
experience of the white students in this study was positive, similar to the outcomes
observed by Chang (2002) in a study regarding racial attitudes. In his work, Chang
(2002) found negative views by students who had just begun a diversity course but
those views became more positive in the post-test after that diversity course.
The findings on Race in this study have several potential explanations. The
context of Western University may speak to the negative impact of diversity courses
on students. Astin (1993) describes that “promoting racial understanding,” which is
one of the variables that comprises the composite variable Humanism, is negatively
influenced by different majors like business and engineering. Western University has
as two of its top majors for undergraduates, business and engineering. For WU in
particular an area of future study would be to examine the differential impacts of
major on the impact of diversity courses.
The negative impact of diversity courses may also be explained by the work
of Hogan and Mallot (2005). They describe that racism may be much more
entrenched than other values and unable to be positively impacted by a single course
or experience. White students may therefore have their values, attitudes and beliefs
challenged in diversity course or courses and feel “white guilt,” leading to negative
views on Humanism. A single course may be too much of a challenge for some
126
students, resulting in an initial negative reaction. This notion of white privilege and
the challenge of awareness are discussed by Peggy McIntosh (1988). She notes the
challenges in educating whites in particular about diversity and privilege precisely
because of the initial negative reaction. Kernahan and Davis (2007) also note the
impact of diversity courses on white privilege describing feelings of racial guilt as
well as responsibility.
The implication of this result is that there is a need to further examine white
identity development through the experience of diversity courses. What needs to be
examined is the long term impact of diversity courses, and in particular whether the
impact on white students remains negative.
Diversity related experiences.
In addition to the impacts of diversity courses, there were other
environmental measures that were shown to have an effect on measures of students’
values, attitudes and beliefs. Among these variables are three that each measured a
different student experience with diversity: attendance in a diversity awareness
workshop, study abroad and a composite variable measuring community service.
Among the significant diversity related experience measures, the diversity
awareness workshop was shown to have a negative impact on students’ Humanism.
This finding is similar to the impact described above regarding white students and
feelings of guilt and responsibility when confronted with diversity education
(McIntosh, 1988, Kernahan & Davis, 2007). Given that white students comprised the
majority of the sample and were negatively impacted by diversity courses, this
127
finding regarding a diversity awareness workshop may be connected. More work is
needed to determine the long-term impacts of diversity awareness workshops as well
as the reasons why students attend.
Study abroad as a diversity related experience negatively impacted a
student’s Individualism across all three diversity course environmental variables.
This finding is surprising given the past research on the goals of study abroad
programs. For example, Kitsantas (2004) describes that the focus of study abroad
programs is to “enhance students’ cross-cultural skills and global understanding”
(p.3). These goals are in line with those of diversity requirement courses nationally
as well as with the site institution, Western University. The impacts of study abroad
are shown to meet the goals espoused, though positively impacting students’ cross-
cultural skills (Kitsantas, 2004. What is puzzling about the findings in this study is
that Individualism was positively impacted by the total number of diversity courses
taken while the measure of study abroad was found to negatively impact
Individualism. These seemingly disparate findings highlight an important need for
future research to more closely explore the impact of diversity related experiences.
Western University’s diversity requirements and university mission.
The primary finding in this study, that diversity courses have a measurable
impact, is significant because it can be related directly back to the diversity course
requirement curricular model used at Western University as well as the Western
University diversity course requirement guidelines (see Appendix G). This study
128
examined the efficacy of diversity courses in meeting the goals set by Western
University for the required diversity courses.
As discussed in chapter 3, Western University utilizes a curricular model for
diversity courses that requires students to take one course as a graduation
requirement. Like other students at most institutions, students at WU can choose
from among all of the diversity courses offered to meet their requirement and
students can take the course at any point in their college experience. If, as the data in
this study suggests, there is diversity course impact but only for those taking more
than one course, then WU and other institutions may want to reconsider the current
diversity course requirements.
In regards to the specific diversity course requirement at Western University,
the results are mixed. Western University purports to prepare students for a global
society and the Diversity Course Requirement purports to meet an educational need
of students, to help them respect human difference and be culturally competent
(Retrieved on 5/28/09 at
http://www.usc.edu/dept/ARR/private/forms/curriculum/DiversityGuidelines.pdf).
As a result the impact of diversity courses on students’ values in relation to
Humanism would seem to meet this requirement. However, it might be argued also
that this is only true if more than one course is taken. The AAC&U (Musil et al.,
1999) supports this argument when it suggests “institutions must extend beyond
exposing students to this type of curriculum only in their freshman year or through a
single course, and provide many different places and levels where students can
129
revisit earlier understandings”(p. 27). As a result, Western University may want to
explore extending the number of diversity courses required to better meet the goals
established by the diversity course requirement.
While there is reason to reexamine how many courses are required of
students, another part of the requirement, taking courses at any point in the college
experience, seems to be working. In other words, the data suggests that diversity
course impact is not linked to when in his or her academic sequence a student takes
the required course. This finding is at odds theoretically as the Impressionable Years
Model (Jennings and Stoker, 1999) suggests that students are more open to new
influences when they are younger. With this in mind it might be expected that the
earlier a student took the required diversity course the greater the impact. However,
the earlier a student took a course did not have a significant impact on his or her
values, attitudes and beliefs.
Limitations
Through conducting this study several limitations emerged that should be
addressed in future studies of diversity courses. Included among the limitations are
attributional effects, generalizability, diversity course syllabi collection, survey
response rate, multicollinearity, and self-reported survey data. Below, each limitation
is listed and described with recommendations for future work to address the
limitations.
130
Attributional effects.
There will always be challenges in measuring the impact of specific
experiences in the college environment. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) and Astin
(1993) describe the challenges in identifying the impact of specific experiences in
the college environment because of “attributional problems.” As described in
chapter two, these “attributional problems” include normal maturation and societal
changes that may impact students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005, p. 272). The challenge then is in interpreting the results of studies
on “net college effects” (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). This is to say that there is a
large amount of variance unexplained by the regression models utilized in this study
and some of the variance may be attributable to factors such as maturation and
societal changes. Chang (2002) describes other factors that impact values, attitudes
and beliefs including curricula, faculty, peers, as well as diversity related
experiences.
Overall, the amount of variance explained by the regression models used in
this study was relatively low in relation to the social science standard of 25%. In fact
some of the regression models explained as much as 11% of the variance in changes
of students’ values, attitudes and beliefs. A goal for future work in this area is to
identify more of the variance in explaining the impact of diversity courses on
students’ values, attitudes and beliefs.
131
Single institution study.
Only one site was used in this study and as a result the findings are not
necessarily able to be generalized to other institutions. The sample used in this study,
although longitudinal, relied on data from one institution and has limited
generalizability beyond 4-year colleges and universities. Additionally, the use of the
Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008) also makes generalizing
findings difficulty because the typology is site specific to Western University.
However, lack of generalizability is offset by the fact that Western University
utilizes a curricular model similar to ones used by the majority of other institutions
that also have diversity course requirements. Future studies may want to examine the
impacts of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs across similar
institutions and settings for comparison.
Diversity Course syllabi collection.
Members of the Teagle grant diversity project identified all Western
University approved diversity requirement course syllabi from 2004-2008. They then
gathered as many syllabi as possible for use in the Diversity Typology (Cole &
Sundt, 2008). Of the 143 identified courses offered from 2004-2008, 24 syllabi were
not gathered because of the following reasons: they were missing, there was no
department cooperation, the department had problems locating the syllabi, or the
courses were not taught. (see Appendix K for more details). The remaining 117
courses comprise the full list used in the data analysis.). Not having all of the
132
diversity course syllabi may have impacted the typology variable and the Diversity
Course Typology scale.
Survey response rate.
The overall sample for this study was 553 students of the approximately 2700
students enrolled in the 2004 admitted class at Western University. This equates to a
response rate of less than 20% of the total number of students. Although the response
rate was low, the sample was found to be representative of the overall student
population at Western University.
Multicollinearity.
Major was selected as an input variable of interest in this study to examine
differences between students. However, all of the variables measuring a student’s
major had to be removed because they were causing multicollinearity issues. This
was particularly a problem with the diversity course variable measuring the total
number of courses taken. As a result there was no variable measuring major that
would have been interesting information to consider. Future studies may want to
identify a variable that measures the differences in impact on students dependent
upon their field of study. This is particularly relevant considering the amount of
variance not explained by diversity course impact. For example, many of the
diversity courses at Western University are housed in specific departments such as
American Studies and Sociology. As a result students in these majors may be
exposed to the faculty that teaches diversity courses more frequently in their
undergraduate career than do students of other majors. Additionally, as stated above,
133
past work have identified differential impacts on students’ values and attitudes by
major (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Self-reported survey data.
Self-reported survey data is not a measure of actual learning or observed
behavior. Students may respond with socially desirable answers (Nelson-Laird,
2005). However, this is mediated by the inclusion of transcript and admission data,
for example, the courses (numbers and sequence) a student took are an objective
measure of them. In addition, the Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt,
2008) provides an objective measure of diversity courses per standards developed by
Western University.
Recommendations for Future Research
In this section, recommendations for future research will be discussed,
including key questions that need further exploration. To begin, while this study
found that the total number of diversity courses taken was significant in relation to
students’ values, attitudes and beliefs, more work needs to be done to determine the
critical number of courses the majority of students need to take before the impact
occurs. While one course was not shown to have an impact, a minimum of two
courses did, with most of the students in the sample taking between two and three
courses. Is this consistent across populations and institutions? If so then there are
implications for curricular models which require only one diversity course over an
undergraduate career. Shaw (2005) suggests “the findings from such research may
134
help colleges and universities to modify and improve the current diversity-related
initiatives they have in place” (p.13).
The Diversity Course Typology (Cole & Sundt, 2008) provided a new way to
view diversity requirement courses. While the variable measuring the impact of
diversity courses per the complexity of the first course taken was not shown to have
an impact, more exploration is needed in the future. In particular, future work might
look to disaggregate the data by individual typology level to look for differences in
the impact on values, attitudes, and beliefs. While there was not a significant impact
found based on the typology level of the first course taken there may be one if the
data is examined by individual typology level. Additionally, the typology rating
system could be extended to all courses offered to examine the mean complexity
level and determine how much diversity content is covered in other courses. This
would identify some of the overlap in students’ college experiences regarding
diversity as well as the variance in the impacts on their values, attitudes and beliefs.
Similarly, other experiences in the college environment could be explored to
identify some of the variance in the findings. For example, what is the role of
diversity related experiences and do they magnify or hinder the impact of diversity
courses? This study identified study abroad, community service, and racial
awareness workshops as diversity related experiences. What other related
experiences can be analyzed for their impact on students? Another factor that may
explain some of the variance in future findings is the role of the host department in
each diversity course offered. In particular, how might the course impact change in
135
the aggregate by the individual department offering a course? Considering that most
of the diversity courses are offered by a small number of departments, when students
in majors in these departments have the same faculty for other courses, they
theoretically would be exposed to additional diversity content or teaching style.
Future work might examine clusters of similar courses, and ask questions like are
there students who took multiple sociology courses that may have an impact on their
values, attitudes and beliefs? This inquiry would attempt to explain the impact of the
overrepresentation of certain departments in offering diversity courses.
Additionally, what happens in the courses themselves in terms of faculty and
student interactions as well as classroom structural diversity may have an impact that
is measurable and necessary to understand diversity course impact. To investigate
this impact, interviews with students and faculty would need to occur, along with
observations of the classroom environment to identify specific pedagogy that had an
impact on students.
Finally, the impact of diversity courses on different demographic groups is an
area that needs more study to determine differential impacts. For example, the
findings in this study suggest that diversity courses have a negative impact on
students’ values in relation to Humanism. As discussed previously this may be the
result of delayed positive impact for white students. As a result, future work might
disaggregate white students’ data for the total number of courses taken to see if they
remain negative. In other words does the negative effect change the more courses a
white student takes, or does it change even with just one course over time? Chang
136
(2002) suggests this is an important question to ask of all students: what are the long-
term effects of a diversity course requirement?
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to identify the gaps in the literature regarding
the study of diversity courses as well as by explore their impact through the lens of
the goals of higher education, college impact literature and the goals of Western
University. This study contributes to the literature on required diversity course
impact. Hogan and Mallot (2005) describe that there is little evaluation or assessment
done on diversity course outcomes on students. Chang (2002) also states while
diversity workshops are examined, diversity course requirements are not explicitly
studied. This study offers an intentional assessment of diversity course outcomes
across three areas: total number of courses taken, first course taken, and complexity
of courses taken.
Secondly, Pascarella et al. (1996) and Hogan and Mallot (2005) describe the
importance of examining the impact of individual interventions on student outcomes,
specifically regarding the impact of “dimensions of the college experience on
students’ appreciation and acceptance of cultural, racial, and value diversity”
(Pascarella et al., 1996 p. 175). This gap in the literature is addressed with a focus on
a specific curricular intervention in this study, required diversity courses.
Finally, this study confirms the findings of Gurin et al. (2002) and Chang
(2002) regarding diversity course impact. In particular that diversity course impact is
measurable and significant, in this case, in relation to students’ values, attitudes and
137
beliefs. This is important in validating the need for diversity course requirements
across all institutions of higher education. Finally, the findings suggest that diversity
courses were impactful on several measures of students’ values, attitudes and beliefs.
This finding is significant and relevant to future work on diversity course impact as
well as to Western University’s diversity course requirement.
138
References
Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political Attitudes over the
Life Span: The Bennington Women after Fifty Years. University of Wisconsin
Press: Madison, WI.

American Association of Colleges and Universities Website. (2009). Diversity
resources. http://www.aacu.org/resources/diversity/index.cfm

Antonio, A. L. (1998). Student Interaction Across Race and Outcomes in College.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Antonio, A. L. (2001a). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college.
The Review of Higher Education. 25(1), 63-89.

Antonio, A. L. (2001b). The role of interracial interaction in the development of
leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in
Higher Education 42(5), 593-617.

Antonio, A.L. (2003). Diverse Student Bodies, Diverse Faculties. Academe 89(6),
14-17.

Astin, A. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact: Part one.
Sociology of Education, 43(3), 223-254.

Astin, A. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact: Part two.
Sociology of Education, 43(4), 437-450.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

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

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development. 40(5), 518-529.

Case, K. A. (2004). Raising White Privilege Awareness and Reducing Racial
Prejudice: Assessing Diversity Course Effectiveness. Teaching of
Psychology. 34(4). 231-235.

139
Chang, M. J. (1999). Measuring the impact of a diversity requirement on students’
level of racial prejudice. Association for the Study of Higher Education
Conference Paper. 1-5. (retrieved on 9/21/08 from
http://diversityweb.org/Digest/W00/research2.html.

Chang, M. J. (2001). The positive educational effects of racial diversity on campus.
In: Orfield, Gary, Ed., Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of
Affirmative Action. Cambridge, Harvard Education Publishing Group, 175-
186.

Chang, M. J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement
on students' racial views and attitudes. Journal of General Education, 51(1)
21-42.

Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Saenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The Educational benefits of
sustaining cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. The Journal of
Higher Education. 77(3), 430-455.

Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-
faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher
Education. 78 (3), 249-281.

Cole, D. & Sundt, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of diversity courses on students’
higher order thinking skills. Grant Proposal to the Teagle Foundation.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Dey, E. L. (1988). College impact and student liberalism revisited: the effect of
student peers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for
the Study of Higher Education. St. Louis, MO.

Dey, E. L. (1997). Undergraduate political attitudes: peer influence in changing
social contexts. The Journal of Higher Education. 68(4) 398-413.

Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.

Feldman, K. A. & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The Impact of College on Students. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Grutter, B. (2003). Grutter v. Bollinger. 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

140
Gurin, P. (1999). EXPERT REPORT OF PATRICIA GURIN Gratz, et al. v.
Bollinger, et al., No. 97-75321(E.D. Mich.) Grutter, et al. v. Bollinger, et al.,
No. 97-75928 (E.D. Mich.)

Gurin, P. & Nagda, B. (2006). Getting to the what, how, and why of diversity on
campus. Educational Researcher. 35(1), 20-24.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S. & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher
education: theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational
Review. 72(3) 330-366.

Henderson-King, D. & Stewart, A. J. (1999). Educational experiences and shifts in
group consciousness: studying women. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin. 25(3), 390-399.

Hogan, D. E. & Mallott, M. (2005). Changing racial prejudice through diversity
education. Journal of College Student Development. 46(2), 115-125.

Hopwood v. Texas. 78 F.3d.932 (5
th
Cir. 1996).

Humphreys, D. (1997). General Education and American Commitments; A National
Report on Diversity Courses and Requirements. Association of American
Colleges and Universities: Washington D.C.

Humphreys, D. (1998). Diversity and The College Curriculum: How Colleges &
Universities Are Preparing Students For a Changing World. Diversity Web.
http://www.diversityweb.org/diversity_innovations/curriculum_change/princi
ples_and_practices/curriculum_briefing.cfm.

Humphreys, D. (2000). National survey finds diversity requirements common around
the country. Diversity Digest, Fall 2000.

Hurtado, S. (1996). How diversity affects teaching and learning. Educational
Record. 66(4), 27-29.

Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking Diversity and Educational Purpose: How Diversity
Affects the Classroom Environment and Student Development. In: Orfield,
Gary, Ed., Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative
Action. Cambridge, Harvard Education Publishing Group, 2001. 187-203.

Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with the educational and civic missions of
higher education. The Review of Higher Education 30(2),185-196.

141
Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., Gurin, P. Y., & Gurin, G. (2003). College environments,
diversity, and student learning. In: Smart, J. C., Ed., Higher Education:
Handbook of Theory and Research Volume XVIII. Kluwer Academic
Publishers: Great Britain. 145-190.

Institute for the Study of Social Change, (1991). The diversity project: Final report.
Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.

Jennings, M. K. & Stoker, L. (1999). The persistence of the past: the class of 1965
turns fifty. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Midwest Political
Science Association. Chicago.

Kernahan, C. & Davis, T. (2007). Changing Perspective: How Learning About
Racism Influences Student Awareness and Emotion. Teaching of Psychology.
34 (1), 49-52.

Kitsantas, A. (2004). Studying abroad: the role of college students' goals on the
development of cross-cultural skills and global understanding. College
Student Journal. 38, 441-443.

Lipset, S. M., Lazarsfeld, P., Barton, A. & Linz, J. The Psychology of Voting : An
Analysis of Political Behavior, in LINDZEY G., (ed.), Handbook of Social
Psychology, Cambridge, Addison-Wesley, 1954, p. 1124-2275.

Lottes, I. L. & Kuriloff, P. J. (1994). The impact of college experience on political
and social attitudes. Sex Roles. (31 (1/2). 31-54.

McFalls, E. L. & Cobb-Roberts, D. (2001). Reducing resistance to diversity through
cognitive dissonance instruction: implications for teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education. 52(2)164-172.

McIntosh, P. (1988). Working Paper 189. "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A
Personal Account of Coming To See Correspondences through Work in
Women's Studies."

Milem, J. E. (1991).The role of college peer groups and faculty reference groups in
the development of students’ attitudes toward race. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Boston,
MA.

Milem, J. F. (1998). Attitude change in college students: examining the effect of
college peer groups and faculty normative groups. The Journal of Higher
Education. 69(2). 117-140.
142
Musil, C. M. (Ed.). (1992). The courage to question: Women’s studies and student
learning. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Musil, C. M., Garcia, M., Hudguns, C.A., Nettles, M. T., Sedlacek, W. E. & Smith,
D. G. (1999). To Form A More Perfect Union: Campus Diversity Initiatives.
Association of American Colleges and Universities: Washington, D.C.

Nelson-Laird, T. F., Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation
effects: enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action
engagement. The Journal of Higher Education. 76(4), 448-476.

Newcomb, T. M. (1943). Personality and Social Change: Attitude Formation in a
Student Community. Wiley & Sons: New York.

Palmer, B. (2000). The Impact of Diversity Courses: Research from Pennsylvania
State University. Diversity Digest, Fall 2000.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students. Jossey-
Bass: San Francisco.

Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996).
Influences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of
college. The Journal of Higher Education. 67 (2), 174-195.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of
belief systems and personality systems. Basic Books: New York.

Ruble, D. (1994). Developmental changes in achievement evaluation: motivational
implications of self-other differences. Child Development. 65, 1095-1110.

Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.),
Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53-84). New York: Plenum.

Sears, D. O. (1993). Explorations in political psychology. Duke University Press.

Shaw, E. J. (2005). Researching the Educational Benefits of Diversity. College
Board Research Report. 2005-4.

Sidanius, J., Levin, S., van Laar, C. & Sears, D. O. (2008). The Diversity Challenge:
social identity and intergroup relations on the college campus. Russell-Sage
Foundation: New York.

143
Smith, D. G. & Schonfeld, N. B. (2000). The benefits of diversity: what research
tells us. About Campus. November/December, 16-23.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism:
Old fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 199-214.

Tatum, B. D. (2003). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?
Basic Books: New York.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009).
Digest of Education Statistics, 2008 (NCES 2009-020).

Valentino, N. A. & Sears, D. O. (1998). Event-driven political communication and
the pre-adult socialization of partisanship. Political Behavior. 20(2). 127-154.

Vedlitz, A. (1983). The Impact of college education on political attitudes and
behavior: A reappraisal and test of the self-selection hypothesis, Social
Science Quarterly. 64 (1). 145-153.

Villalpando, O. (1994). Comparing the effects of multiculturalism and diversity on
minority and White student satisfaction with college. Paper presented at the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Tucson, AZ.

Whitt, E. J. (1999). Interactions with peers and objective and self-reported cognitive
outcomes across 3 years of college. Journal of College Student Development.
Jan/Feb.

Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001).
Influences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the second and
third years of college. The Journal of Higher Education. 72 (2) 172-204.
144
Appendix A: 2004 CIRP Survey Instrument

145

146

147

148
Appendix B: 2008 Western University Senior Survey Instrument
http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/student_surveys/surveys.html
(Retrieved on August 13, 2009)

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
149
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
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
150
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
151
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
152
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
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
153
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
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
154
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
155
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
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
156
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
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?
157
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?
158
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?
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
159
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
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
160
Appendix C: Organizing Framework Combined with Theoretical Foundation
Astin I-E-O
Model (1984) Inputs Environment Outcomes
Theory of
Diversity and
Learning
(Hurtado,
2007)
1. Structural
Diversity
• Diversity of
faculty and
students
• Class make-up in
diversity courses
2 .Interactional
Diversity
• Interactions
with diverse
peers
• Frequency and
quality of
interactions

3.Diversity
Initiatives
• Diversity
courses
• Typology
• Co-curricular
activities
Student Learning &
Democratic Skills

Values and Attitude
Shifts
Theoretical
Foundation
Erikson (1980):
students coming in
malleable-open to
new experiences

Newcomb (1943):
entering political and
social views
“malleable”

Erikson (1980):
environment
provides a
“psychosocial
moratorium” with
malleable political
views influenced by
peer interactions

Sears (1993):
Symbolic Politics
Theory

Jennings and
Stoker (1999):
Impressionable
Years Model

Cognitive growth

Active thinking

Attitudinal Changes

Measures
(data
sources)
CIRP Fall 2004 (553)
Transcript
Application

Senior Survey
Spring 2008 (553)

Transcript

Senior Survey 2008
161
Appendix D: Variables Used to Measure the Extent of Values
and Attitude Shifts
Author
& Year
Variables used to measure Values and
Attitude Shifts (scale and reliability)
a

Used as
Ind/
Dep.
Var &
Context
b

Analysis
Student
Sample
c

Milem
(1998)
DV #1: VIEW0408-"the belief that the
wealthy should pay more taxes" (45
variables entered into regression analysis,
22% of variance).

DV #2: GOAL0408-"the personal
importance of the goal of being very well off
financially” (45 variables entered into the
regression equation, 28% of variance).

IV:
(1) Humanism (Goal 0404-05, 0409,
0414-17).
(2) Materialism (Goal 0402-03, 0407-08,
0413).
(3) Social Liberalism (View 0403, 0408,
0413).
(4) Libertarianism (View 0402, 0404).
(5) Authoritarianism (View 0405, 0412,
0414).
(6) Artistic Orientation (Goal 0401, 0411-
12).

Student background
(1) background characteristics (Sex, Race
1-9). (2) Pre-college variables & SES (1985
CIRP, FATHEDUC, MOTHEDUC,
HSGPA, INCOME, DEGASP04). (3)
Living arrangements in FY (At home,
private residence, on campus). (4) All of the
peer normative constructs determined
through the factor analysis of peer and
faculty variables, see methods. (5).
Institutional or structural characteristics

Institutional characteristics (selectivity,
type, control, size)
D & C N=15,150
162
Hurtado
(2001)
N=4,253
Dey
(1988)
DVs: Nine items related to liberalism from
both 1983 and 1987 surveys: (CIRP 2004
Items: VIEW 0402, 0413, 0404, 0412, 0405,
0415, POLIVW04).
Factor analysis resulted in three factors, (1)
Individual Autonomy: (0415, 0402, 0404).
(2) Social Control: (0412, 0405, 0413). (3)
Political Liberalism: (Nat Health Care,
Busing to Achieve Balance, POLIVWO4).

"Liberalism Scale:" constructed by summing
the responses to all nine items assigning the
strongest liberal response ('Strongly Agree')
a "+2", 'Agree somewhat' a +1 and so on to -
2 for "conservative." Each college was then
given a "liberalism score" by averaging all
student scores.

IVs: entered into regression in "temporal
sequence" (Astin, 1970, 1977, 1993) and
included the following sets: (1) Input
characteristics, (2-5) College environment
predictor variables (ie structural (major,
selectivity), involvement, peer
environment). Activities in college and
major were used as "proximal measures of
student experiences and involvement" (p. 7).
I, D & C
(1) Matched
Pairs T-Test:
used on 1983
& 1987
liberalism
scale scores to
measure
"change in
student
liberalism
over time."
Multiple
regression:
"used to
examine the
relationship
between
measures of
the college
environment
and student
liberalism."
Blocked
Stepwise
Regression:
"run to predict
student self-
assessment of
liberalism four
years after
entering
college."
N=3900
163
Dey
(1997)
(DV). Blocked Multiple Regression:

IVs were "entered into the prediction
equation in a blocked fashion (p. 402).
Block 1: Political Orientation pretest (2004
CIRP-POLIVW04). Block 2: Background
Characteristics: items chosen based on
salience from previous research (2004
CIRP-SEX, RACE 1-9,(note: only white v.
non-white was used in this stud), AID1,
FATHEDUC, MOTHEDUC (note: these
were averaged in this study). Block 3:
Institutional Context: (Number of years
attended (follow-up survey item), Type &
Control, Selectivity). Block 4: Peer
Normative Context: (2004 CIRP-
POLIVW04, institution level aggregate of
student political orientation. Fifth
Regression: Influence of Changing Social
Context: an analysis of the 66-70 & 87-91
longitudinal data set.

Chang
(2002)
DV-MDR (Modern Racism Scale)
Covariates: (race, gender, age, mother &
fathers education)

(Cole, 1998)
Not all articles report the reliability or type of scale used. Information listed is as reported in article.
I=Independent Variable; D= Dependent Variable; D=Diversity Course, C=College impact
164
Appendix E: Western University Diversity Committee Guidelines for
Designation as a Diversity Course Requirement
Taken from http://www.usc.edu/dept/ARR/private/forms/DiversityGuidelines.pdf
1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. All syllabi are expected to show how the topics addressed related to issues
facing students in a contemporary context.

5. Course encourages comparative and analytical thinking about issues of
diversity.
165
Appendix F: Western University Committee on Diversity
Requirement Courses (DRC)
Retrieved on 5/28/09 at
http://www.usc.edu/academe/faculty/governance/committees/charges/drc.html

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
166
Appendix G: Western University Diversity Course Requirement Guidelines
Purpose and rationale Revised 2/28/05
Retrieved on 5/28/09 at
http://www.usc.edu/dept/ARR/private/forms/curriculum/DiversityGuidelines.pdf

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 may involve
how abuse of power can lead to conflict, how learning about and living in a diverse
society can function as a form of enrichment, etc. 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.
167
The Diversity Course Requirement was adopted so that students will understand
issues and conflict arising from human differences in contemporary American and
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).
We strongly encourage courses that examine diversity from an international or
historical perspective to have 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.
168
Appendix H: Role and Mission of Western University
Retrieved on 5/28/09 at http://www.usc.edu/about/factbook/strategic_priorities/

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. 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 postdoctorals, 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
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.
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
169
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.
170
Appendix I: All Variables Used in the Study, Including Recodes,
Value Labels and Coding!
Variables Scale Code
Input-CIRP
SEX
0 = Male
1 = Female
0-1
Parents’ Education #2 “parentR2”
1-6 = High School or Less
7-12 = College degree or less
13-16 = Graduate Degree or less
1-16
RACE 1 (White)
1= Not Marked
2= Marked
1-2
GOAL0401-0422
1=Not important
2=Somewhat important
3=Very important
4=Essential
1-4
Composite variable #1 Humanism “HumanismR”
GOAL0409, 0416, 0417
1-3=1Not Important
4-6=2 Somewhat important
7-9=3Very important
10-12=4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #2 Individualism
“CIRPIndividualismR”
GOAL0402-04
1-3=1Not Important
4-6=2 Somewhat important
7-9=3Very important
10-12=4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #3 Artistic Orientation
“artisticR”
GOAL0401, 0411-12
1-3=1Not Important
4-6=2 Somewhat important
7-9=3Very important
10-12=4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #4 Materialism
“MaterialismR”
GOAL0407-08, 0413
1-3=1Not Important
4-6=2 Somewhat important
7-9=3Very important
10-12=4 Essential
1-4
MAJOR04A
1=Agriculture
2=Biological Sciences
3=Business
4=Education
5=Engineering
6=English
7=Health prof
8=Hist/Poli Sci
9=Humanities
10=Fine Arts
11=Math/Stat
12=Physical Sci
1-16
171
Variables Scale Code
13=Social Sci
14=Oth Technical
15=Other
16=Undecided
Major Recode:
MajorAgri, MajorBus, MajorBio, MajorEd,
MajorEng, MajorEnglish, MajorHealth,
MajorHisPoli, MajorHuman, MajorFineArts,
MajorMath, MajorPS, MajorSS,
MajorOtherTech, MajorOther, MajorUndeclared
Each is individually coded as #=1 and
all else=0
1-16
Environmental
Diversity Courses COURSES1-40 to
COURSE.1Diversity-COURSE.40Diversity
2=Diversity courses
1=Everything else
1-2
FY Fall Semester Diversity Course (Fall1
st
)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
FY Spring Semester Diversity Course (Spring1
st
)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
First Year Diversity Course (FirstYear)
1-8=No diversity course
9=1 diversity course
10=2 diversity courses
11=3 diversity courses
12=4 diversity courses
13=5 diversity courses
14=6 diversity courses
15=7 diversity courses
16=8 diversity courses
8-16

Second Year Fall Semester Diversity Course
(Fall2nd)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
Second Year Spring Semester Diversity Course
(Spring2nd)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
Second Year Diversity Course (SecondYear)
1-8=No diversity course
9=1 diversity course
10=2 diversity courses
11=3 diversity courses
12=4 diversity courses
13=5 diversity courses
14=6 diversity courses
15=7 diversity courses
8-16

172
Variables Scale Code
16=8 diversity courses
Third Year Fall Semester Diversity Course
(Fall3rd)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
Third Year Spring Semester Diversity Course
(Spring3rd)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
Third Year Diversity Course (ThirdYear)
1-8=No diversity course
9=1 diversity course
10=2 diversity courses
11=3 diversity courses
12=4 diversity courses
13=5 diversity courses
14=6 diversity courses
15=7 diversity courses
16=8 diversity courses
8-16

Fourth Year Fall Semester Diversity Course
(Fall4th)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
Fourth Year Spring Semester Diversity Course
(Spring4th)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
Fourth Year Diversity Course (FourthYear)
1-8=No diversity course
9=1 diversity course
10=2 diversity courses
11=3 diversity courses
12=4 diversity courses
13=5 diversity courses
14=6 diversity courses
15=7 diversity courses
16=8 diversity courses
8-16

Fifth Year Fall Semester Diversity Course
(Fall5th)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
Fifth Year Spring Semester Diversity Course
(Spring5th)
1-4-no diversity course
5=1 diversity course
6=2
7=3
8=4
4-8
Fifth Year Diversity Course (FifthYear)
1-8=No diversity course
9=1 diversity course
8-16

173
Variables Scale Code
10=2 diversity courses
11=3 diversity courses
12=4 diversity courses
13=5 diversity courses
14=6 diversity courses
15=7 diversity courses
16=8 diversity courses
Total number of diversity courses taken through
40 courses/ 5 years (DiversityTaken_R)
1-40=No diversity course
41=1 diversity course
42=2 diversity courses
43=3 diversity courses
44=4 diversity courses
45=5 diversity courses
1-45
Year the first diversity course was taken
(FirstDCYear_R)
0=0 No Diversity Course taken
1=1
2=2
nd
year
3=1
st
year
4=3
5=1
6=2
7=1
8=4
9=1
10=2
11=1
12=3
13=1
14=2
15=1
16=5
th
year
17=1
18=2
19=1
20=3
21=1
22=2
23=1
24=4
25=1
26=2
27=1
28=3
29=1
30=2
31=1
0-5
Typology Variable for each COURSE
(COURSE.1DT-40DT)
('AHIS-250'=1) ('AHIS-304'=1)
('AHIS-363'=3) ('AHIS-364'=3)
('AHIS-365'=2) ('AHIS-475'=4)
('AMST-475'=4) ('AMST-101'=3)
('AMST-135'=2) ('AMST-200'=2)
('AMST-202'=2) ('AMST-206'=4)
0-4
174
Variables Scale Code
('AMST-220'=2) ('AMST-250'=4)
('AMST-252'=4) ('AMST-274'=3)
('AMST-285'=3) ('AMST-330'=3)
('AMST-342'=4) ('AMST-357'=3)
('AMST-374'=2) ('AMST-377'=3)
('AMST-378'=2) ('AMST-395'=2)
('ANTH-395'=2) ('AMST-448'=3)
('AMST-449'=3) ('ENGL-449'=3)
('AMST-466'=3) ('ANTH-240'=4)
('ANTH-316'=2) ('ANTH-328'=2)
('ANTH 371'=3)
('ARCH-440'=1) ('ARCH-442'=1)
('BUCO-333'=4) ('CLAS-320'=2)
('COLT-374'=1) ('COLT-445'=1)
('COMM-324'=3) ('COMM-383'=3)
('COMM-395'=2)
('COMM-458'=2) ('COMM-465'=1)
('CTCS-192'=4) ('EALC-335'=1)
('EASC-160'=2) ('EDCO-102'=4)
('EDCO-324'=4) ('ENGL-444'=2)
('ENGL-476'=4)
('FBE-428'=1) ('FREN-370'=1)
('GEO-340'=3) ('GEO-350'=3)
('GEOG-100'=3) ('GEOG-215'=3)
('GS-324'=4) ('HIST-101'=1) ('HIST-
200'=1) ('HIST-245'=2)
('HIST-378'=2) ('HIST-387'=2) ('HP-
420'=3) ('JOUR-466'=3) ('JOUR-
468'=3) ('MDA-167'=4) ('MOR-
385'=1) ('MUJZ-100'=3) ('MUJZ-
419'=1) ('MUSC-400'=4)
('MUSC-420'=3) ('MUSC-430'=3)
('MUSC-450'=3) ('PHIL-137'=1)
('POSC-333'=3) ('POSC-424'=3)
('POSC-441'=4) ('POSC-442'=4)
('PPD-250'=2) ('PPD-372'=3)
('PSYC-462'=2) ('REL-145'=1)
('REL-336'=2) ('SOCI-142'=3)
('SOCI-150'=2) ('SOCI-169'=2)
('SOCI-200'=3) ('SOCI-250'=2)
('SOCI-305'=4) ('SOCI-342'=3)
('SOCI-355'=3) ('SOCI-360'=3)
('SOCI-375'=3) ('SOCI-376'=3)
('SOCI-432'=3) ('SOCI-435'=1)
('SPAN-413'=2) ('SW-200'=3)
('SWMS-210'=2) ('SWMS-301'=2)
('SWMS-384'=4) ('SWMS-385'=3)
('THTR-393'=3) ('THTR-395'=2)
('THTR-476'=3) ('THTR-488'=4)
(ELSE=0)
Dichotomous Typology variables by individual FirstDCYear_R = 1 COURSE.1DT > 0,1
175
Variables Scale Code
courses (COURSE.1DT-40DT). 0 0,2
0,3
0,4
Year the first diversity course was taken and the
courses Diversity Typology rating
(DCTypology1st_R)
0=Non-Diversity Course
1=DC Level 1
2=DC Level 2
3=DC Level 3
4=DC Level 4
0-4
Community ServiceR (first_5+ freq_11R)
1=Yes
2=No
1-2
Awareness Workshop (ever_5)
1=Yes
0=No
0-1
Study Abroad (Ever_8)
1=Yes
0=No
0-1
Output-Senior Survey
impor_1-24
1=Not important
2=Somewhat important
3=Very important
4=Essential
1-4
Composite variable #1 Humanism
“ssHumanismR”
Import_9R, 16R, 17R
1-3=1Not Important
4-6=2 Somewhat important
7-9=3Very important
10-12=4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #2 Individualism
“ssIndividualismR”
Impor_2R-3R, Import_4R
1-3=1Not Important
4-6=2 Somewhat important
7-9=3Very important
10-12=4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #3 Artistic Orientation
“sensurartisticR”
Impor_1R, Import_11R, 12R
1-3=1Not Important
4-6=2 Somewhat important
7-9=3Very important
10-12=4 Essential
1-4
Composite variable #4 Materialism
“ssMaterialismR”
Impor_1R, Import_11R, 12R
1-3=1Not Important
4-6=2 Somewhat important
7-9=3Very important
10-12=4 Essential
1-4
176
Appendix J: Diversity Courses Offered at Western University 2004-2008
# COURSE
SUM
CRITERION
TYPOLOGY
LEVEL
1 AHIS 250 5 1 Mean = 15.2
2 AHIS 304 5 1 SD = 4.573378344
3 AHIS 363 19 3
4 AHIS 364 19 3
Typology
Levels
5 AHIS 365 13 2 (1=5-10.5)
6 AHIS 365 02 13 2 (2=10.6-15.1)
7 AHIS/AMST 475 20 4 (3=15.2-19.8)
8
AHIS/AMST 475
03 20 4 (4=19.9-20)
9 AMST 101 18 3
10 AMST 135 12 2
11 AMST 200 13 2
12 AMST 200 07 13 2
13 AMST 202 14 2
14 AMST 206 20 4
15 AMST 220 15 2
16 AMST 250 20 4
17 AMST 252 20 4
18 AMST 274 16 3
19 AMST 285 18 3
20 AMST 330 17 3
21 AMST 342 20 4
22 AMST 357 18 3
23 AMST 374 15 2
24 AMST 374 06 15 2
25 AMST 377 17 3
26 AMST 378 15 2
27
AMST/ANTH
395 15 2
28 AMST 448 17 3
29 AMST/ENGL 449 16 3
30 AMST 466 16 3
31 AMST/AHIS 475 20 4
32
AMST/AHIS 475
03 20 4
33 ANTH 240 20 4
34 ANTH 316 15 2
35 ANTH 328 13 2
36 ANTH 371 19 3
37
ANTH/AMST
395 15 2
177
38 ARCH 440 5 1
39 ARCH 442 7 1
41 BUC0 333 20 4
42 CLAS 320 13 2
43 COLT 374 7 1
44 COLT 445 9 1
45 COMM 324 17 3
46 COMM 324 05 17 3
47 COMM 324 07 17 3
48 COMM 383 16 3
49 COMM 395 15 2
50 COMM 458 14 2
51 COMM 465 9 1
52 CTCS 192 20 4
53 EALC 335 5 1
54 EASC 160 12 2
55 EDCO 102 20 4
56 EDCO 324 20 4
57 ENGL 444 15 2
58 ENGL/AMST 449 16 3
59 ENGL 476 20 4
60 FBE 428 5 1
61 FREN 370 5 1
63 GEO 340 19 3
64 GEO 350 19 3
65 GEOG 100 19 3
66 GEOG 215 18 3
67 GS 324 20 4
68 HIST 101 5 1
69 HIST 200 9 1
70 HIST 245 14 2
71 HIST 378 14 2
72 HIST 387 14 2
73 HP 420 18 3
74 JOUR 466 18 3
75 JOUR 468 18 3
76 MDA 167 20 4
77 MOR 385 5 1
78 MOR 385 07 5 1
79 MUJZ 100 19 3
80 MUJZ 419 5 1
81 MUSC 400 20 4
82 MUSC 420 18 3
83 MUSC 430 16 3
84 MUSC 450 18 3
178
85 PHIL 137 8 1
86 POSC 333 16 3
87 POSC 424 16 3
88 POSC 441 20 4
89 POSC 442 20 4
90 PPD 250 13 2
91 PPD 372 18 3
92 PSYC 462 12 2
94 REL 145 6 1
95 REL 336 15 2
96 SOCI 142 17 3
97 SOCI 150 11 2
98 SOCI 169 15 2
99 SOCI 200 17 3
100 SOCI 250 11 2
101 SOCI 305 20 4
102 SOCI 342 18 3
103 SOCI 355 18 3
104 SOCI 360 19 3
105 SOCI 375 16 3
106 SOCI 376 16 3
107 SOCI 432 17 3
108 SOCI 435 8 1
109 SPAN 413 15 2
110 SW 200 19 3
111 SWMS 210 13 2
112 SWMS 301 14 2
113 SWMS 384 20 4
114 SWMS 385 17 3
115 THTR 393 19 3
116 THTR 395 15 2
117 THTR 476 18 3
118 THTR 488 20 4
179
Appendix K: Notes Regarding Diversity Course Syllabi
COURSE MISSING SYLLABI NOTES
ENGL 445 No cooperation from department
ENGL 447 No cooperation from department
ENGL 448 No cooperation from department
ENGL 474 No cooperation from department
ENGL 478 No cooperation from department
GERO 380 Department unable to locate syllabus
GERO 435 Department unable to locate syllabus
HP 400 No cooperation from department
MDA 166 Department claims there is no record of an MDA 166
PPD 100 Department unable to locate syllabus
PPD 260 Department unable to locate syllabus
PPD 300 Department unable to locate syllabus
PPD 302 Department unable to locate syllabus
PPD 352 Department unable to locate syllabus
PPD 485 Department unable to locate syllabus
SOCI 356 Department claims course has not been taught in over ten years
SOCI 366 Department claims course has not been taught in over ten years
SOCI 437 Department claims course has not been taught in over ten years
SWMS 364
Course was never developed, however a flier advertising the class was
created
SWMS 455 Department claims course has not been taught in over ten years

COURSE ADDITIONAL NOTES:
HIST 101 Course has not been taught since Spring 2003
MDA 167 Course has not been taught in a while (syllabus we have is for Fall 1999)
REL 145 Department claims the syllabus was developed but course wasn't taught
SWMS 384 Course used to be called "Overcoming Prejudice"
180
Appendix L: Number of Students in the Transcript Data That
Took a Course by Course Number
Course # Total Missing
Total # of students
who took a course
Course 41 449 104
Course 42 462 91
Course 43 486 67
Course 44 496 57
Course 45 509 44
Course 46 521 32
Course 47 531 22
Course 48 535 18
Course 49 537 16
Course 50 538 15
Course 51 542 11
Course 52 542 11
Course 53 543 10
Course 54 545 8
Course 55 545 8
Course 56 545 8
Course 57 546 7
Course 58 547 6
Course 59 548 5
Course 60 548 5
Course 61 549 4
Course 62 550 3
Course 63 552 1
Course 64 552 1
Course 65 553 0
Course 66 553 0
Course 67 553 0
Course 68 553 0
Course 69 553 0
Course 70 553 0
Course 71 553 0
Course 72 553 0
Course 73 553 0
181
Appendix M: Information on the Diversity Course Variables
Table M.1: Frequency of the Variable "The Year in Which the First Diversity
Course was Taken"

All Students White Students Non-White Students
Year
Taken
# of
Students
% of
Population
# of
Students
% of
Population
# of
Students
% of
Population
Year 1 181 32.7% 129 33.7% 52 30.6%
Year 2 93 16.8% 67 17.5% 26 15.3%
Year 3 60 10.8% 43 11.2% 17 10.0%
Year 4 36 6.5% 27 7.0% 9 5.3%
Year 5 25 4.5% 20 5.2% 5 2.9%
Not at all 158 28.6% 97 25.3% 61 35.9%

Table M.2: Frequency of the Variable "The Number of Diversity Courses Taken by
the Students"

All Students White Students Non-White Students
Year
Taken
# of
Students
% of
Population
# of
Students
% of
Population
# of
Students
% of
Population
1 DC 289 52.3% 212 55.4% 77 45.3%
2 DC's 75 13.6% 55 14.4% 20 11.8%
3 DC's 17 3.1% 12 3.1% 5 2.9%
4 DC's 12 2.2% 6 1.6% 6 3.5%
5 DC's 2 0.4% 1 0.3% 1 0.6%
0 DC's 158 28.6% 97 25.3% 61 35.9%
182
Table M.3: Frequency of the Variable "The Typology Level of the first Diversity
Course Taken"

All Students White Students Non-White Students
Year
Taken
# of
Students
% of
Population
# of
Students
% of
Population
# of
Students
% of
Population
Typology 1 63 11.4% 49 12.8% 14 8.2%
Typology 2 133 24.1% 98 25.6% 35 20.6%
Typology 3 136 24.6% 87 22.7% 49 28.8%
Typology 4 63 11.4% 52 13.6% 11 6.5%
0 Taken 158 28.6% 97 25.3% 61 35.9%

Table M.4: The Overall Number of Diversity Courses Taken per Year and Overall
Number of Diversity Courses Taken from Each Typology

Year Taken # of Courses ! Typology Level # of Courses
Year 1 201 ! Typology 1 100
Year 2 120 ! Typology 2 182
Year 3 97 ! Typology 3 178
Year 4 88 ! Typology 4 96
Year 5 50 ! ! !

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Globalization and changing demographics in the United States have resulted in the need for higher education to prepare students for a global society. To this end, college and universities have responded in a number of ways including in the curriculum with required diversity courses. However the impact of this intervention on students is an area in need of further study. As a result, this quantitative study explores the impact of required diversity courses on measures of students’ values, attitudes, and beliefs.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses

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

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

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?

PDF

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

PDF

Kū i ke ao: Hawaiian cultural identity and student progress at Kamehameha Elementary School

PDF

Postsecondary faculty attitudes, beliefs, practices, and knowledge regarding students with ADHD: a comparative analysis of two-year and four-year institutions

PDF

Exploring the promise of multicultural literature: a case study exploring the impact of the use of mulitucultural literature on the engagement of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

Innovative social support systems and the recruitment and retention of international students in U.S. higher education

PDF

The effects of online courses for student success in basic skills mathematics classes at California community colleges

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

Asset Metadata

Creator Nelson, Matthew (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/08/2010

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

Tag attitudes,beliefs,diversity,diversity courses,diversity initiatives,OAI-PMH Harvest,Typology,Values

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email islandnelson@gmail.com,nelsonma@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3520

Unique identifier UC1149023

Identifier etd-Nelson-4115 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-411833 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3520 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Nelson-4115.pdf

Dmrecord 411833

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Nelson, Matthew

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu