University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF DIVERSITY COURSES ON STUDENT-FACULTY

INTERACTIONS, CRITICAL THINKING AND SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT

by

Kevin John Bolen

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 Kevin John Bolen
ii

Dedication

To my loving and supportive family: my mother Wanda, my father Leonard, my
sister Kelley, my brother JR, my nieces Jessica and Holley, I dedicate this work to you.
To my grandmother Ruth, to my late grandfather John, to my late grandmother Meta, to
my late grandfather Clyde, I dedicate this work to you. To my cousin Brad and his
wonderful family Andrea, Ashlyn and Jillian, I dedicate this work. To the rest of the
Bolen family, to the rest of the Waldrop family, I dedicate this work to you. To Darrell
Bush, this work is as much yours as it is mine, and I dedicate it to you as well. And to my
future family, all of this work is for you.
iii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I thank God for getting me through this process. It’s been a
long and tedious journey…one that I never could have made without Him. He was
always there these past 34 years, & I thank Him for His love, mercy and grace.
Next, I must thank my family…Mom and Dad, I certainly don’t deserve parents
as wonderful as you. You’ve stuck with me through it all and I wouldn’t have blamed
you if you had ditched me for somebody else. Thank you for being patient with me and
loving me like nobody in this world can. You were always there, whether I needed
financial support, encouragement, financial support, love, financial support, helping me
move, emotional support…oh yeah, did I say financial support? In all seriousness, I
couldn’t have asked for better parents…I am truly blessed that I have you both and I love
you so very much. Kelley and JR, you are the most amazing, loving and supportive
siblings a guy could ever ask for. The years have gone by so fast…I just pray things will
slow down a little bit so I can have more time with you. I love y’all. Jessica and Holley,
you’re an inspiration to me. Whenever I was discouraged, all I had to do was look at your
pictures and you brought so much joy to my heart. You are wonderful nieces and I love
you both! To the rest of my family…thank you all and I love you.
To my Pastor and friend…I’m not even sure I’d be alive right now if it weren’t
for you, let alone finishing this degree. God has used you to save me more than once:
spiritually, emotionally and physically. Your prayers, your encouragement, your love and
your support have truly been a blessing. Thank you for always being there and for always
believing in me (especially when I didn’t). To all of the Bush fam, y’all are my family
iv

too. Thank you for helping me to get through all of this. I love y’all. To my church
family, GSM/DCC, thank you for your prayers over the years. I love y’all too!
Carlos, Vinay and Paul…y’all are like brothers to me. Thanks for everything.
Much love! K…you were there to get me through the toughest part, starting over for the
3
rd
time…thank you. To my USC colleagues, especially those in CAS/DSP, thank you for
always being willing to help and for checking on me. You’re the best! To Jessica G,
thank you for being such an awesome academic advisor! To my friends, thank you for the
calls, e-mails, & visits as I needed every last one of them. God bless y’all and I love you!
To Dr. John Slaughter, thank you for always being supportive, helpful and for
providing me with your amazing insight. To the DC3 crew…thank you for letting me
sneak into your group and for Denver and Le Peep...GO SPANKS!!! To Matt and Karen:
seriously, this never would have been finished if y’all hadn’t been around. Late nights at
the office, SPSS nightmares, emails/texts venting to each other…thank you for making
this possible. You’re amazing & I pray the best for y’all. Don’t forget the Kool-Aid!!!
Lastly, yet so VERY importantly, to my dissertation committee: Dr. Darnell Cole,
thank you for a chance…because I was ready to give up. I won’t ever forget you because
this was my final opportunity and you believed in me. Dr. Melora Sundt, thank you for
putting up with me for the past 11 years. It would have been easy to quit on me, but you
didn’t and I will be forever grateful for that. Dr. Patricia Tobey, thank you for always
looking out for me as I wouldn’t have known about this group if not for you. You’ve
always been so encouraging and supportive, and I appreciate you for that.
And finally…after 6 years of classes & 5 years of “writing”…it is finished.
v

Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables ix

List of Figures xi

Abstract xii

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Introduction of the Problem 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 12
Definition of Key Terms 13
Importance of the Study 17
Organization of the Study 18

Chapter 2: Review of Literature 19
Introduction 19
Theoretical Framework 21
Student Development Theory in Higher Education 22
Theoretical Foundation for the Importance of Diversity 27
Theory of Diversity and Learning 28
Diversity in Higher Education 29
Importance of Diversity 30
Impact of Diversity 32
Overview of Diversity Initiatives 36
Diversity Courses 36
Typology of Diversity Courses 37
Impact of Diversity Courses/Initiatives 38
Values, Attitudes and Beliefs 39
Prejudice Reduction 40
Course and Instructor Ratings 41
Impact of Student-Faculty Interactions on Student Outcomes 41
Academic Performance 41
Satisfaction with College 43
Intellectual and Personal Development 44
Factors Influencing Student-Faculty Contact 44
vi

Student Characteristics 45
Classroom Experiences 46
Institution Size and Peer Group 47
Critical Thinking and Social Engagement 48
Critical Thinking 48
Social Engagement 49
Conceptual Meaning of Critical Thinking and Social Engagement 50
Factors Influencing Critical Thinking and Social Engagement 51
Individual Characteristics 52
Major Declared 52
Diversity Courses and Other Diversity Experiences 52
Student-Faculty Interactions 52
Summary 53

Chapter 3: Methodology 54
Introduction 54
Sample and Population 56
Site Selection 56
Participant Selection 59
Instrumentation 59
Conceptual Framework 60
Data Sets 62
Cooperative Institutional Research Program 63
Western University Senior Survey 65
Transcript Data 68
Diversity Course Typology 69
Testing and Retesting 70
Data Collection 70
Data Analysis 71
Recoding and Computing New Variables 72
Additional Composite Variables 73
Diversity Course Variables 74
Descriptive Statistics 75
Factor Analysis 76
Reliability Tests 76
Regression Analysis 76
Validity and Reliability 77
Summary 78

Chapter 4: Analysis of the Data 79
Introduction 79
Similarities and Differences Between Non-White and White Participants 80
Participant Characteristics 80
Level of Parental Education 80
vii

Major Declared 82
Overall Characteristic Summation 82
Diversity at Western University 82
Diversity Course Participation 83
Other Diversity Experiences 86
Factor Analyses and Reliabilities for the Input and Output Variables 87
Student-Faculty Interaction Factor Analysis and Reliabilities (CIRP) 88
Student-Faculty Interaction Factor Analysis and Reliabilities (WUSS) 90
Critical Thinking and Social Engagement Factor Analysis and 92
Reliabilities (CIRP)
Critical Thinking and Social Engagement Factor Analysis and 95
Reliabilities (WUSS)
Summarizing the Development of the Composite Variables 98
Linear Regression Analysis 99
Regressions for Student-Faculty Interactions 99
Participant Characteristics 100
Major Declared 102
Pre-College Student-Teacher Interactions 102
Diversity Courses 103
Other Diversity Experiences 103
Summary of Student-Faculty Regressions 104
Regressions for Critical Thinking and Social Engagement 105
Participant Characteristics 106
Major Declared 107
Pre-College Critical Thinking and Social Engagement Skills 108
Diversity Courses 108
Other Diversity Experiences 108
Student-Faculty Interactions 109
Summary of Critical Thinking and Social Engagement Regressions 109

Chapter 5: Summary, Implications, Recommendations and Conclusion 111
Introduction 111
Summary of the Study 111
Student-Faculty Interactions and Diversity Courses 115
Critical Thinking, Social Engagement and Diversity Courses 117
Overview of Correlates in the Student-Faculty Interaction Analysis 118
Participant Characteristics 119
Major Declared 120
Pre-College Student-Teacher Interactions 120
Diversity Courses 121
Other Diversity Experiences 121
Overview of Correlates in the Critical Thinking and Social 123
Engagement Analysis
Participant Characteristics 123
viii

Pre-College Critical Thinking and Social Engagement Skills 123
Diversity Courses 124
Other Diversity Experiences 125
Student-Faculty Interactions 125
Delimitations and Limitations 126
Implications and Recommendations 129
Strategy for Faculty 130
Policy and Administrative Implications 131
Research Recommendations 133
Conclusion 135

References 137

Appendices
Appendix A: Diversity Course Requirement Guidelines 144
Appendix B: Diversity Committee Course Review Sheet 146
Appendix C: Committee on Diversity Requirement Courses 147
Appendix D: Typology of Diversity Courses 148
Appendix E: Western University’s Freshman Profile and Admission 149
Information (2004-2005)
Appendix F: Role and Mission of Western University 150
Appendix G: Full Model of Variables Used to Answer Research 151
Question #1 (Student-Faculty Interactions)
Appendix H: Full Model of Variables Used to Answer Research 152
Question #2 (Critical Thinking and Social Engagement)
Appendix I: All Variables Used in the Study with Value Labels 153
and Coding
Appendix J: 2004 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) 155
Instrument
Appendix K: 2008 Western University Senior Survey (WUSS) 159
Instrument
Appendix L: Diversity Courses offered at Western University 169
(2004-2008)
Appendix M: Diversity Course Syllabus Rating Rubric 174
Appendix N: Notes Regarding Diversity Course Syllabi 175
Appendix O: Summary of Significant Student and Institutional 176
Variables with Research Questions

ix

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Variables Used from CIRP for Student-Faculty Interactions 64
Model

Table 3.2: Variables Used from CIRP for Critical Thinking and 65
Social Engagement Model

Table 3.3: Variables Used from the WUSS for Student-Faculty 66
Interactions Model

Table 3.4: Variables Used from the WUSS for Critical Thinking and Social 67
Engagement Model

Table 3.5: Variables Used from Transcript Data for Both Models 68

Table 4.1: Descriptive Data of Student Participants 81

Table 4.2: Frequency of the Variable “The Year in Which the First 83
Diversity Course was Taken”

Table 4.3: Frequency of the Variable “The Number of Diversity Courses 84
Taken by the Students”

Table 4.4: Frequency of the Variable “The Typology Level of the First 85
Diversity Course Taken”

Table 4.5: The Overall Number of Diversity Courses Taken per Year and 85
Overall Number of Diversity Courses Taken from Each Typology

Table 4.6: Frequencies of Diversity Experiences 86

Table 4.7: Factor Analysis of Student-Teacher Interactions – CIRP 88

Table 4.8: Reliability for Factor Analysis of Student-Teacher 90
Interactions – CIRP

Table 4.9: Factor Analysis of Student-Faculty Interactions – WUSS 91

Table 4.10: Reliability for Factor Analysis of Student-Faculty 92
Interactions – WUSS

x

Table 4.11: Factor Analysis of Critical Thinking and Social Engagement 93
– CIRP

Table 4.12: Reliability for Factor Analysis of Critical Thinking and Social 95
Engagement – CIRP

Table 4.13: Factor Analysis of Critical Thinking and Social Engagement 96
– WUSS

Table 4.14: Reliability for Factor Analysis of Critical Thinking and Social 97
Engagement – WUSS

Table 4.15: Regression Coefficients for Student-Faculty Interactions 101

Table 4.16: Regression Coefficients for Critical Thinking and Social 106
Engagement

Table 5.1: Significant Input and Environmental Variables for Student-Faculty 122
Interactions

Table 5.2: Significant Input and Environmental Variables for Critical 126
Thinking and Social Engagement

xi

List of Figures

Figure 2.1: College Environment Affects Behavior 26

Figure 2.2: Student Behaviors Function as Environments 26

Figure 3.1: Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) Model for 61
Student-Faculty Interactions

Figure 3.2: Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) Model for Critical 62
Thinking and Social Engagement

xii

Abstract

This study examines the impact that diversity courses (DC’s), created to increase
social awareness on college campuses, have on 553 students’ interactions with faculty,
critical thinking and social engagement. Conducted at a large, private tier one research
institution, this study reviews a pre-college survey, post-college survey and student
transcripts using a quantitative approach through factor analyses, reliabilities and
multiple regressions. The findings suggest that the number of DC’s students take impacts
critical thinking and social engagement ( β = .089, p < .05). Participation in racial
awareness workshops and community service also significantly impact critical thinking,
social engagement and student-faculty interactions. These results reinforce the notion that
diverse interactions are essential to the development of the individual as well as the
collective whole.
1

Chapter 1
Overview of the Study

Introduction of the Problem
Institutions of higher education have adopted the term “diversity” as a means of
describing the presence of a variety of racial and ethnic groups, sexes, abilities, religions
and more, within a particular population. In an effort to increase racial and ethnic
diversity, colleges and universities have made note of the number of underrepresented
minorities (URM) enrolled in their institutions. From 1995 to 2005, total URM
enrollment in colleges and universities in the United States rose by 50 percent from 3.4
million students to 5 million students (ACE, 2008). Although the representation of
URM’s on college campuses have multiplied, “the presence of diversity should not be
seen as synonymous with the presence of equity” (Slaughter, 2003, p. 6). Contrary to
many assumptions, the goal of diversity is not achieved because there is an increase in
URM’s on campus, it is achieved by creating an atmosphere of “acceptance,” where
people of a variety of backgrounds are appreciated for their differences. If an institution
is working to achieve a welcoming campus climate for their students, then it will need to
adopt alternative methods of teaching acceptance in a diverse environment.
One of the approaches taken by numerous institutions has been introducing
diversity courses into the curriculum of the undergraduate populations (Cole & Sundt,
2009). These classes educate students on how to empathize with others different from
themselves by teaching them self-reflection, encouraging them to be honest about whom
2

they are and persuading them to view life from diverse perspectives. Immersing students
in a class that challenges their ways of thinking could ultimately have a positive effect on
how they view populations and cultures that are different from their own.
Research conducted by Sylvia Hurtado (2007) has shown that students who enroll
in diversity courses exhibit significantly more positive outcomes in relation to their view
of difference as an essential aspect of democracy, their ability to work with diverse
populations and their desire for change. Cole and Sundt (2009) argue that these types of
classes assist in the increase of cognitive thinking and improve student understanding and
value of ethnically dissimilar groups of people. These two bodies of research share
encouraging results for those involved in diversity courses, but for programs like these to
be effective, essential elements must be in place. The relationship between the student
and faculty member is one of those key components. It is this particular assumption that
this research will address, along with additional outcomes of diversity course intiatives.

Background of the Problem
The establishment of diversity courses would be inconsequential if not for a
history rooted in bigotry and hatred in the United States. Matters surrounding diversity,
equality and social justice have existed for centuries, yet American society still has
attached little importance to sustaining respectful relationships in a diverse world
(Slaughter, 2007). In the realm of education, it has only been in recent decades that major
political impacts regarding equity have been instituted. “Separate but equal” had been an
accepted doctrine in the U.S. since 1896, but in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
3

in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka legally ended segregation in the school
systems. Although this change was implemented over 50 years ago, the concern about
equity has persisted and is among one of the major trepidations for administrators and
faculty at institutions of Higher Education all over the U.S. (Slaughter, 2004). Since then,
the debate on how to create a more inclusive environment on college campuses has
captivated and intrigued many.
In 1961, affirmative action was established as a result of an executive order by
President Kennedy, mandating that all institutions receiving federal funds take action to
ensure that their practices are free of racial bias. In 1978, that order was challenged in the
U.S. Supreme Court case of Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke where a
Caucasian student applied and was denied admittance into the University of California
(UC), Davis medical school. Bakke filed suit and won on the grounds of discrimination,
citing that the school set aside spaces for students from “disadvantaged” backgrounds
thus eliminating spaces for students with higher grades and test scores. The decision
forced UC Davis to admit Bakke and end their special admissions program, but it also
ruled that institutions of higher education could consider race in their admissions
processes (Slaughter, 2007). The Bakke case held major implications on future decisions
surrounding the use of race consciousness in admissions, though none seems more
significant than the development of Ward Connerly’s Proposition 209 in California.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209 banning the use of race and
gender as a means of acceptance into all public institutions. Similarly in 1998, the state of
Washington passed Initiative 200, a measure abolishing preferential treatment based on
4

race and gender. A few years later in 2006, the state of Michigan deemed affirmative
action illegal in passing Proposal 2, legislation paralleling Proposition 209 and Initiative
200. Subsequently, in 2008, the state of Nebraska passed an anti-affirmative action
measure titled Initiative 424, again, banning any preferential treatment in college
admissions. The impact of these pieces of legislation has been felt all around the U.S.,
particularly in higher education, and can easily be seen in large, diverse cities like Los
Angeles, CA; Detroit, MI; Chicago, IL; New York, NY.
In an article (2007) written by Dr. John Brooks Slaughter, former President and
CEO of the National Action Council of Minorities in Engineering (NACME), he
discusses the impact that the passing of Proposition 209 (California) and Proposal 2
(Michigan) can have on higher education. One of the concerns he raised was in regards to
the enrollment of URM’s in the UC system. Slaughter stated that in 2006, there were
47,315 students who applied to UC Los Angeles (the largest pool of any university in the
nation). They accepted 12,219 students, 244 of which were African American (2 percent),
yielding 99 enrollees, the lowest number since 1973. In 1997, the year before Proposition
209 was implemented, African Americans accounted for 5.4 percent of the admitted
students. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2009), there were over 3.8 million
residents living in the city of Los Angeles in 2006, of which over 11 percent identified as
being African American (around 418,000 people). According to Slaughter (2007), around
10,000 African American students graduate from high school in Los Angeles every year.
It is interesting to note that, less than 100 African American students from all over the
nation enrolled at UCLA in 2006. In a city with a large population of African Americans,
5

and in a nation where almost 13 percent of its population is African American, it is
alarming to see a drastic decline in the number of African American enrollees at such a
renowned institution like UCLA. Although Proposition 209 was not the sole factor in this
drop, it was a contributor (Slaughter, 2007).
Slaughter (2007) not only addresses the waning number in admitted URM’s into
the UC system, but he discusses how the hiring of URM faculty has declined as well.
According to a 2002 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (as cited in Slaughter,
2007), “African American, Hispanic and American Indian scholars represent only 8
percent of the full-time faculty nationwide. And while 5 percent of the faculty is African
American, about half of them work at historically black institutions.” Slaughter (2007)
then shares that though this was a statistic from 2002, it has not changed much since.
Depriving URM students of mentors/role models that they can relate to and robbing non-
minority students of the exposure to well qualified URM professionals, clearly adds to
the racial tension, ignorance and bigotry within our educational system. With a number of
institutions being forced to abandon all policies related to race consciousness in
admissions, equity and access for students of diverse backgrounds has become
increasingly important.
“Diversity in the absence of equity is meaningless or, at best, of questionable
value” (Slaughter, 2004, p. 3). In an attempt to help increase access to universities for
URM’s and in hopes of creating a more diverse and equitable environment, affirmative
action was established. Part of its function was to promote equal opportunity which was
supposed to encourage a more welcoming and inclusive campus setting. Regrettably,
6

according to Slaugher (2004), it was met with intolerance by adversaries of affirmative
action who would rather foster division than establish positive relationships. Although
affirmative action aided a number of disadvantaged students in the admissions process of
higher education institutions, it became clear that with the passing of legislation like
Proposition 209 and Proposal 2, that it did little to institute a positive perception of equity
(2004). Adjustments needed to be made, and rather than expending energy towards legal
reforms, the leaders in higher education who were aware of the struggles for URM’s,
needed to maintain the focus of changing perceived notions of equity for educators,
administrators and students.
There are a variety of approaches that can be taken to address the concerns
regarding equity and diversity. Some proponents might target parents in an effort to reach
them so they can teach their kids about promoting equality in today’s society (Gonzalez-
Mena & Pulido-Tobiassen, 1999). Others might reach out to grade school students in
order to impact children at a younger age (1999). Another approach is to focus on those
leaders who will soon be contributing members of society, students currently enrolled in
institutions of higher education (1999).
In an effort to address the latter approach, some universities have added “diversity
courses” to their curriculums as part of the graduation requirement for a bachelor’s
degree (Cole & Sundt, 2008). At a private, tier-one research institution in California, the
focus is not only on raising awareness about difference, but there is an expectation that
students will gain exposure to analytical frameworks within which these issues
are to be understood and addressed, including social, political, cultural, ethical
and public policy analyses. It is the university’s goal to prepare students through
7

the study of human difference for responsible citizenship in an increasingly
pluralistic and diverse society (Western University Catalogue, 2009).

Studies have shown that there are many positive outcomes which are linked to students
who participate in diversity courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008; Hurado, 2007; Gurin, Dey,
Hurtado & Gurin, 2002). Other research has shown that interactions between faculty and
students can have an impact on the student’s experience and development (Cole, 2007,
2008). But can the experience of participating in diversity courses impact student-faculty
interactions? In addition, can the experience of those courses, along with student-faculty
interactions, have an impact on critical thinking and social engagement?
Professor George Yancy of Duquesne University believes it is possible. Dr.
Yancy (2009) has taken a controversial approach to teaching in his diversity courses, by
challenging his students to use “fearless speech” in classroom discussions and “fearless
listening” in response to those who speak. He lets his students know that he believes that
in order for people to become better human beings, they must be willing to give up
something. The price they pay comes in the form of relinquishing preconceptions,
arrogance and the sense of certainty. Additionally, he makes himself vulnerable by
admitting that he too has much to change in regards to the way he views others (Yancy,
2009). He believes that if he asks his students to take risks, he must be willing to do the
same. By revealing his own weaknesses, Yancy models the behavior he hopes to see from
his students, a classroom where there is mutual trust and respect. Due to the stance he
takes, Yancy (2009) had the opportunity to observe great transformation in his students;
the cynical becoming accepting and the ignorant acknowledging their weaknesses. It is
this type of connection with faculty that can make a difference in the lives of students.
8

Student-faculty interactions have been widely studied (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2008;
Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Terenzini & Wright, 1987)
over the years. Some researchers were curious about how student-faculty interactions
impacted academic performance (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Pascarella, Terenzini &
Hibel, 1978). Others were curious about how student-faculty interactions influenced
satisfaction with college (Pascarella, 1980; Wilson, Wood & Gaff, 1974). Then there
were some that were curious as to how student-faculty interactions affected intellectual
and personal development (Endo & Harpel, 1982; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1978). Some
even discussed the impact that student-faculty interactions had on critical thinking (Light,
2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004; Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella & Nora, 1995).
Then there is the other perspective to consider, what factors impact or predict
student-faculty interactions? Some studies have considered student characteristics as
influential (Astin, 1993; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979). Gamson (1967)
suggested that academic discipline and the faculty culture within that discipline can
impact student-faculty interactions. Wilson, Wood and Gaff (1974) proposed that
“accessibility cues” from faculty encourage students to interact more with faculty. Yet
others believe that an institution’s size matters when it comes to student-faculty
interactions (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983).
Given that students and faculty interact within the classroom, one thing to
consider is the pedagogy of the professor within each course and how that might impact
the student. Along with the desire to introduce diverse issues in curriculums, there
continues to be a growing trend for universities to incorporate opportunities for social
9

engagement (Ostrander, 2004). Learning experiences like these often bring about the
chance for individuals to challenge and develop their critical thinking skills. According to
Spiezio (2006), this is one of the best places to do this since critical thinking skills figure
prominently in most, if not all, college courses. As will be explained further in Chapter
2, there are multiple similarities between critical thinking and social engagement. Trying
to gain a better understanding of what factors impact them is a major aspect of this
research.
Taking all of these studies into consideration, in conjunction with the information
regarding diversity courses, it is clear that further research opportunities exist. If there is a
better understanding of how diversity courses impact the lives of students, changes can be
made to the structure of them in order to produce more positive outcomes. Knowing that
student-faculty interactions can have a major impact on the student experience, it seems
imperative that consideration be given to the impact that diversity courses can have on
student-faculty interactions. To take it further, consider the impact that diversity courses
and student-faculty interactions could then have on critical thinking and social
engagement. Knowing that one of the main purposes of these courses is to “equip our
students with the background knowledge and analytical skills which will enable them to
understand and respect differences,” as stated in the Diversity Course Requirement
Guidelines for WU (see Appendix A), one way to gauge the success of that purpose is to
evaluate any change in critical thinking and the social engagement of the student. These are
the main factors that this study will explore further by delving deeper into the relationship
between faculty and students in diversity courses at a private university.
10

Statement of the Problem
Higher education institutions are not only charged with the task of imparting
knowledge but also enhancing the student's overall development (Astin, 1993). A
significant aspect of that advancement is providing a diverse environment where students
are able to interact with and be respectful of others from different backgrounds. As
previously stated in this chapter, people assume that diversity has occurred when a
particular group looks or behaves in a manner different from the “norm.” However, the
appearance of difference does not necessarily mean that the overall objective of diversity
has been achieved (Slaughter, 2004). The fact that 63 percent of colleges and universities
in the U.S. had developed or were in the process of developing a diversity requirement in
2000 informs us that more work needs to be done to create welcoming campus climates
(Humphreys, 2000). In an effort to foster this type of growth, some colleges and
universities have developed diversity courses.
Understanding the development and effectiveness of diversity courses can be
traced back to multiple studies. These studies attempt to identify or predict the influence
of the college experience on students (Astin, 1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998). Having a better
understanding of the impact that colleges can have on students allows for the
development of programs and classes, like diversity courses, that can make a difference
in the lives and experiences of students. These classes provide an opportunity for students
to self-reflect as they explore the formation of their own attitudes toward other groups
11

and analyze the effects of those attitudes on their personal values surrounding culture,
politics and the like (Cole & Sundt, 2009). Diversity courses can also examine multiple
dimensions of human diversity. As a result, students in these courses should be able to
consider the social and cultural implications of these dimensions (Cole & Sundt, 2009).
Studying the relationship between the institution and the individual student has
created a springboard for further research into the relationship between the student and
the teacher (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2000, 2007, 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Such
studies examine the influence of student-faculty interactions on persistence, educational
aspirations, and student satisfaction, as well as intellectual and personal development.
Evaluating the outcomes of these findings shows the positive and negative influences of
student-faculty interactions. In addition, “…the importance of understanding student-
faculty interactions in post-secondary institutions is accentuated by the anticipated influx
of minority students, increased sensitivity to issues of diversity and equity, and external
pressures to improve the overall quality of education” (Cole, 2000, p. 2). However, this
leads us to some very important questions; what about the student-faculty interactions in
diversity courses? What impact can student-faculty interactions have on critical thinking
and social engagement? With this in mind, this study will explore the relationship
between the individual student and faculty member in a variety of diversity courses at a
private institution located in a large urban city. Therefore, exploring the main questions
of this study: To what extent do diversity courses impact student-faculty interactions at a
private, tier-one research institution? To what extent do diversity courses and student-
faculty interactions impact critical thinking and social engagement?
12

Purpose of the Study
As part of a larger research project funded by the Teagle Foundation, the intent of
this study is to investigate the impact diversity courses offered at a private, tier-one
research university have on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social
engagement. Hurtado (2007) & Gurin (1999) have discussed how people are questioning
the significance or importance of having diversity courses or similar required activities in
the university. One of the goals of this study is to show the importance of these courses
and how they can impact a student’s life. Through the analysis of a pre-existing data set
taken from surveys administered to students both prior to attending WU and during their
fourth year at WU, along with each student’s transcripts, outcomes will be studied to
better understand the impact these environments can have on student-faculty interactions,
critical thinking and social engagement. This in turn ought to assist administrators and
professors in structuring diversity courses in a manner that will be most beneficial for the
student, the faculty and the institution as a whole.

Research Questions
Based on prior empirical research, the following research questions guide this
study:
1. To what extent do diversity courses (in conjunction with pre-college
characteristics and other diversity experiences in college) impact student-faculty
interactions at a private, tier-one research institution?
13

a. What impact does the year that a student took their first diversity course have
on student-faculty interactions?
b. What impact does the number of diversity courses taken have on student-
faculty interactions?
c. What impact does the typology level of the first diversity course that the
student took have on student-faculty interactions?
2. To what extent do diversity courses (in conjunction with pre-college
characteristics, other diversity experiences in college and the student-faculty
interactions that students experience in college), impact critical thinking and
social engagement?
a. What impact does the year that a student took their first diversity course have
on critical thinking and social engagement?
b. What impact does the number of diversity courses taken have on critical
thinking and social engagement?
c. What impact does the typology level of the first diversity course that the
student took have on critical thinking and social engagement?

Definition of Key Terms
Following are definitions of key terms or frequently used acronyms, as used in this study:

AAC&U - Association of American Colleges and Universities

14

Acceptance – When discussing issues surrounding diversity, this term can be used to
show one of the desired outcomes in creating a supportive, diverse society. Rather than
tolerating or dealing with difference, acceptance models a welcoming approach and
appreciation for differences.

CIRP - Cooperative Institutional Research Program

Classroom Diversity – Learning about people from diverse backgrounds and having
experiences with diverse peers within the classroom environment (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado
& Gurin, 2002).

Critical Thinking – “A human cognitive process, with both purpose and self-regulatory
judgment. As a result of this process a person forms a judgment about what to believe or
what to do in a given context. In so doing, a person engaged in critical thinking uses a
core set of cognitive skills – analysis, interpretation, inference, explanation, evaluation,
and self-regulation – to form that judgment and to monitor and improve the quality of
that judgment” (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001, p. 3).

Diversity – Often used to describe the presence of a variety of racial and ethnic groups,
sexes, abilities, religions and more within a particular population. This term was meant to
help develop a sense of unity. However, opponents of affirmative action and equal rights
have used this word coupled with justice and fairness to create a divisive society, stating
15

that proponents of affirmative action have created a realm of division and separation by
acknowledging difference.

Fearless Listening – Showing the capacity to maintain an open conversation by
attempting to be non-defensive, taking ownership of ignorance, admitting to imperfection
and trying to remain vulnerable (Yancy, 2009).

Fearless Speech – A form of verbal expression where the one who speaks is encouraged
to speak whatever is on their mind without fear of punishment or penalty, even though it
may result in anger and/or misunderstanding (Yancy, 2009).

Formal Interactional Diversity – The frequency and quality of intergroup interactions
which lead to meaningful diversity experiences during college (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado &
Gurin, 2002).

GPA – Grade Point Average

HERI - Higher Education Research Institute

Social Engagement - Refers to opportunities, relationships or involvements that an
individual may have (whether positive or negative) when interacting with family, peers,
community members or society as a whole, knowing that the individual will have to
16

intellectually measure the costs and benefits of the interaction. This could include, but is
not limited to, community service, social activism and openness to other cultures.

Structural Diversity – The level of racial/ethnic diversity within a cohort of students, or
the numerical representation of diverse groups (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado & Gurin, 2002).

Student-Faculty Interaction – Any interaction that a student may have with a faculty
member, whether it is in the classroom or outside of the classroom, formal or informal,
personal or professional.

Tolerance – A term often used when discussing issues surrounding diversity, encouraging
others to tolerate (deal with) those different from themselves instead of accepting and
appreciating the differences that make people unique.

UC – University of California

Underrepresented Minority (URM) – Racial and ethnic populations who are
underrepresented in the field of education (both as students and professionals) relative to
the percentage of that racial or ethnic group in the total population. This includes, but is
not limited to, African Americans, Chicanos/Latinos, American Indians, Native Alaskans,
Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders.

17

U.S. – United States of America

WU – Western University, the site where this study was conducted

WUSS – Western University Senior Survey

Importance of the Study
In 1998, a public opinion poll found that 68 percent of their participants believed
that college students should be required to take at least one diversity course in order to
graduate (Humphreys, 2000). An even greater majority of 94 percent agreed that due to
the increase of diversity in the U.S., it is even more important to understand others that
are different from themselves. It has only been within the past 15 years that the majority
of diversity courses have been implemented (Humphreys, 2000), a rather short amount of
time to truly dissect each aspect of what makes one of these classes effective, thus
allowing minimal research that evaluates the impact that diversity courses can have.
Being able to explore ways that faculty and students can create an influential bond
through these courses could enhance the experience they have during their tenure at the
institution.
Another benefit to conducting this research is having a better understanding of
whether or not these courses are meeting their goals by studying their impact on critical
thinking and social engagement. Knowing this will offer insight in what to include for
future adaptations of these classes. Since a majority of institutions have created a
18

diversity initiative in some form (Humphreys, 2000), it would be beneficial to obtain this
information for all to profit from.
Lastly, the results of this study might be able to assist students in understanding
the impact of building a relationship with their instructors can have. Meeting with
professors has the potential to intimidate students, thus making them feel more alienated
in the educational process. Distinguishing these pertinent aspects of diversity courses can
greatly impact the overall student experience, thus shaping their future interactions with
peers, educators and their community through various opportunities of student-faculty
interactions and social engagement.

Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 provides a summary of the relevance for researching the effect that
diversity courses have on the relationship between faculty and students, critical thinking
and social engagement. Chapter 2 will review and discuss literature regarding diversity
courses, the impact of the relationship between faculty and students and critical thinking.
This will provide a theoretical framework for this study to build off of. Chapter 3 will
describe the research design, sample population, survey instruments, data collection and
analysis of the data. Chapter 4 will report findings and offer an analysis of the data for
each research question. Finally, Chapter 5 will summarize the study and offer
recommendations and implications for higher education administrators, policy makers
and future researchers.

19

Chapter 2
Review of Literature

Introduction
Sociocultural theory suggests that as people develop, their social and
psychological processes are influenced by the social and cultural context in which they
live and interact with others (Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993). Vygotsky, said to be one of the
people who forged the way for sociocultural theory, believes that social and cultural
institutions, like an elementary school, “channel the nature and focus of interpersonal
interactions, which in turn mediates the development of children's higher mental
functions (such as thinking, reasoning, problem-solving, mediated memory, and
language)” (Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993, p. 66). This can very easily be likened to the
countless colleges and universities that provide the social and cultural environments
where learning takes place for many adults.
Taking this into consideration, the significance of student-faculty interactions can
be simply explained, since according to Vygotsky’s theory, students would count on
faculty and others at the institution to provide environments of learning. Since these
relationships facilitate learning and development, critical thinking must be present.
According to Giancarlo and Facione (2001), critical thinking either grows over time, or it
remains the same as it did when it enters a new environment. If this is the case, a link has
been shown between student-faculty interactions and critical thinking, but how do
diversity courses then impact this relationship?
20

In an effort to educate students about a variety of diverse cultures and to facilitate
interracial interactions, many universities have developed diversity courses as part of the
required undergraduate curriculum. Classes like these encourage students to reflect on
their own beliefs as they integrate themselves into a multi-racial campus climate. The
hope is that students will benefit from these courses as they develop and mature during
their college experience. However, it is important to question what kind of impact these
courses are actually having within the campus community, in particular, the relationship
between faculty and students.
Research relating to the interactions of faculty and students has examined aspects
of persistence, aspirations, student satisfaction and intellectual development (Astin, 1993;
Cole, 2000, 2007, 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), yet little has been done to
investigate the impact of a particular course on student-faculty interactions or critical
thinking. Diversity courses, like all other courses, create an opportunity for faculty and
students to cultivate a unique relationship. In this respect, one might wonder what
specific type of connection a diversity course might establish between faculty and
student, especially since many researchers consider student-faculty interactions to be at
the core of the learning experience, influencing the educational satisfaction of all students
(Astin, 1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Multiple
studies (Gurin, 1999; Hurtado, 2007; Nelson-Laird, Engberg & Hurtado, 2005) have
reported significant positive outcomes from students participating in diversity initiatives,
like taking a diversity course. It is then natural to assume that similar outcomes would
21

come from students taking diversity courses, and this is what this study proposes to find
out.
In this chapter, a variety of literature and empirical studies are reviewed,
providing a foundation of research that examines diversity courses, student-faculty
interactions and critical thinking. A theoretical framework has been provided as a base
for this study to build on using sociocultural theory. This is followed by further
theoretical support, in addition to studies and empirical research regarding diversity
courses, student-faculty interactions, critical thinking. Several studies will be reviewed,
showing the different impacts these factors have on students, as well as the multiple
variables that impact these factors.

Theoretical Framework
In an effort to make better sense out of life, people develop different theories to
explain a variety of things (Evans et al., 1998). Whether it is in education, science,
religion, math or any other discipline, the practice of theorizing is an essential process to
gaining knowledge. As one might assume, not all theories have equal value to educators.
In order for a theory to be useful, it should incorporate and exhibit certain qualities like
being able to serve as a guide for those trying to apply it (1998). These attributes might
also include, but are not limited to: clarity, consistency, explicitness and
comprehensiveness (1998). A good theory should be able to predict a wide variety of
behaviors. It should also be simple to follow in its application. Lastly, a superior theory
should be able to generate hypotheses that are useful for future research (1998). As
22

mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory provides the
frame for this study, however there are numerous theories that are related to this study,
which are shared below.

Student development theory in higher education. Some theories in higher
education have existed for quite some time. One of the cornerstones to basic
developmental theory is an equation developed by Kurt Lewin in 1936 (Evans et al.,
1998). In this theory, Lewin explains how his equation, B = f (P x E), will help to
understand why people behave the way they do. Behavior (B) is a function (f) of the
interaction (x) of a person (P) and their environment (E). Simply stated, a person’s
characteristics, background and level of development should be examined along with the
different factors related to their environment, such as where they live, study and work.
Evaluating these things in conjunction with each other, will aide in the explanation of the
person’s behavior (1998).
In 1966, Nevit Sanford (as cited in Evans et al., 1998) wrote a book discussing the
idea of student development being a function of person-environment interaction. In his
theory, he discussed three developmental conditions: readiness, challenge and support.
As Sanford hypothesized, “readiness” described how individuals are not able to exhibit
certain behaviors until they are ready to do so. When they are “challenged,” the goal is to
find the optimal amount of dissonance. With too much of a challenge, a person might try
to escape or ignore it because of the level of pressure they experience. Too little of a
challenge could result in the person feeling safe and never developing. Directly related to
23

the level of challenge is the amount of “support” a person has. Sanford felt that the
amount of challenge an individual could tolerate, was a function of how much support
that person had. This level varies for each individual depending on their environment. For
a student taking a diversity course, the faculty member acts as the facilitator of the
challenge and support conditions, and in some cases, a student’s peers could do the same.
In order for a student to truly experience college, where they can have an
opportunity to be challenged and supported, they must find a way to become involved.
Astin (1984, p. 297) defines involvement as, “the amount of physical and psychological
energy that the student devotes to the academic experience.” In addition, he states that
involvement refers to what the student actually does as behavior, rather than the student’s
thoughts or feelings. His approach is to focus on the factors that facilitate development
rather than examining development itself (Evans et al., 1998). For student learning and
growth to take place, they must actively engage in their environment. Astin (1984)
provides 5 basic postulates of involvement theory. The postulates are as follows:
1. Involvement refers to the investment of physical and psychological energy in
various objects.
2. Regardless of its object, involvement occurs along a continuum. Different
students manifest different degrees of involvement in a given object, and the
same student manifests different degrees of involvement in different objects at
different times.
3. Involvement has both quantitative and qualitative features.
24

4. The amount of student learning and personal development associated with any
educational program is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of
student involvement in that program.
5. The effectiveness of any education policy or practice is directly related to the
capacity of that policy or practice to increase student involvement.
Given this assessment, it is clear that student affairs professionals, as well as other
educators, need to create a multitude of opportunities for students to involve themselves
in campus life, both inside the classroom and outside of it as well (Evans et al., 1998). To
be able to engage students and encourage their involvement is an even greater reason that
student-faculty interactions should increase.
Vincent Tinto (1998) agrees with Astin’s (1993) theory that involvement in the
college community increases academic integration and that academic integration
enhances a student’s experience within academic systems and communities. Tinto (1998)
also explains that social and academic integration in college is positively correlated with
persistence. In addition, he adds that individuals, who are both academically and socially
integrated, are more likely to persist than those who are only involved in one of those
realms. As a recommendation, Tinto (1998) encourages institutions to create
communities not only for the students, but for the faculty as well since they too are
subject to the positive results of involvement theory. This will encourage faculty to
engage with faculty and staff from differing departments, as well expose them to a
student population outside of their academic departments.
25

An article by Hurtado, Dey, Gurin and Gurin (2003) discusses different schools of
thought on the interactions between behavior and environment. The first belief they
examine is how behavior is an indicator of the environment that a person is in. Figure 2.1
illustrates how all aspects of a student’s environment, including their physical
environment, the structural diversity of the campus they attend and the organizational
culture all influence their behavior. As Vygotsky suggests, students are learning from
those around them, so it would make sense that a person would behave as their
environment encourages them to behave. Thus, if faculty are modeling an behaviors that
encourage positive interaction, development of critical thinking and participation in
social engagement, students should follow in their footsteps.
Hurtado et al. (2003) also share another approach to student engagement which
describes how students’ behaviors with people and programs act as mediating
environmental factors when predicting student outcomes (see Figure 2.2). Student
behavior can be shaped by different elements of their environment, but in turn,
educational outcomes are a result of that behavior. This shows that without students,
there is no purpose for a college environment, and without a college environment, the
students would be at a loss.

26

Figure 2.1

College Environment Affects Behavior (Adapted from Hurtado et al., 2003)

Figure 2.2

Student Behaviors Function as Environments (Adapted from Hurtado et al., 2003)

Student Behaviors
Attending Diversity Class
Attending Diversity Events
Interacting with Faculty
Social Engagement
Developing Critical Thinking

Environments
Diversity Course Classroom
Diversity Events
Any Classroom with Faculty
Surrounding Community
College Campus
Organizational
Culture/Climate
Faculty Modeling Behavior
for students to follow
(Critical Thinking & Social
Engagement)
Physical Environment
Classroom design and
location
Campus design and location
Number of students in class
Structural Diversity
Racial and Ethnic
Composition of Students,
Faculty and Staff on Campus
Behaviors as
Outcomes
Student-Faculty
Interactions encourage
critical thinking and
social engagement

27

Theoretical foundation for the importance of diversity. When Erik Erikson (1946)
introduced the concept of identity while exploring social development issues, he stated
that a sense of personal and social identity was uniquely formed during late adolescence
and early adulthood. In shaping identity, two elements are involved: a persistent
sameness within oneself and a persistent sharing with others (Erikson, 1946). Identity
develops best in young people, Erikson (1946) hypothesized, when they are given a
psycho-social moratorium. This is described as a time and place where adolescents can
experiment with a variety of social roles before committing themselves permanently to a
state of being, whether that is in a relationship, in an occupation, with a social group or
with their overall philosophy of life (Erikson, 1946; Hurtado et al., 2003). In
experiencing this moratorium, the hope is that the young individual will encounter
diversity at some point in their life and include that in their decision-making process
(Hurtado et al., 2003).
Research by Feldman and Newcomb (1969) states that the students who were
most challenged by their college environment would also undergo the greatest changes
during their tenure. They theorized that students who came from an environment that
created the most “discontinuity” with their college environment would experience the
greatest transformations. In addition, college will have the greatest impact on students
whose ethnic backgrounds are “incongruent” with the ethnic backgrounds of those who
represent the majority of students in that institution (Feldman & Newcomb, 1969).
Diane Ruble (1994) provides a model that ties developmental changes to life
transitions, such as going to college. She defines transitions as the significant moments in
28

development where new situations are presented in which the individual has little or no
knowledge of, thus they will experience uncertainty. The early stages of this transition
are extremely significant as people seek out information to help them make sense of the
situation they are experiencing, Ruble (1994) calls this the phase of construction. Unless
people are able to retreat to a comfort zone, they should experience some type of
cognitive growth. Opportunities for students to experience the phase of construction are
potentially unlimited on a college campus since the structural diversity can provide such
a variety of transitional moments. This is why institutions of higher education should
bring diverse students together, in order to interact, discover, argue and agree (Hurtado et
al., 2003). Stimulating and creating opportunities of development through diversity will
enhance and encourage the development of the overall student. This too, can be
accomplished through diversity courses and fostered through student-faculty interactions.

Theory of diversity and learning. Some have hypothesized that diversity within
the student body allows for a type of experience that disrupts the continuity of everyday
lives (Hurtado, 2007). Due to this interference, students are provoked to engage in a more
active thinking process, which then encourages them to avoid ethnocentrism and consider
the views of their diverse peers (Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado et al., 2003; Hurtado, 2007).
Hurtado (2007) goes on to suggest that people are cognitively inclined to rely on what is
familiar in the form of habits, behaviors, beliefs and stereotypes about others. However,
if those things are to change, some developmental theorists believe that social interaction
is necessary as it elicits a disturbance in a person’s cognitive equilibrium, stimulating
29

growth and development in the individual (Chickering & Reisser, 1991; Piaget, 1975).
With the right amount of challenge and support (Sanford, 1966), these moments of
insecurity can lead to positive development and maturity.
In an effort to broaden the perspective of those concerned with students and the
college environment, Hurtado et al. (2003) discuss a number of concerns that they believe
should be taken into consideration for the future. They suggest that administrators keep in
mind the role that diversity plays in the education of all students, not just one particular
group. Next, their desire is to bridge higher education literature with literature from
specific disciplines as a way to provide a conceptual basis when trying to understand the
benefits of diversity. Lastly, they hope their research will aide in advancing further
studies that probe into the relationship of diversity and learning. Hurtado et al. (2003)
recommend studying the nature of learning that occurs through the many campus
diversity initiatives that exist. Being able to understand what strategies teachers can
employ that create moments of disequilibrium or “discontinuity” (Feldman & Newcomb,
1969) as a means of producing changes in perspective, should be accomplished through
future research that is classroom-based.

Diversity in Higher Education
As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, this nation has been presented
with the ideal opportunity for everyone to teach, learn, accept and appreciate the diverse
society we live in. Now is the time for people to take action and be willing to benefit
from one another’s experiences and wisdom. However, fear, discomfort and uncertainty
30

often cause division amongst people leaving many to wonder how we can improve the
condition we are in. Some believe it can start with opportunities facilitated in higher
education institutions, since this is where many of the next generation of leaders are
coming from. In an effort to support this plan of attack, the importance and impact of
diversity in higher education will be discussed in this section.

Importance of diversity. Diversity can be defined and described in a number of
ways, and it could potentially include a variety of elements. One particular study
identified three terms describing how a student might be exposed to diversity on a college
campus: structural diversity, classroom diversity and informal interactional diversity
(Gurin et al., 2002). Structural diversity refers to the racial and ethnic composition of the
student body at an institution. Incorporating history, knowledge and experiences of
diverse groups into a curriculum is defined as classroom diversity. Informal interactional
diversity involves the frequency and quality of interactions with individuals or groups
from diverse backgrounds outside of the classroom. It is through at least one, if not all, of
these experiences that students will have the opportunity to experience and understand
the significance of diversity in higher education.
Although college campuses appear to be an excellent forum for the discussion of
diversity, the abolishment of affirmative action has created uncertainty and confusion
about the role diversity should play in higher education caused by the multiple pieces of
legislation like Proposition 209 and Proposal 2 that disallow the consideration of race and
gender in the admissions process, as mentioned in Chapter 1. According to Sylvia
31

Hurtado (2007), there is no ambiguity. The link between diversity with the central
educational and civic missions of higher education is obvious. In 2005, the U.S. Census
Bureau estimated that half of the population would be racial/ethnic minorities by mid-
century. In light of this, the educational benefits of diversity should be considered for any
institution’s long-term effort in transforming undergraduate education.
Sylvia Hurtado (2007) suggests two main tasks for linking diversity with the
central educational and civic missions of higher education. The first is to prepare the next
generation of leaders as they undertake the challenge of advancing social progress given
the changing demographics of this nation. The second is to develop comprehensive and
consistent diversity awareness programs that are well received on campus and are in-line
with the institution’s civic missions of the undergraduate population. Accomplishing
these assignments will help to achieve a greater coherence and understanding of diversity
amongst all students, thus encouraging interracial relationships and helping to unite a
divided nation.
Diversity not only prepares students for their educational experience at college,
but what they learn from diverse experiences is what they can successfully apply as they
seek future employment. The business community heavily relies on colleges and
universities to educate and develop students’ cognitive and social skills in an effort to
produce high quality employees (Hurtado et al., 2003). This includes the employee’s
ability to work effectively with supervisors, colleagues and customers of diverse
backgrounds. Having an open mind and greater understanding for those who have
32

differing experiences is a character trait that employers are now looking for (2003). Each
of these characteristics can be taught and learned in a college environment.

Impact of diversity. Alexander Astin (1993) investigated the educational benefits
that students gain from socializing with others from another race. In holding precollege
characteristics constant, Astin found that interacting across race was correlated to and
increased together with cultural awareness, a person’s commitment to racial
understanding and with a commitment to the individual’s surrounding environment. In
addition, his research showed that interracial relationships are positively correlated with
greater levels of academic development and increased satisfaction with college.
In order to establish interracial relationships, there has to be a variety of
ethnicities represented on campus. Dramatic changes have occurred over time within the
realm of higher education as a result of the enrollment of women and underrepresented
minorities (URM’s) (Hurtado et al., 2003). For example, the increase of structural
diversity on campuses is a direct effect of the application of affirmative action (2003).
Another aspect of institutional transformation is classroom diversity. Chang (1996)
explains this as being a product of the recruitment and hiring of faculty responsible for
incorporating content and research of different groups into their curriculum (as cited in
Hurtado et al., 2003). Adding academic programs such as ethnic studies and women’s
studies, offering multicultural programs and events on campus, and making diversity
awareness a priority are examples of how colleges have changed (2003). On many
occasions, institutions have also offered students the option of engaging in informal
33

interactional diversity. For a number of students, this serves as their first opportunity to
get to know people from various racial and ethnic backgrounds, providing them with
some of their most influential college experiences, life-long friendships and educational
opportunities that helped to change prior beliefs (Astin, 1993; Hurtado et al., 2003).
Anthony Antonio (2001) is another researcher who explored the impact of
diversity through an empirical study regarding the developmental aspect of the
experiences of students on a multicultural campus. His goal was to address the impact of
racial diversity on racial understanding, cultural awareness and interracial interaction.
One of the factors that played into the results of the study was balkanization, which
defined by Anthony is the tendency for individuals to group themselves by race. In the
results of his study, Antonio discovered that balkanization hindered the development of
interracial interaction, but in contrast, he also reported a significant number of students
who have developed close relationships with people of different races and ethnicities. As
an addendum however, he suggested that what appeared to be balkanization could have
been viewed as surface segregation. Apart from this, the reality is that perceptions of
segregation may suggest just how powerful campus images of racial isolation can affect
the student body and help to shape the psychological aspect of the campus climate.
Antonio believes that the prevalence of diverse friendships opens up a perfect opportunity
for faculty and staff to improve racial climates by helping to reduce perceptual barriers to
interracial interaction. In order to reduce barriers and increase interracial relationships,
research results suggest that this can be achieved through a variety of ways including
34

positive interactions with diverse peers and diversity course curricula (Antonio, 2001;
Chang, 2001; Hurtado, 2007).
Additional research supports the positive effects of interactions amongst a diverse
group of students. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado and Gurin (2002), found that informal
interactions with diverse peers was consistently influential on numerous educational
outcomes, but in order to accomplish this, there must be a presence of a diverse student
body. The researchers found that trying to incorporate the educational benefits of
diversity without a diverse student body was not as effective.
Emerging research suggests that there is a better understanding of the optimal
conditions for preparing and developing a diverse society (Hurtado, 2007). There is
greater appreciation of the benefits of such a community and an awareness of how
different approaches impact students in various ways. Knowing this, it is important to
further the research in an effort to improve the practices of diversity initiatives so that
there is a strong rationale for instituting such programs (2007). Assuming there will be
further arguments on efforts for increasing access, support and retention of URM’s, as
seen in the cases of California, Washington, Michigan and Nebraska, institutions will
need profound empirical research and tremendous support from individuals who have
experienced the benefits of diversity, to justify their efforts as they attempt to further
develop diversity initiatives (2007).
Sylvia Hurtado (2007) launched a study involving 10 public universities,
monitoring change in undergraduate behaviors. Her results indicated that students, who
reported to have positive interactions with diverse peers, also had higher scores on tests
35

that measured complex thinking and awareness about other people’s behavior, culture
and perspectives. In contrast, students reporting negative interactions with diverse peers
were the least skilled in intergroup relations. Additionally, this group displayed scores on
outcomes of the study that were lower than the group who had positive interactions.
These outcomes included interest in issues regarding poverty, concern for the public
good, beliefs in social equality and engaging in civic missions. From these results,
Hurtado (2007) deduced that students are more likely to retreat to spaces of comfort and
familiarity when encountered with a conflict in intergroup relations, suggesting that
educators should be required to assist students in understanding and developing positive
reactions to intergroup conflict.
Mitchell Chang (2001) studied the links between racial diversity and positive
educational outcomes on a college campus. Using survey data from the 1985 CIRP
survey and the 1989 follow up survey for the same students, Chang discovered that
although it was small, campus diversity had a significant impact on student experiences.
The more diverse a campus was, the more likely students are to socialize across racial
lines and discuss issues surrounding race and ethnicity. These types of activities, in turn,
have a positive impact on student retention, overall college satisfaction and self-
confidence among all students.
In a report supporting the positive effects of diversity, submitted for litigation
(Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. & Grutter et al. v. Bollinger et al.), Patricia Gurin (1999)
confirms that there is a direct and strong effect on learning when racial diversity and
student involvement in activities related to diversity are present on a college campus. She
36

also reports that these same variables impact the way students conduct themselves later in
life, sometimes disrupting any patterns of racial separation that students had prior to their
diverse college experiences. In addition, Gurin (1999) reported that students who had
taken the most diversity courses and interacted the most with diverse groups of people
during college, produced the most cross-racial interactions five years after their departure
from the institution.

Overview of Diversity Initiatives
Many college campuses already possess some sort of diversity initiative as a
means of educating the younger generation (Hurtado, 2007). As stated in Chapter 1,
Humphreys (2000) reported that 63 percent of colleges and universities verified that they
have some type of diversity requirement in place, or they are in the process of developing
one. This demonstrates that the majority of institutions nationwide believe that adopting
and implementing diversity initiatives are vital aspects of a college education. The
following is information regarding diversity initiatives taking place at a variety of
campuses.

Diversity courses. In the study by Hurtado (2007), as mentioned previously, she
found that students who enrolled in diversity courses displayed higher scores on 19 of 24
outcomes than those who did not. These outcomes included, but were not limited to,
interest in issues regarding poverty, concern for the public good, beliefs in social equality
and engaging in civic missions. Consequently, those who also participated in diversity
37

related extracurricular activities scored even higher on 17 of the 24 outcomes from the
study. All of these outcomes suggest benefits in teaching about diversity.
Each institution has the potential to create its own diversity initiatives, keeping in
mind the different theories that could be useful in the application of the courses.
Following is a portion that Western University, the institution site for this study, has used
as its Purpose and Rationale of the diversity requirement (for full text, see Appendix A):
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 (Western University, 2009).

With the above stated objectives, WU presents a liberal education that aims to engage
and stimulate cognitive thinking amongst its students. As the institution shares its
commitment to change with its scholars, the role in teaching students how to live and
operate in a diverse society is clear.

Typology of diversity courses. Due to variations in diversity course content, it is
difficult to gauge the impact of the classes on a broad scale. As a result of this concern
and in an effort to control for variability in their research, Cole & Sundt (2008) developed
a typology for diversity courses specific to Western University. They accomplished this
by assessing the potential of these courses in fulfilling the diversity requirement as
38

defined by the Academic Records and Registrar’s Office at WU (see Appendices A, B, &
C). In the assessment, the classes were divided into four categories: introductory, basic,
intermediate, and advanced (see Appendix D). In grouping courses by content, variability
can be controlled for when running a statistical analysis. This template can act as a model
for all other institutions that wish to study the impact of multiple diversity courses.
Despite the difficulty in trying to assess multiple courses of varying structures,
researchers support the use of a variety of diversity initiatives (Gurin et al., 2002).
“Classroom diversity, diversity programming, opportunities for interaction and learning
across diverse groups of students in the college environment now constitute important
initiatives to enhance the education of all students” (Gurin et al., 2002, p. 362). Since
diversity covers multiple themes, it would be unfair to all involved if it were combined
into one course. This study then goes on to state how institutions should pay more
attention to the types of diverse experiences students have both inside the classroom and
outside, thus encouraging more faculty involvement.

Impact of Diversity Courses/Initiatives
When discussing diversity initiatives, it is important to be aware of the impact
they can have. What works for one institution may not work for another. Understanding
the influence of these programs allows faculty and administrators to properly gauge the
best application for their campus. Knowing this also helps to predict the outcomes for the
student population.

39

Values, attitudes and beliefs. Research conducted by Gurin et al., (2002),
examines the impact that classroom diversity and informal interactional diversity can
have on learning and democracy outcomes. Using data from the University of Michigan
and the CIRP, they provide a number of results, offering additional information in the
debate about diversity and education. The research findings state that individual students
benefit when they are engaged with a peer group that is diverse, supporting those
institutions that have introduced diversity initiatives onto their campuses (Gurin et al.,
2002). They recommend helping faculty to develop a pedagogy that takes advantage of
the diverse perspectives that can be offered in a college class. Additionally, they suggest
that institutions need to create a more supportive environment where disequilibrium and
experimentation can occur. Increasing interactions amongst a diverse student population
is one way to accomplish this. In summation, Gurin et al., (2002) state that educators
must intentionally structure opportunities for students to build relationships with peers
that come from different backgrounds, leaving the comfort of their own groups, leading
into a lifestyle that fosters the growth of a diverse society. Opportunities like these can be
achieved through the development of diversity course curricula.
However, diversity courses do not necessarily result in a permanent change in
values and perspectives by a student. Chang (2002) discusses how completing the
diversity course requirement by taking one class, enables students to critically think about
difference in regards to a particular group. Due to the lack of empirical evidence, Chang
is not convinced that learning about diversity in one arena extends to the awareness and
40

prejudice reduction in another area. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the overall impact
of these courses without seeing additional longitudinal studies.

Prejudice reduction. A study by Hogan and Mallett (2005) explored issues
regarding prejudice reduction. Initially they identified three main characteristics of
racism: denial that racism still exists; resentment towards URM’s; and antagonism
towards entities that support social equality. In their findings, they discussed how
intergroup tolerance improved due to students being a part of diversity courses. However,
upon further investigation, they noticed that denial was reduced, resentment was not, and
antagonism was only temporarily reduced. As a result, there is still some uncertainty as to
the longevity of overall impact.
In a report supporting the positive effects of diversity (Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et
al. & Grutter et al. v. Bollinger et al.), Patricia Gurin (1999) confirms that there is a direct
and strong effect on learning when racial diversity and student involvement in activities
related to diversity are present on a college campus. She also reports that these same
variables impact the way students conduct themselves later in life, sometimes disrupting
any patterns of racial separation that students had prior to their diverse college
experiences. In addition, Gurin (1999) reported that students who had taken the most
diversity courses and interacted the most with diverse groups of people during college,
produced the most cross-racial interactions five years after their departure from the
institution.

41

Course and instructor ratings. Cole and Sundt (2008) obtained course survey data
at an institution where they were able to compare course and instructor ratings between
diversity courses and other general education (GE) courses. Aware of the student
resistance in taking diversity courses, they were surprised to discover that diversity
courses had scored higher than other GE courses. These findings (Cole & Sundt, 2008)
suggested to them that when considering students' perceived differences between
diversity courses and other GE courses, one is able to determine with confidence that the
documented effects are a function of the diversity courses.

Impact of Student-Faculty Interactions on Student Outcomes
Many believe that student-faculty interactions are the essence of the learning
experience in college (Astin, 1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969; Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991). They also feel it is a large factor when considering students’ satisfaction with their
overall educational experience. Some people feel that at many of today’s institutions,
student affairs professionals have assumed the role of the professional personnel that
students build relationships with outside of the classroom, but it does not negate the fact
that student-faculty interactions are still considered an essential piece to the student’s
development (Astin, 1993; Feldman & Newcomb, 1969). Described in the following
sections is the impact that student-faculty interactions can have on student outcomes.

Academic performance. Prior achievements and aptitude are part of what
determines a student’s academic achievement in college (Pascarella, 1980). Other factors,
42

such as attitudes and institutional environment can have an impact as well. Additionally,
student-faculty interactions can effect a student’s academic achievement, as well as
experiences that stretch outside of the classroom (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983;
Pascarella, Terenzini & Hibel, 1978).
Patrick Terenzini and Thomas Wright (1987) reported that during the first three
years of college, students’ academic integration was influenced mainly through the
frequency, quality and perceptions of informal student-faculty contact. However, a
student’s senior year produced the most indirect impact on a student’s overall academic
development. What was then discovered by Terenzini and Wright (1987) was that the
more integrated students are in the academic and social environments on campus, they
more they will gain from their experiences at college. As a result, student-faculty
interactions had less to do with academic success than did the student’s integration into
the campus life.
A longitudinal study conducted at Syracuse University by Pascarella, Terenzini
and Hibel (1978), used 498 students to investigate the relationship between informal
student-faculty contact and academic achievement. Their hypothesis was that the
frequency of informal student-faculty contact was related to the differences between
actual and predicted academic achievement. From the results, Pascarella et al. discovered
that students who discussed course related issues or future career goals with faculty were
significantly associated with the difference between predicted and actual student
academic performance (Cole, 2000). They also found that as the frequency of interactions
increased, the relationship between informal student-faculty interactions and academic
43

performance decreased, thus showing that the most significant interactions in relation to
academic performance are those at the beginning of the relationship.
Darnell Cole (2008) conducted a study that examined the effects that constructive
criticism from faculty can have on URM students’ GPA. As defined by Cole (2008),
constructive criticism is a pedagogical strategy that faculty use in evaluating a student’s
work and academic performance by offering feedback. As part of the research, Cole
analyzed data derived from random samples of African American and Hispanic students
who had completed a survey from CIRP in 1999 and a follow up survey in 2003.
Recognizing the reported risk of how students interpret negative feedback, Cole’s
findings suggest that constructive criticism provides opportunities for faculty to enhance
the academic success of URM students, making room for the increase of a student’s
GPA.

Satisfaction with college. Not all research linking student-faculty interactions with
college satisfaction has resulted in reliable findings (Pascarella, 1980; Wilson, Wood &
Gaff, 1974). However, Astin (1993) was able to control for a variety of incoming
characteristics of the student. As a result, he reported that informal student-faculty
contact led to a positive and significant correlation on many different measures of student
satisfaction including: overall environment; student-faculty interactions; classroom
teaching; friendships; and college administrators.
In the study conducted by Cole (2008) that was mentioned previously, results
indicated that constructive criticism also had a positive impact on the overall educational
44

satisfaction of URM students. Cole recommends that further research is needed to
identify and create more complex measures of constructive criticism and factors that can
be replicated across a variety of data samples. He also suggests that future studies include
additional measures regarding the quality of faculty feedback.

Intellectual and personal development. As a means of exploring how faculty
contact can influence intellectual and personal development, Endo and Harpel (1982)
developed some hypotheses. They asserted that the frequency of informal contact would
affect personal and intellectual outcomes, academic achievement and student satisfaction
with education more than formal student-faculty interactions would. Endo and Harpel
found that the frequency of formal interaction affected formal involvement with extra-
curricular activities and satisfaction with education. In regards to the frequency of
informal interaction, they found that student-faculty contact had a much greater impact
on outcomes, influencing eight out of the possible fourteen personal/social and
intellectual variables.

Factors Influencing Student-Faculty Contact
People believe that encouraging student interaction and input as part of the
classroom positively effects the development of student-faculty interactions (Cole, 2000;
Shor & Freire, 1987; Wilson, Wood & Gaff, 1974). Yet there are other variables that
have an influence as well. The following sections discuss how student characteristics,
45

classroom experiences and institution type can also have an effect on student-faculty
interactions.

Student characteristics. Some students are more adept to building relationships
with faculty than others because they are looking for opportunities to be mentored outside
of the classroom, some call this “seeking mentors” (Pascarella, 1980). There could be a
variety of reasons students do this. Faculty members might have the degree, career or
professional connections these students desire or the student may just be extremely
extroverted (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2000; Pascarella, 1980). Astin (1993) provided results of
a study that indicated interpersonal self-esteem as being the strongest predictor of
student-faculty interaction. Whatever the reason is, there are traits that students possess
which influences the relationship with their professor.
According to Kraft (1991), gender is one of those characteristics that could have a
significant impact on student-faculty interactions. Kraft’s research suggests women report
that having supportive faculty is a key element to student success. They have a desire to
be “taken seriously,” thus they value strong relationships with faculty and will keep them
if they prove to be beneficial.
Parents’ level of education was another factor impacting the level of interaction a
student would have with a professor (Pascarella & Terenzini; (1979). In a study on
college dropouts conducted by Pascarella and Terenzini (1979), they reported two major
results involving students and parental education (Cole, 2000). The first outcome was
linked to both men and women. For men, who stated that their parents had low levels of
46

education, they were encouraged to persist if they reported frequent discussions with
faculty about concerns for their careers. For women with parents who had low levels of
education, they were influenced to persist when they believed that faculty was concerned
about the students and their teaching. The second outcome reported that as the priority of
graduating from college and the level of parental education increased, there was a
decrease in influence over student-faculty interactions in relation to persistence.

Classroom experiences. The importance of student-faculty interactions and how
they affect student growth and development is discussed by Shor and Freire (1987). They
believe it is imperative for faculty to interact with students both inside and outside of the
classroom, engaging in academic, social and intellectual conversations that link course
content to student experiences. Providing an environment where instructors are
encouraged to be open to receiving students’ opinions in the classroom is also a strategy
they promote (Shor & Freire, 1987). Doing this however, could hypothetically alter the
relationship between the student and teacher thus jeopardizing the traditional
authoritative role that professors hold, but it could also develop a co-learning relationship
where the professor and student are able to share freely (Shor & Freire, 1987).
Zelda Gamson (1967) examined two different departments in order to see if
student-faculty interactions varied between academic discipline and faculty culture within
that discipline. She reported a variety of findings. Faculty in the social sciences had the
tendency of issuing higher grades while considering the student’s overall performance. In
contrast, faculty in the natural sciences employed punitive grading techniques which were
47

determined by the students’ results on objective exams. Social science faculty were
interacting with students outside of the classroom and as a result, students found them to
be more personable. Faculty in the natural sciences did not find themselves informally
involved as often with their students and as a result, their experience with students was
primarily based on the students’ academic performance.

Institution size and peer group. An empirical study conducted by Chapman and
Pascarella (1983) explored how the size of an institution impacts the amount of contact a
student has with faculty members. As a result, they reported that as institution size
increases, student-faculty interactions decrease. They also indicated that the number of
activities students were involved with increased along with institutional size, yet the
amount of time that students spent informally with professors decreased. Part of this can
be attributed to how teaching is assigned at larger universities. Quite often, graduate
students end up teaching large freshmen classes where the professors may only be seen in
a lecture setting.
In a study conducted by Cole (2007), he investigated the impact that interracial
interactions can have on student-faculty interactions. A random sample of data from
students, who completed the 1994 CIRP as well as a follow up survey in 1998, was used.
As a result of the study, Cole (2007) determined that interracial interactions do have an
impact on student-faculty interactions, thus, making the structural diversity of a college
campus important as well. In order for interracial interactions to occur, minority students
must be present. Therefore, as the structural diversity of a campus increases, so do the
48

opportunities for interracial interactions, thus leading to significant effects on the types
and quality of interactions faculty and students have (Cole, 2007).

Critical Thinking and Social Engagement
Critical thinking and social engagement are two competencies that many believe
are essential pieces in the development of students in institutions of higher education
(Facione, Giancarlo, Facione & Gainen, 1995; Spiezio, 2006). Both of these abilities
cultivate a sense of self-awareness and maturity that comes as students continue to
develop in their college experience. As part of the mission of Western University, and as
set forth in the requirements of all diversity courses, students at WU are encouraged to
engage their surrounding communities and improve their analytical thinking skills.
Knowing this, it is important to better understand what critical thinking and social
engagement are so that the impact of diversity courses can be measured.

Critical thinking. In 1992, Facione and Facione developed the California Critical
Thinking Disposition Index (CCTDI), an instrument that is used to measure a person’s
disposition toward critical thinking (Facione, Giancarlo, Facione & Gainen, 1995). It
incorporates seven key elements that aid in the process of the evaluation (Insight
Assessment, 2010): 1) truthseeking – desiring the best possible understanding of any
situation; 2) openmindedness – allowing others to express their views and being tolerant;
3) analyticity – being alert to what will happen next; 4) systematicity – approaching
problems in a disciplined, systematic way; 5) critical thinking self-confidence – trusting
49

yourself in your reasoning and thinking to solve problems; 6) inquisitiveness – is
intellectual curiosity; and lastly, 7) maturity of judgement – the tendency to see problems
as complex, rather than black and white. Using these variables, researchers can study
peoples’ disposition toward critical thinking, then assist them as the individuals try to
develop their critical thinking skills.

Social engagement. Kuh (2001) suggests that examples of civic engagement are
participating in community projects, volunteering for community service, voting in
elections or contributing to the welfare of a person’s community. For the purposes of this
study, “social engagement,” takes things a little step further, referring to opportunities,
relationships or involvements that an individual may have (whether positive or negative)
when interacting with family, peers, community members or society as a whole. This
could include, but is not limited to, community service, social activism and openness to
other cultures.
In an article by Checkoway (2001), he stated that civic engagement is an essential
piece to a democratic society; however, too many Americans have neglected their roles of
engagement in public affairs. At one point in time, universities concerned themselves
with "education for citizenship" and "knowledge for society," yet, contemporary
institutions have drifted away from their civic missions and responsibilities (2001, p.
127). Checkoway (2001) also suggests that institutions of higher education have the
ability to contribute to civic engagement on many levels, but traditionally, most research
universities fail to see themselves as part of the problem or of the solution. However,
50

there appears to be hope. New forms of engagement are emerging from a more culturally
diverse society and people’s perspectives on the roles and responsibilities of universities
are changing (2001). Ostrander (2004) believes that one of the appeals of university
participation in civic engagement is that it crosses over, and sometimes dismisses, the
negatively perceived views of the role of higher education in society.

Conceptual meaning of critical thinking and social engagement. Looking at the
different elements of social engagement and critical thinking, there appears to be similar
characteristics that link these two skill sets. In a study also funded by the Teagle
Foundation (Spiezio, Baker and Boland, 2006, p. 286), the authors define critical thinking
as a “variety of competencies that enable students to access, analyze and apply
information effectively.” One of their major purposes in this study was to assess the
effects of service learning pedagogies on student attitudes towards civic engagement.
Using the Civic Aptitudes Survey, they asked students to rate themselves on two skill sets
they believed, and supported with literature, was required for civic engagement: critical
thinking and leadership. For the purposes of this study, they defined leadership as, “a set
of interpersonal skills that an individual can use to inspire and mobilize others to take
action in their community” (Spiezio, Baker & Boland, 2006, p. 286). The findings of the
research suggested, amongst other things, that there is an increase in the degree of
confidence that students express in regard to their critical thinking skills, when they are
actively engaged in their community.
51

Given these definitions, research findings and the information about the CCTDI
provided by Facione, Giancarlo, Facione & Gainen (1995), one can see there is direct
link between critical thinking and social engagement. In addition, a number of other
articles (Checkoway, 2001; Kuh, 2001; Lounsbury & Pollack, 2001; Ostrander, 2004), at
some point in their writing, also address the development of critical thinking as part of
civic and social engagement. Being willing to participate in and engage with your
surrounding community requires being open-minded, being able to think through
problems requires analytical thinking, being willing to help others requires having the
maturity to make these decisions. All of these characteristics, and others, are crucial
attributes in critical thinking, thus it would be fair to say that critical thinking and social
engagement share a common bond.

Factors Influencing Critical Thinking and Social Engagement
Having a better understanding of what critical thinking and social engagement are
as they grow over time is important. However, in the realm of research, it is equally
important to know what variables have an impact on the development of critical thinking
and social engagement. The following section provides some insight into this matter.

Individual characteristics. Gender, levels of parental education and race have all
been found to be predictors of disposition towards critical thinking. Research conducted
by Giancarlo and Facione (2001) has shown that females, more so than males in their
sample population, scored significantly higher in their overall disposition towards critical
52

thinking. Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella and Nora (1995) reported that parents’ education
had a significant and positive impact towards first year student’s gains in critical
thinking. Pascarella, Palmer, Moye and Pierson (2001) discuss in their article how race is
a factor when trying to understand how students’ critical thinking skills are developed as
a result of diversity experiences.

Major declared. Giancarlo and Facione (2001) also discuss how students’ majors
can impact critical thinking. They reported that only 25% of business or communications
majors were positively disposed towards truthseeking. Over 96% of humanities and
language majors were found to be predisposed to openmindedness. Overall, business,
communications, math and engineering majors reported major ambivalence towards
critical thinking.

Diversity courses and other diversity experiences. Nelson-Laird (2005) reported
in his study that students who participated in activities that promote diversity, which
includes diversity courses, are more likely to score higher on measures of disposition
towards critical thinking. Pascarella (2001) also reported that diversity experiences
positively influence growth in critical thinking for students who are in college.

Student-faculty interactions. Discussions have occurred over research that shows
a connection between the faculty interaction with the strengthening of critical thinking
skills (Light, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004) and the significance of faculty teaching
53

student how to think rather than what to think. Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella and Nora
(1995) research suggests that classroom instruction leads to positive and significant gains
in critical thinking.

Summary
This chapter has explored various theories, articles and empirical studies as it
pertains to diversity courses, student-faculty interactions and critical thinking. As
reported in this chapter, research has shown how characteristics the students arrive into
college with can influence outcomes of student-faculty interactions and critical thinking,
just as any prior experiences have an effect as well. It is also important to note that the
environment that the student is in while in college will have an impact too, just as
Vygotsky predicted it would. Knowing this information helps to set up the following
chapter which will illustrate the methodology for studying student-faculty interactions,
critical thinking and the impact diversity courses can have on them.
54

Chapter 3
Methodology

Introduction
In the previous chapter, articles, theories and empirical research detailed the
history of and rationale for creating diversity courses. Chapter two also examined
empirical research that described the impact of student-faculty interactions and explored
predictors of critical thinking. This chapter discusses the methodology for this study,
which is a non-experimental research design, single institution investigation, utilizing
student transcripts and self-reported survey data detailing pre-college characteristics as
well as student experiences while attending Western University (WU). The purpose in
conducting this study is to answer the following research questions:
1. To what extent do diversity courses (in conjunction with pre-college
characteristics and other diversity experiences in college) impact student-faculty
interactions at a private, tier-one research institution?
2. To what extent do diversity courses (in conjunction with pre-college
characteristics, other diversity experiences in college and the student-faculty
interactions that students experience in college), impact critical thinking and
social engagement?
This is a study of the impact that diversity courses offered at a private, tier-one
research university may have on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social
engagement. As mentioned in prior chapters, the importance and purpose of diversity
courses in higher education is to educate and prepare students for experiences that will
55

arise as a result of living in a diverse society. Diversity courses provide students
opportunities for self-reflection as they explore the formation of their attitudes towards
others and analyze the effects of those beliefs on their personal values (Cole & Sundt,
2009). Participating in these classes can also aide in examining multiple dimensions of
human diversity. Through the analysis of surveys given to students prior to them
attending Western University and following their fourth year, in addition to student
transcripts, outcomes will be examined in an effort to further enhance the empirical
literature which discusses the influence that these environments can have on student-
faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement. This in turn will assist
institutions of higher education in understanding how diversity courses can affect these
relationships and potentially aide in developing a diversity course curriculum that fosters
a strong student-faculty relationship and promotes growth in critical thinking and social
engagement. One approach in identifying the connection between these variables is by
analyzing them quantitatively.
Quantitative research is often used when trying to identify what factors influence
an outcome by using statistical methods which show relationships between variables
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003). It is also used when trying to control for subjectivity while
maintaining an objective perspective. Being able to distance yourself from the setting and
those being studied, isolating variables and using quantitative measurement are all
characteristics of quantitative inquiry (Patton, 2002). In this study, a quantitative
approach will be used to help identify the variables, which include diversity courses, that
impact student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement as well as to
56

what extent that impact is. If the goal of this research was to understand how and why
diversity courses impact student-faculty interactions, a qualitative approach would be
used instead. As that is not the case, quantitative methodology will be utilized for the
purpose of this study. In addition, using a quantitative approach in examining student-
faculty interactions is consistent with prior studies (Chapman and Pascarella, 1983; Cole,
2000, 2007, 2008; Pascarella, Terenzini and Hibel, 1978; Terenzini and Wright, 1987).

Sample and Population
This section will include a description of the sample and population used for this
research. There is also a description of the larger population, along with information
about the context and background of the selected site. Characteristics of the participants
in the study are described and separated into groups that are relevant to the research. Also
discussed are the data sets and number of participants from the study.

Site selection. Western University (WU) is a private, tier-one research institution
located in the western United States. Established near the downtown area, in the heart of
a large, multicultural city of nearly four million people, WU is a prime location for this
study. With more than 30,000 enrolled students, WU is evenly split between its
undergraduate and graduate populations. As a private institution, tuition fees are
estimated to exceed $50,000 per year. Academic standards of entering into the university
are just as compelling. With matriculating students averaging a GPA of 3.7, WU’s 2009-
2010 freshmen class represent some of the most competitive students in the nation. As an
57

expensive and extremely selective institution, WU’s 2009-2010 incoming freshmen are
structurally diverse for an institution of its size. While 43 percent of WU’s undergraduate
population is Caucasian, it has one of the largest international student populations in the
U.S. at 11 percent. Asian/Asian Americans make up the second largest population at 24
percent, followed by Latinos/Hispanics at 13 percent, then African Americans at 7
percent while Native American/Pacific Islander students represent 2 percent of the
freshmen population. With a campus community as structurally diverse as this, it makes
the relevance of the diversity requirement even more significant and the decision to select
WU extraordinarily appropriate.
The significance of selecting WU has much to do with the structure of its
diversity course curriculum, one that is representative of a large majority of other
institutions around the U.S. According to Humphreys (2000), a survey conducted by the
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) stated that 45 percent of
institutions nation-wide had diversity requirements in place within ten years of the study,
whereas 25 percent were in place for ten or more years and 30 percent had been in place
for less than five years. WU initiated its diversity requirement in 1993, falling within the
range of less than ten years like the majority of the other schools. Out of those
participating institutions, 58 percent require students to complete one diversity course,
just as WU does, whereas 42 percent require two or more diversity courses. The AAC&U
report also stated that 68 percent of the respondents had chosen a model where the
student can select one course out of a list of multiple courses that satisfy the requirement.
With over 80 diversity courses to choose from and approximately 2,500 students in each
58

incoming class, there are many opportunities for student-faculty interaction. Although
WU has revised its diversity requirement over the years, most recently in 2009, it
continues to be a model mirrored by other institutions. The AAC&U also believes there
are two key components to a quality liberal education: deploying diversity as an
educational asset for all students and preparing graduates for socially responsible
engagement in a diverse democracy (AAC&U, 2009). Western University fosters both of
these elements.
In addition to the structure of the curriculum, Cole & Sundt (2008) provide a
typology for the courses specific to Western University (see Appendix D). This was
accomplished by assessing the potential impact of these courses in fulfilling the diversity
requirement. All of the courses, which includes over 100 options, were evaluated and
then separated into four categories: introductory, basic, intermediate, and advanced. In
grouping the courses by content, it helps to narrow down the variability, thus allowing it
to be controlled for in a statistical analysis. Using this process could serve as a model for
other institutions to follow.
Lastly, WU was chosen because this research is attached to a larger study on
diversity course requirements that the Teagle Foundation began funding through a grant
at WU in 2008. The mission of the Teagle Foundation is as follows:
The Teagle Foundation aims to strengthen liberal education by providing the
intellectual and financial resources necessary to ensure that today's students have
access to challenging, wide-ranging, and enriching college educations, and that
they succeed at the highest possible level (The Teagle Foundation, 2009).

The Teagle Foundation selected WU to represent their desires for advancement in liberal
education believing that WU could make a difference. Western University set forth to
59

accomplish this goal by assessing the impact that diversity courses have on students’
higher order thinking skills, thus opening the door for further research making WU an
ideal choice.

Participant selection. The students participating in this study were derived from
the entire population of undergraduate students that matriculated to Western University in
2004 and graduated in 2008. From that population, those who completed two surveys, the
2004 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) and the 2008 Western
University Senior Survey (WUSS), make up the actual sample population (See
Appendices J & K for questionnaires). The final number of participants for this study,
whom are represented in the data, was determined by merging a list of all participants for
the two studies. Data gathered from the 2004 CIRP survey resulted in an N=2429.
Results from the 2008 WUSS, the exit survey for seniors, yielded an N=553 which was
significantly less than the 2004 CIRP. As a result, the final sample of participants for this
research has an N=553 for the 2004 cohort of WU undergraduate students.

Instrumentation
Selecting the proper site for research is a significant decision when conducting a
study. Performing an investigation at Western University provides a special opportunity
to analyze the effects of diversity courses at an institution whose diversity course
curriculum, campus location and structurally diverse student population creates an
environment where the impact of diversity courses can be well examined using various
60

types of instrumentation. The following section will explain the theoretical framework
and instruments used in order to better understand how diversity courses can impact
student-faculty interactions.
The research design for this study is a non-experimental one that utilizes existing
data sources. A quantitative analysis will be administered to three data sets in this study,
all of which pertain to WU’s 2004 freshmen cohort of students. Two of the data sets are
surveys that were completed in 2004 (CIRP) and 2008 (WUSS) and the third set is the
cohort’s transcript data from 2004 – 2009. Non-experimental research using survey data,
as is done in this study, provides an opportunity for students to respond to a series of
questions without using a specific control group. As a result, natural differences are
recorded through self-reported answers. These responses are then later examined through
statistical analysis (Cole, 2000). Prior research supports the use of self-reported data as
valid and reliable (Baird, 1976; Cole, 2000; Pace, 1985; Pike, 1995). Each self-reported
survey and data source will be discussed in greater detail later on in this chapter.

Conceptual framework. The impact of college on students can be evaluated in
many ways, one of which is by applying Astin’s Input – Environment – Output (I-E-O)
Model (Astin, 1970, 1993). As mentioned in Chapter 2, this framework asserts, and has
been empirically proven, that students arrive in college with particular characteristics, or
“inputs,” already in place. These inputs can include, but are not limited to, race, socio-
economic status, ability and gender. Students are then immersed into the college
experience where they encounter a variety of “environmental” factors such as people,
61

events, education, and departmental support systems. Following the environmental
influence, a student then develops educational “outcomes” which can be described as a
new set of characteristics (Astin, 1970, 1993).
In this study, the I-E-O model (see Figures 3.1 and 3.2) is adapted to explain the
relationship between the different variables. Students arrived at WU with their own
individual inputs, measured by the CIRP. When they enrolled in diversity courses, and
became involved in diversity experiences, independent variables or the “environment”
were introduced into the equation. According to Astin (1970, 1993), these two variables
should then lead to an “output” or dependent variable, which in this case is student-
faculty interactions for one model and critical thinking and social engagement for the
other.

Figure 3.1
Input – Environment – Output (I-E-O) Model for Student-Faculty Interactions
(Adapted from Astin, 1993)

INTERMEDIATE
OUTPUT (WUSS):

Student-Faculty
Interactions
ENVIRONMENT
(WUSS/Transcripts):

Diversity Courses
Year 1st DC was taken
Total # of DC’s taken
Typology of 1
st
DC taken

Diversity Experiences
Racial Awareness Workshop
Studied Abroad
Community Service
STUDENT INPUT
(CIRP):

Student Characteristics
Gender
Race
Parental Education

Chosen Major

Student-Teacher
Interactions

62

Figure 3.2

Input – Environment – Output (I-E-O) Model for Critical Thinking & Social Engagement
(Adapted from Astin, 1993)

STUDENT INPUT
(CIRP):

Student Characteristics
Gender
Race
Parental Education

Critical Thinking &
Social Engagement
OUTPUT (WUSS):

Critical Thinking &
Social Engagement
ENVIRONMENT
(WUSS/Transcripts):

Diversity Courses
Year 1st DC was taken
Total # of DC’s taken
Typology of 1
st
DC taken

Diversity Experiences
Racial Awareness Workshop
Studied Abroad
Community Service

Student-Faculty
Interactions

Data Sets. There are three main sets of data being used for this study. The first
being the 2004 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey, the second is
the 2008 Western University Senior Survey (WUSS), and the third is the transcript data
for the students who participated in both of the previously mentioned surveys. Each of
the following sections will give further insight into the three data sets. There will be
discussion on which variables that will be used for this study and why it is relevant. It is
important to note, that the data sets used are secondary sources. The information was
initially collected by Western University and is currently being evaluated as part of a
larger research project. As mentioned before, through a grant provided to WU in 2008,
the Teagle Foundation donated resources to the institution in support of a study that
63

focused on assessing the impact of diversity courses on student’s higher order thinking
skills (Cole & Sundt, 2008). This study uses information and resources provided through
that project.

Cooperative Institutional Research Program. The Cooperative Institutional
Research Program (CIRP) is a national longitudinal study which helps to assess the
higher education system in the United States. Established in 1966 at the American
Council on Education (ACE), CIRP is regarded as the most comprehensive source of
information on college students. As a function of the Higher Education Research Institute
(HERI), CIRP is housed at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and is now
considered to be the nation’s largest and oldest empirical study in higher education. CIRP
surveys have been administered since 1973, securing data from approximately 1,900
institutions, over 15 million students and more than 300,000 faculty (HERI, 2009).
At the beginning of each academic year, there are approximately 700 institutions
that administer the freshman survey to over 400,000 students. With 41 items for the
student to self-report, and the possibility of an extra 21, the CIRP covers a vast range of
student characteristics: parental income and education, ethnicity, and other demographic
items; financial aid; secondary school achievement and activities; educational and career
plans; and values, attitudes, beliefs, and self-concept (HERI, 2009). Each student trait is
potentially useful for someone’s research. Whether combined with other instruments or
on its own, the CIRP continues to provide a comprehensive look at the ever changing
student population.
64

As previously mentioned, this study will use the CIRP in conjunction with two
other data sets. The responses of the 2004 CIRP freshmen survey that will be assessed are
from Western University only and include 2,429 participants. The Office for Student
Outcomes Research (SOR) at Western University is in charge of facilitating the delivery
of the CIRP which is offered on-line to all first year students.
For this study, the data provided by the CIRP is used to study pre-college
characteristics. This data will be considered as “input” information in relation to Astin’s
I-E-O model (Astin, 1970, 1993). It will provide a base line of student’s attributes from
which to measure any changes based on the influence of diversity courses. The variables
used from the CIRP are listed below in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, aiding the researcher in
discovering the impact that diversity courses have on student-faculty interactions, critical
thinking and social engagement:

Table 3.1

Variables Used from CIRP for Student-Faculty Interactions Model

VARIABLE(S) TYPE ITEM RECODED I, E or O
Gender
Independent
Variable
SEX No Input
Race
Independent
Variable
RACE1-9
Yes
(RACE_R)
Input
Parents’ Levels
of Education
Independent
Variable
FATHEDUC &
MOTHEDUC
Yes
(ParentED_R)
Input
Major
Declared
Independent
Variable

MAJOR04
Yes
Into Individual
Majors

Input
Student-Faculty
Interactions
Independent
Variable
ACT0414 No Input

65

Table 3.2

Variables Used from CIRP for Critical Thinking and Social Engagement Model

VARIABLE(S) TYPE ITEM RECODED I, E or O
Gender
Independent
Variable
SEX No I
Race
Independent
Variable
RACE1-9
Yes
(RACE_R)
I
Parents’ Levels
of Education
Independent
Variable
FATHEDUC &
MOTHEDUC
Yes
(ParentED_R)
I

Critical
Thinking &
Social
Engagement

Independent
Variable
ACT0412
RATE0403
RATE0413
VIEW0409
GOAL0405
GOAL0409
GOAL0416
GOAL0417
GOAL0421
FUTACT12

Yes
(CritThinkCIRP)
Composite
Variable
I

Western University Senior Survey. Every three years, Western University
administers its Senior Survey (WUSS) to graduating bachelor’s degree candidates.
Designed by WU and modeled after the CIRP, the purpose of the WUSS is to evaluate
the student experience and overall satisfaction of their tenure at Western University. With
224 items for the student to self-report, the survey covers a broad spectrum of
information, including student satisfaction, personal views, demographic inquiries, future
goals and involvement with faculty. Most of these are used to gauge student outcomes.
The most recent WUSS was administered in 2008 which resulted in 553
participants, marking the end of the 2004 cohort’s college experience. Results from this
offering will be used as data points for environmental factors and the post-college
66

experience. Under Astin’s I-E-O model (Astin, 1970, 1993), this is described as both the
“environment” and “output” of this study. Variables from the WUSS that will be used to
determine both the environment and the outputs regarding the impact of diversity courses
on student-faculty interactions are listed in Table 3.3 below, followed by Table 3.4 which
displays the variables used to measure the environment and the outputs for critical
thinking and social engagement.

Table 3.3

Variables Used from the WUSS for Student-Faculty Interactions Model

VARIABLE(S) TYPE ITEM RECODED
I, E
or O
Racial
Awareness
Workshop
Independent
Variable

ever_5

Yes
(ever_5R)

E
Studied
Abroad
Independent
Variable

ever_8
Yes
(ever_8R)

E
Community
Service
Participation
Independent
Variable

first_5
freq_11
Yes
(CommunityServiceR)
Composite Variable

E

Student-Faculty
Interactions

Dependent
Variable
prof_1, prof_2,
prof_3, prof_4,
prof_5, prof_6,
prof_7, prof_8,
prof_9, prof_10,
prof_11,prof_12,
freq_4, hours_3

Yes
(FSIConstruct_N)
Composite Variable
O

67

Table 3.4

Variables Used from the WUSS for Critical Thinking and Social Engagement Model

VARIABLE(S) TYPE ITEM RECODED
I, E
or O
Racial
Awareness
Workshop
Independent
Variable

ever_5
Yes
(ever_5R)
E
Studied
Abroad
Independent
Variable

ever_8
Yes
(ever_8R)

E
Community
Service
Participation
Independent
Variable

first_5
freq_11
Yes
(CommunityServiceR)
Composite Variable
E

Student-Faculty
Interactions

Independent
Variable
prof_1, prof_2,
prof_3, prof_4,
prof_5, prof_6,
prof_7, prof_8,
prof_9, prof_10,
prof_11,prof_12,
freq_4, hours_3

Yes
(FSIConstruct_N)
Composite Variable
E
Critical
Thinking &
Social
Engagement
Dependent
Variable
freq_25,
change_1,
change_4,
change_8,
change_9,
change_15,
change_17,
change_18,
change_19,
change_21,
change_22,
change_23,
impor_5,
impor_9,
impor_16,
impor_17,
impor_19,
impor_20
Yes
(CritThinkWUSS_R)
Composite Variable
E

68

Transcript data. The Office of the Registrar at Western University provided
information about the student subjects for the purposes of this study. Elements of the
transcript data provided includes the courses each student has taken, which term it was
taken in and the grade the student received for the course. Supplemental components that
can be reviewed in the transcript information are the student’s GPA, whether or not the
student has taken a diversity course and under which type of diversity course the class
falls per the “Typology of Diversity Courses” (Cole & Sundt, 2009). From the transcript
data, only the courses identified as diversity courses will be used in this study (courses
designated with an “m”). These courses will be act as an additional part of the
“environment” in relation to Astin’s I-E-O Model (Astin, 1970, 1993). In Table 3.5
below, variables incorporated in this study that will be taken from the transcript data are
listed:

Table 3.5

Variables Used from Transcript Data for Both Models

VARIABLE(S) TYPE ITEM RECODED
I, E
or O
First time a
diversity course
was taken
Independent
Variable
COURSE01
thru
COURSE40
Yes
(FirstDCYear_R)

E
Total number of
diversity courses
taken
Independent
Variable
COURSE01
thru
COURSE40
Yes
(DiversityTaken_R)

E
Typology level
of first diversity
course taken
Independent
Variable
COURSE01
thru
COURSE40
Yes
(DCTypology1st_R)

E

69

Diversity course typology. In order for a course to be considered a “diversity
course,” it must meet proposed guidelines set by Western University (see Appendix A for
details). Given these standards, it is safe to assume that some courses may merely adhere
to the guidelines while others may go beyond what is expected, thus creating variation
amongst the courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008). Understanding this, Cole and Sundt (2008)
created a Typology of Diversity Courses which categorizes the various approved classes
into four groups: Introductory – meets WU’s diversity requirements; Basic – marginally
exceeds WU’s diversity requirements; Intermediate – exceeds WU’s diversity
requirements; and Advanced – far exceeds WU’s diversity requirements (see Appendix D
for details). Being able to group the courses into four separate and distinct categories
suggests the possibility of being able to significantly prove, through statistical analysis,
that these courses are unique and can affect student outcomes.
Each approved diversity course will be categorized into one of the four groupings
by conducting a content analysis of the class syllabus. The analyses will be conducted by
multiple, trained course raters. The rating process consists of reviewing the five
guidelines used in approving a class for “diversity course” status (see Appendices L, M,
& N for details). Every syllabus will be assessed under each of the five guidelines,
evaluating the guidelines on a four-point likert scale. After each guideline is rated, the
five scores will be summed creating a total rating for each syllabus. Once each of the
syllabi is rated, a mean score and standard deviation will be calculated and used to create
the four-category distribution of the courses. For this particular study, 118 syllabi were
70

collected (out of 138 diversity courses offered between 2004-2008) by a team of four
researchers who contacted the host departments via phone, e-mail or in person.

Testing and retesting. There are a variety of research methods and designs that
one can use in conducting an analysis. One approach, reviewed by Feldman and
Newcomb (1969), involves testing and retesting. Typically, as is the case in this study,
students complete an inventory when they first enter college and then take another one at
a later time. Measures of change or growth are obtained through the review of input
scores from the initial test in comparison to the output scores from the retest (Astin,
1970). Using this type of design provides an advantage because the researcher can focus
on student change from a longitudinal perspective. For this study, the student’s output
performance (WUSS) is reviewed in relation to the initial input characteristics (CIRP).
This type of comparison should provide results showing that any observed changes are
due to students’ experiences while they were in college (Astin, 1970).

Data Collection
Information collected in this study comes from existing data sources taken from a
single institution. Matriculating first year students in the Fall 2004 semester at Western
University were administered a hard copy of the CIRP as part of study of pre-college
characteristics during the summer prior to their arrival. These same students were then
asked to complete an on-line version of the WUSS in Spring of 2008, in order to examine
71

outcome information following their last year of college. Using these two data points
provided support to conduct a longitudinal study.
The Director for the office of Student Outcomes Research (SOR), which is under
the Division of Student Affairs at WU, is responsible for the administering of the surveys.
In addition, this person is in charge of supervising the data collection and the data
analysis. As a result of the institutions efforts, 2,429 students responded to the CIRP
survey, whereas only 553 students responded to the WUSS. Astin (1970) explains this
discrepancy very simply. Students entering a college setting are more likely to be
cooperative at this time in their lives than at any other time. For students who are on their
way out, they may strongly resent the fact that they are being asked to spend so much
time on a task like this.

Data Analysis
The purpose of this study is to investigate factors that could influence student-
faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement as a result of taking diversity
courses. In an effort to answer the research questions proposed in Chapter 1, multiple
statistical techniques will be utilized and examined using data analysis software SPSS
17.0. Descriptive statistics, factor analysis, reliabilities and regression analyses are the
four that this study uses. However, prior to analyzing the collected information, it is
necessary to prepare the raw data. The results of the surveys (CIRP 2004 and WUSS
2008) will be merged with the transcript data to comprise a master data file which is the
main source for the analysis. Following are the procedures and descriptions of each
72

technique used in preparing and analyzing the data, along with how it will be
incorporated in this research.

Recoding and computing new variables. In this study, numerous variables (see
Appendices G, H & I for specific information) needed to be recoded in order to provide a
more meaningful or usable variable for analysis (Pallant, 2007). For example, the values
for variable “freq_4” are initially labeled: 1 = frequently; 2 = occasionally; 3 = not at all.
When analyzing data using numbers, it makes more “meaningful” sense to reverse the
scores so that: 3 = frequently; 2 = occasionally; and 1 = not at all. Another purpose for
recoding is aimed at comparing similar variables and/or creating a composite variable.
Some questions are worded negatively while others are worded positively. This is often
done to prevent response bias from the subject (Pallant, 2007). When statistically
comparing similar variables or when trying to compute a composite variable from
multiple items, it is important to rescore the values so they are alike. An example of this
is seen in the “FSIConstruct_N” variable. Fourteen individual variables need to be
combined into one composite variable to create “FSIConstruct_N,” but to do that, some
of the values of these variables need to be recoded in an effort to create a consistent
response. As a protective measure, it is important to run descriptives and frequencies
after recoding to ensure no mistakes are made in the process (Pallant, 2007).
Recodes can also be used to transform multiple existing variables into one
dichotomous variable. For example, there are nine separate variables on the 2004 CIRP
that ask about a person’s race. However, to create a dichotomous variable that is
73

consistent with prior research (Chang, 2002; Cole, 2007), “RACE1” was used. RACE1
asked the student if they identified as being “White/Caucasian.” Given that this is a
“Yes/No” response, all students who replied “Yes” were considered “White” meaning
that all other respondents considered themselves “Non-White,” thus creating the
dichotomous variable.
New variables can also be created to expand individual items. “MAJOR04A”
taken from the 2004 CIRP is an example of this. As a means of trying to understand if the
major a student declares has any significant impact on the outcomes, “MAJOR4A” was
separated into 16 dichotomous variables. Each variable now represents the number of
students who declared that particular major. However, there were not any students who
declared Agriculture as their major so this was removed from the study.

Additional composite variables. Aside from the previously mentioned variables,
additional composite variables were created to measure student-faculty interactions,
critical thinking and social engagement. Very few variables on the 2004 CIRP measured
student-faculty interactions. As will be shown in Chapter 4, combining these variables
failed to yield a reliable composite so only one variable is used to measure student-
faculty interactions on the CIRP. In contrast, there were multiple variables on the 2008
WUSS that measured student-faculty interactions. However, there were a few pieces of
missing data in the selected variables. To compensate for this, a mean replacement was
conducted for 13 of the scores. Once this was completed, and the variables were found to
be reliable, they combined to create “FSIConstruct_N,” as mentioned earlier. To measure
74

critical thinking and social engagement, ten variables on the CIRP were identified, while
18 similar questions were found on the WUSS. As discussed in Chapter 2, critical
thinking and social engagement share many common characteristics. Due to this, these
concepts were combined into one variable that would measure both critical thinking and
social engagement. Uniting these variables into singular composites found on both the
pre test (CritThinkCIRP) and the post test (CritThinkWUSS_R), allowed for strong
comparisons on the identified measures.

Diversity course variables. Creating the diversity course variables
(FirstDCYear_R, DiversityTaken_R, and DCTypology1st_R) required a lot of recoding
and paying special attention to detail. The first step in the process was narrowing down
the courses the students took during their time at WU. The transcript data recorded up to
73 courses for each student (COURSE1 – COURSE73). From those 73 courses, the first
40 were used. The rationale for this being that the majority of students will graduate
within five years of college. Assuming that students take about four classes a semester,
multiplied by 10 semesters, this equals 40 courses.
The next step was identifying which of those courses were labeled diversity
courses. As mentioned earlier, 138 courses were identified as diversity courses from
2004-2008 but only 118 were rated. Using the list of 118 diversity courses, all of the
courses for each of the individual students were recoded into dichotomous variables,
diversity course or non-diversity course. From these findings, the final three diversity
variables were created. These variables were designed to provide responses to the
75

research questions in this study: the year in which each student took their first diversity
course; the total number of diversity courses each student took; and the typology rating of
the first diversity course that each student took.
Creating variables that identified the year in which each student took their first
diversity course (FirstDCYear_R) and the total number of diversity courses taken
(DiversityTaken_R) required use of recodes, computing new variables and working with
the syntax provided by SPSS. However, when calculating the “DCTypology1st_R”
variable, which measured the rating of the first diversity course taken, neither an SPSS
command nor a complete syntax was able to be created that would develop the variable
needed. Problems arose when students had taken multiple diversity courses in the same
semester. Due to this, information was taken directly from the original data set and input
by hand in order to finish the variable. For example, if a student took multiple diversity
courses in the same semester, the course with the higher rating was input, assuming this
would have the greater impact.
The construction of these variables is an essential piece to this study as they are
the main pieces that identify the impact of diversity courses on student outcomes. Having
completed this step, the research can now proceed into the multiple statistical analyses
described below. The following procedures help to identify the factors that impact
student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement.

Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics enable the researcher to organize,
summarize and describe the subjects of a study in a way that is meaningful for simple
76

interpretation (Ary et al., 1985). The descriptions of the sample of subjects are placed
into single variables or combinations of variables. In other words, descriptive statistics
are used to examine the total sample size on the aggregate. The goal is to discover themes
from the data that can be useful in summarizing the experiences of a student group.

Factor analysis. Factor analysis is a method for studying the intercorrelations
amongst a set of scores (Ary et al., 1985). As it pertains to this study, several variables
were selected in order to measure input and output variables for both, student-faculty
interactions as well as critical thinking and social engagement. Once these variables are
selected, a factor analysis helps the researcher to understand the relationships between the
variables, if there is any. This type of analysis can enlighten the researcher of the
reliability in the study.

Reliability tests. Following a factor analysis, reliabilities are then run on the
variables that are related, or “load” on to one another. If the reliability is successful and
provides a result on the Chronbach’s Alpha that is greater than .700, the researcher can
then combine the variables together. Doing this creates a composite variable, which in
statistical analyses, is a more reliable and stronger measure than an individual variable.

Regression analysis. Regression analysis is widely used in predicting and
evaluating the relationship between environmental variables and output variables
(Antonio, 2001; Cole, 2008). Using regression analysis, the researcher is able to examine
77

the influence one factor has over another. In order to do that, one must isolate specific
variables that effect particular outcomes. In the case of this study, the goal is to explore
the influence of diversity courses on the relationship between faculty and students as well
as critical thinking and social engagement. Running a regression analysis will help to
determine if environmental factors in this study like diversity courses, diversity
experiences and interactions with faculty actually does have an impact on student-faculty
interactions, critical thinking and social engagement.

Validity and reliability. Validity is the strength of the conclusions, inferences or
propositions based on the results of the research (Ary et al., 1985). Different factors, such
as history, maturation or measuring instruments can all pose a threat to validity in an
experiment. The biggest threats to this research are the maturation influences and the
changing of instruments. Due to the four year gap in testing, there are a variety of factors
that could impact the relationship between a faculty member and student. The other
concern relates to using the CIRP to measure the students input, but using the WUSS to
measure the student’s output. Though the WUSS used the CIRP as a baseline for its
questions, there is still a potential threat to its internal validity since some may question if
the diversity course was what really impacted the student-faculty relationship. There is
also potential concern for threats to external validity. Since the diversity courses at WU
are unique to its campus, one might wonder if this research could be generalized for
results of the same surveys at different institutions.
78

Reliability is the consistency of measurement, or the degree to which an
instrument measures the same way each time it is used under the same condition with the
same subjects (Ary et al., 1985). In short, it is the repeatability of your measurement. A
measure is considered reliable if a person's score on the same test given twice is similar.
It is important to remember that reliability is not measured, it is estimated. Internal
consistency is a way to describe the reliability of a test or survey. One common way of
computing correlation values among the questions on your instruments is by using
Cronbach's Alpha (Ary et al., 1985).

Summary
Chapter 3 has explored the methodology of this study by discussing the sample,
site selection, instrumentation, theoretical framework, data collection process and the
analysis of the data. This has paved a way for understanding the results that will be
presented in Chapter 4. Theory and research from Chapter 2 will then be applied to the
results as a means to help interpret the data which will be expounded upon in Chapter 5.
In the end, there will be a better understanding of the impact that diversity courses can
have on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement.

79

Chapter 4
Analysis of the Data

Introduction
This study examines the extent to which diversity courses (DC’s) offered at a
private, tier-one research university, have an impact on student-faculty interactions and
students’ self-perceptions of critical thinking and social engagement. Potential impacts by
diversity courses are broken down into three separate variables in an attempt to assess
their influence: 1) when the students took their first diversity course; 2) the number of
diversity courses they took; and 3) the typology level of the first diversity course they
took. Data obtained from student surveys (CIRP & WUSS) and academic transcripts are
analyzed using SPSS computer software as a means to better understand the relationship
between diversity courses and the output variables, student-faculty interactions (SFI) as
well as critical thinking and social engagement (CT & SE).
In this chapter, data for key variables and relationships among the variables are
identified and reported in response to the research questions that guided this study. The
first section of this chapter describes the data being reported, which includes: pre-test
characteristics; information on diversity courses and diversity experiences; as well as
variables that measure student-faculty interactions in addition to critical thinking and
social engagement. The latter portion of the chapter details the regression analyses that
were conducted and the results.

80

Similarities and Differences Between Non-White and White Participants
As stated in previous chapters, the data used in this study were derived from
student participants who completed both the CIRP and the WUSS. The CIRP was
administered in 2004 and the WUSS was administered in 2008. At the conclusion of the
four year survey period, 553 students had completed both surveys, creating the pool of
students that this research investigates. In an effort to better understand the dynamics
between Non-White and White students, the following descriptive data has been
calculated with the participants being divided into these two groups.

Participant characteristics. Examining the self-reported student data from the
CIRP, there is an imbalance of participants when it comes to gender and race (see Table
4.1). The largest majority of participants are represented by White females (41.4%),
followed by White males (27.9%), with the smallest representation being Non-White
males (9.2%). Non-White females represented 70% of the Non-White population, while
White women represented 59.8% of the White participants.

Level of parental education. In analyzing the descriptive information regarding
the highest level of parental education attained, the majority of students reported with a
53% response that at least one, if not both, of the following: a) their parents had attended
graduate school; or b) had obtained a graduate degree. Almost 40% reported that at least
one of their parents had attended college or received a bachelor’s degree with less than
7% stating that the highest level of education their parents had received was a high school
81

diploma or less. For the majority of both the Non-White students and the White students,
parents had experienced at least some graduate school, representing the largest population
of both groups (43.5% of the Non-White population and 57.2% of the White population).

Table 4.1
Descriptive Data of Student Participants
Student Background & College
Entry Variables
a

White
(n=383)
69.3%
White
(Within White
Group)
Non-White
(n=170)
30.7%
Non-White
(Within Non-
White Group)
Gender of Student
Men 27.9% 40.2% 9.2% 30.0%
Women 41.4% 59.8% 21.5% 70.0%
Level of Parental Education
High School or Less 1.8% 2.6% 4.7% 15.3%
Some College or Degree 27.3% 39.4% 12.5% 40.6%
Grad Degree or Less 39.6% 57.2% 13.4% 43.5%
Major
Agriculture 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Biological Sciences 6.0% 8.6% 3.6% 11.8%
Business 12.7% 18.3% 6.7% 21.8%
Education 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6%
Engineering 7.8% 11.2% 3.3% 10.6%
English 1.3% 1.8% 0.2% 0.6%
Health Profession 2.9% 4.2% 3.4% 11.1%
History/Political Science 4.5% 6.5% 2.0% 6.5%
Humanities 4.7% 6.8% 1.6% 5.3%
Fine Arts 6.2% 8.9% 0.5% 1.8%
Math/Statistics 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 1.8%
Physical Science 1.8% 2.6% 0.4% 1.2%
Social Science 1.8% 2.6% 1.8% 5.9%
Other - Technical 1.1% 1.6% 0.4% 1.2%
Other 9.0% 13.1% 2.9% 9.4%
Undecided 7.8% 11.2% 2.4% 7.7%
a
Data collected in 2004.

82

Major declared. The most popular major declared for both Non-White students
and White students was Business (19.4% of the overall population). Given that Western
University (WU) has a very prestigious School of Business, this is somewhat expected.
Engineering majors were also highly represented amongst both populations. Aside from
Business and Engineering, Non-White students highly selected Biology and Health
Profession as their most popular majors. White students had a large representation of
Undecided students as well as “Other” major declared.

Overall characteristic summation. In summary, there were a number of important
parallels between Non-White and White students represented in the studied population.
Both of these groups are over-represented by women, the overall level of parental
education is comparable, and there are notable similarities of majors the students declared
upon entering WU. One difference between the groups that is very noticeable is that
15.3% of the overall Non-White population has parents who have a high school diploma
or less. All of these variables are important to consider when interpreting the results.

Diversity at Western University
As a means of gaining a better understanding of how students may encounter
diversity at WU, the following section discusses information regarding diversity courses
and possible diversity experiences. It would be a difficult task for someone to avoid
experiencing diversity in some aspect while attending Western University given the
demographics of the campus and the surrounding neighborhoods as well as the
83

opportunities for involvement on and off campus. Despite this, specific variables have
been selected in order to measure a portion of the encounters that the students have had.
In the following section, the first part addresses the statistics that directly relate to
diversity courses and the student’s participation in them. The second portion examines
additional ways that students may have experienced diversity at WU.

Diversity course participation. In Table 4.2 through Table 4.6, there are a number
of charts showing how students are involved in diversity courses. Table 4.2 shares the
year that students took their first diversity course. Almost a third of the students decided
to take a diversity course in their first year. As the years pass, the numbers decline to
4.5% of the students satisfying the course requirement in their fifth year. A surprisingly
large group of students (158) had not fulfilled this prerequisite for graduation.

Table 4.2
Frequency of the Variable "The Year in Which the First Diversity Course was Taken"
All
Students
All
Students
White
Students
White
Students
Non-
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%

84

Table 4.3 displays the overall number of diversity courses the students took
during their time at WU. Over 50% of the students only took one diversity course while
almost 20% opted to take more than one. Thirty-one of the 553 students took three or
more diversity courses, two of which entered WU as “Undeclared” majors and ended up
taking five diversity courses.

Table 4.3
Frequency of the Variable "The Number of Diversity Courses Taken by the Students"
All
Students
All
Students
White
Students
White
Students
Non-
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%

The findings in Table 4.4 represent the typology level for the first diversity course
that the students took. Only 11.4% of the students represented in this study took a
Typology 1 course first, whereas 36% of the students took either a Typology 3 or
Typology 4 course first. Looking only at those who completed the requirement, there is
an even split between the number of students who took a lower typology course (1 or 2)
first versus those who took a higher typology course (3 or 4).

85

Table 4.4
Frequency of the Variable "The Typology Level of the first Diversity Course Taken"
All
Students
All
Students
White
Students
White
Students
Non-
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 4.5 provides a summary of the previous information. In total, there were
556 diversity courses taken during the five year span of the participating students. A
majority of the courses (321) were taken during students’ first two years. However, there
were 50 courses taken during the fifth year of the students’ tenure. In addition, it is seen
that the majority of the courses were in the typology 2 or 3 range, but again, there was an
even split between the typology 1 and 2 courses versus the typology 3 and 4 courses.

Table 4.5
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

86

Other diversity experiences. When analyzing the impact of diversity courses on
student-faculty interactions, it was important to consider if there were other factors that
could potentially have an impact with regard to diversity experiences. Table 4.6 reveals
the participation rates of the students with regard to racial awareness workshops, study
abroad programs and community service. Out of these three categories, the largest
participation came in the form of community service as 45% of the students had partaken
in the experience in some form. Given that none of the diversity experiences received a
majority of student participation, this is an important item to discuss in further detail in
Chapter 5.

Table 4.6
Frequencies of Diversity Experiences
All Students White Students Non-White Students
Diversity Experience
Variable Participation
# of
Students
% of
Students
# of
Students
% of
Students
# of
Students
% of
Students
Racial Awareness
Workshops Yes 150 27.1% 91 23.8% 59 34.7%
No 403 72.9% 292 76.2% 111 65.3%
Study Abroad Yes 190 34.4% 139 36.3% 51 30.0%
No 363 65.6% 244 63.7% 119 70.0%
Community Service Yes 249 45.0% 159 41.5% 90 52.9%
No 301 54.4% 221 57.7% 80 47.1%

87

Factor Analyses and Reliabilities for the Input and Output Variables
One of the purposes of a factor analysis is to reduce a large number of related
variables into a more manageable and refined group of variables that are statistically
related and conceptually sound. The overall goal is to produce a reduced number of linear
combinations of the original variables in a manner that captures a majority of the
variability in the pattern of correlations (Pallent, 2005). For this study, numerous factor
solutions were explored in an effort to detect the most meaningful indicators for student-
faculty interactions along with critical thinking and social engagement. The factor
extraction method was set to Principle Component Analysis and a varimax rotation was
used. Being able to identify all variables with factor loadings above .600 was the
objective as this indicates the greatest commonality amongst them. However, exceptions
to this process were made and are explained in greater detail in the subsequent sections.
Following the completion of the factor analysis, the next step in the process was
administering a reliability test. When analyzing data and looking for a scale that is
reliable, one of the main concerns is its internal consistency (Pallent, 2005). The
researcher wants to be assured that the items can “hang together.” One of the ways to
figure this out is by examining the Chronbach’s alpha ( α), which ideally should be above
.700.
The paragraphs below describe the steps in creating the composite variables for
student-faculty interactions as well as critical thinking and social engagement.
Immediately following the descriptions for each of the factor analyses, are the details for
88

the reliabilities that were administered. This is then followed by a conceptual explanation
for the groupings.

Student-faculty interaction factor analysis and reliabilities (CIRP). As mentioned
in Chapter 3, there were very few variables on the CIRP that spoke to the interactions that
students have with teachers. These were all included in the factor analysis for identifying
a composite variable in the pre-college survey for student-teacher interactions. In
reviewing Table 4.7, there appears to be a correlation amongst all of the variables except
“teacher advised to attend WU.” However, this factor loaded onto the “talking with
teacher’s outside of class” variable under the second component, leaving two potential
composites.

Table 4.7
Factor Analysis of Student-Teacher Interactions – CIRP
Variables
a

Component
#1
Component
#2
Student-Teacher Interactions
Was a guest in a teacher's home .584 .018
Asked a teacher for advice after class .695 .234
Expect to communicate regularly with professors .649 -.205
Talking with teacher's outside of class .553 .518
Teacher advised to attend WU -.078 .887
Percent of Variance 31.1 23.1
Total Percent 54.2
a
Data collected in 2004.

89

Table 4.8 displays the results of the reliability for the five variables from the CIRP
survey. The alpha for this particular reliability was .479. When examining the column
which displays what the alpha would be if an item were deleted, the reliability coefficient
did not rise too much higher than the standardized alpha. In fact, none of the scores rose
above a .500. After trying to combine the individual variables in multiple pairings, none
of which rose above .500, it was decided that only one of the items would stand alone as
an individual variable when running the regressions. The selected variable was “asked a
teacher for advice after class.” The rationale for selecting this variable was two-fold. The
first is that it represented the highest factor loading (.695) in Component #1 from the
factor analysis. The second reason is that it could represent multiple facets of student-
faculty interactions. Cole (2000) uses three separate factors that gauge the different levels
of interactions students have with faculty, ranging from “administrative and standard” to
“academically and personally engaging.” In this study, the interpretation of “asking a
teacher for advice after class” could vary depending on the student, thus covering a wide
range of student-faculty interactions. “Asking a teacher for advice after class” suggests
that students have, at minimum, a standard relationship with their teacher where they feel
comfortable talking to the teacher after class about their homework. It could also imply
that students have strong relationships with the teachers, to where they are comfortable
asking for guidance in their personal lives. Selecting this variable covers multiple
interpretations of the statement, which appears to be the most useful option in this
situation.

90

Table 4.8
Reliability for Factor Analysis of Student-Teacher Interactions – CIRP
Variables
a

Alpha if
Item Deleted
Student-Teacher Interactions
Was a guest in a teacher's home .447
Asked a teacher for advice after class .348
Expect to communicate regularly with professors .468
Talking with teacher's outside of class .341
Teacher advised to attend WU .496
Reliability Coefficients (5 items) .485
Standardized (std) item alpha .479
a
Data collected in 2004.

Student-faculty interaction factor analysis and reliabilities (WUSS). Running a
factor analysis for the WUSS yielded different results. There were 14 variables in the
WUSS that targeted student-faculty interactions (see Table 4.9). When the factor analysis
was conducted with this group of variables, six of the fourteen loaded on together on the
first component, with the strongest variable being “professor provided intellectual
challenge and stimulation.” In the second component, three factors loaded together with
“professor provided an opportunity to work on a research project” scoring the highest
loading at .798. Components #3 and #4 only had two variables each with acceptable
factor loadings. The variable “professor provided negative feedback about your academic
work” had the highest rating of all variables within the factor analysis, sitting at .886 in
the fourth component.
91

Table 4.9
Factor Analysis of Student-Faculty Interactions – WUSS
Variables
a

Component
#1
Component
#2
Component
#3
Component
#4
Student-Faculty Interactions
Prof encouraged pursuit of graduate/professional study .237 .618 .246 -.079
Prof provided an opportunity to work on a research project .099 .798 .118 -.022
Prof provided advice about your educational program .497 .353 .338 .009
Prof provided respect (treated you like a colleague/peer) .728 .072 .095 .039
Prof provided an opportunity to publish a paper .156 .636 -.237 .330
Prof provided emotional support and encouragement .549 .294 .206 .202
Prof provided a letter of recommendation .281 .376 .485 .042
Prof provided assistance to improve your study skills .292 .261 .238 .482
Prof provided negative feedback about your academic work -.028 -.067 .003 .886
Prof provided intellectual challenge and stimulation .768 .029 -.033 -.040
Prof offered to discuss your coursework outside class .749 .150 .036 .052
Prof provided help in achieving your professional goals .677 .289 .229 .131
Had been a guest in a professor's home -.046 .097 .713 -.010
Talking with faculty outside of class .199 -.031 .680 .107
Percent of Variance 21.3 14.1 11.5 8.6
Total Percent 55.5
a
Data collected in 2008.

The reliabilities administered for the WUSS components from Table 4.10 yielded
similar results, not finding an alpha higher than .600. Following numerous attempts to
obtain an alpha above .700, it was decided that all fourteen of the variables would be
merged together creating a composite variable. Table 4.10 shows that doing this not only
achieved an alpha of .808, but it created a variable that encompassed the many different
aspects of student-faculty interactions. Given the decision to use a variable from the
CIRP that encompassed multiple experiences a student could have with a teacher,
combining all of the variables in this reliability makes sense. Not only does it provide an
92

alpha above .700, which was not occurring when using the suggested components in
Table 4.9, but it blends the variety of interactions that students can have with faculty
during the course of their undergraduate experience, thus getting a true sense of the
student-faculty output.

Table 4.10
Reliability for Factor Analysis of Student-Faculty Interactions – WUSS
Variables
a

Alpha if
Item Deleted
Student-Faculty Interactions
Prof encouraged pursuit of graduate/professional study .799
Prof provided an opportunity to work on a research project .802
Prof provided advice about your educational program .791
Prof provided respect (treated you like a colleague/peer) .797
Prof provided an opportunity to publish a paper .808
Prof provided emotional support and encouragement .791
Prof provided a letter of recommendation .797
Prof provided assistance to improve your study skills .801
Prof provided negative feedback about your academic work .826
Prof provided intellectual challenge and stimulation .802
Prof offered to discuss your coursework outside class .794
Prof provided help in achieving your professional goals .783
Had been a guest in a professor's home .816
Talking with faculty outside of class .809
Reliability Coefficients (14 items) .813
Standardized (std) item alpha .808
a
Data collected in 2008.

Critical thinking and social engagement factor analysis and reliabilities (CIRP).
Out of the numerous questions identified on the CIRP survey that relate to critical
thinking and social engagement, and after running multiple factor analyses, ten variables
93

were selected to administer one final factor analysis. In the first component, there were
five factors that loaded together. Although the “important to help others in difficulty”
variable had a score of .547 (see Table 4.11), it was still strong enough to consider. The
two “volunteer work” variables loaded on to one another in the second component while
the third component only had one variable above .600 which was “colleges should
prohibit racist/sexist speech.” Factor loadings in Component #1 create a suitable
foundation for which to construct and test reliability of this composite variable.

Table 4.11
Factor Analysis of Critical Thinking and Social Engagement – CIRP
Variables
a

Component
#1
Component
#2
Component
#3
Critical Thinking & Social Engagement
Important to influence social values .695 .007 -.077
Important to help others in difficulty .547 .457 .034
Important to take part in Community Action Program .594 .468 -.015
Important to help to promote racial understanding .779 .133 -.038
Important to understand other countries/cultures .765 .103 .044
Will participate in volunteer/community service work .186 .719 .116
Have performed volunteer work -.022 .738 -.051
Colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech -.019 .222 .797
Level of compassion .174 .441 -.077
Level of leadership ability .035 .378 -.683
Percent of Variance 23.9 19.0 11.3
Total Percent 54.2
a
Data collected in 2004.

94

The alpha coefficient ( α) for the critical thinking and social engagement variables
on the CIRP survey was .716. Again, uniting all of the variables together produced a
strong composite, limiting the concerns of internal consistency. As can be seen in Table
4.12, removing the variable “colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech” would have
brought the alpha up to .746, but it also would have removed an essential measure of
critical thinking and social engagement from the research. In one article in particular,
Facione (2010, p. 2) did not make a direct attempt to define critical thinking, however he
did state that when you teach people to make good decisions, you prepare them to
improve their own futures with an opportunity to become “contributing members of
society, rather than burdens on society.” As noted in Chapter 3, Giancarlo and Facione
(2001, p. 29) use the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory (CCTDI) as a
means of measuring disposition towards critical thinking. Included in the CCTDI are
seven elements that aid in this process: truthseeking; open-mindedness; analyticity;
systematicity; critical thinking (CT) self-confidence; inquisitiveness; and maturity of
judgment. These themes were used as a lens when trying to identify questions on the
CIRP that measured critical thinking, which led to the selection of the ten variables in this
factor analysis. However, in the process, a trend of social engagement appeared to be
represented in the variables as well. Considering Facione’s (2010) statement about how
teaching others to make good decisions leads to contributing members of society, this
made sense if one believes that social engagement incorporates critical thinking. As
stated in Chapter 1, social engagement is defined as an opportunity that an individual
95

may have to interact with others in an assistive role, knowing that the individual will have
to intellectually measure the costs and benefits of the interaction. Considering these
interpretations of critical thinking and social engagement, joining them together created a
compelling conceptual variable for both the input and the output of students’ experiences.

Table 4.12
Reliability for Factor Analysis of Critical Thinking and Social Engagement – CIRP
Variables
a

Alpha if
Item Deleted
Critical Thinking & Social Engagement
Important to influence social values .679
Important to help others in difficulty .652
Important to take part in Community Action Program .646
Important to help to promote racial understanding .658
Important to understand other countries/cultures .664
Will participate in volunteer/community service work .676
Have performed volunteer work .694
Colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech .746
Level of compassion .696
Level of leadership ability .717
Reliability Coefficients (10 items) .707
Standardized (std) item alpha .716
a
Data collected in 2004.

Critical thinking and social engagement factor analysis and reliabilities (WUSS).
Running a factor analysis on the eighteen critical thinking and social engagement
variables that were selected from the WUSS survey produced four components. On the
first component, as shown in Table 4.13, there were seven variables that factored together
with scores ranging from .781 to .548, accounting for the largest amount of variance
(20.0%). The second component had five variables with loadings between .781 to .646
96

and a 16.2% amount of variance. Two of the three variables in Component #3 had
loadings of .796 while the third had .646. This component explained 12.6% of the
variance. With three variables loading together, the fourth component was derived of
factor loading scores varying from .812 to .718 and accounting for 12.3% of the variance.

Table 4.13
Factor Analysis of Critical Thinking and Social Engagement – WUSS
Variables
a

Component
#1
Component
#2
Component
#3
Component
#4
Critical Thinking & Social Engagement
Have performed volunteer work .548 .158 -.094 .079
Ability to think critically .116 .648 .268 .068
Ability to evaluate and choose b/t different courses of action .117 .682 .158 .227
Knowing yourself: abilities, interests, limitations, personality .121 .781 .217 .029
Important to influence social values .704 .119 .086 .089
Important to help others who are in difficulty .733 .133 .163 .081
Important to participate in a community action program .781 .064 .088 .172
Important to promote racial understanding .658 -.086 .236 .212
Important to know about 3rd world development & human rights .691 -.017 .362 -.009
Important to become a community leader .720 .270 .131 .015
Have developed self-esteem/self-confidence .040 .749 .126 .113
Have resolved interpersonal conflicts positively .174 .646 -.011 .353
Have got along with people from different races/cultures .143 .217 .049 .797
Understanding of different religions/belief systems .128 .158 .224 .812
Understanding of issues related to gender .148 .178 .329 .718
Understanding problems facing community surrounding WU .175 .187 .646 .216
Understanding of social problems facing our nation .201 .274 .796 .237
Understanding of global issues .179 .284 .796 .130
Percent of Variance 20.0 16.2 12.6 12.3
Total Percent 61.1
a
Data collected in 2008.

For the final reliability test, eighteen variables were considered from the WUSS.
In an effort to be consistent with the input variable created from the CIRP, multiple
97

critical thinking and social engagement items in the WUSS were identified. This is also
consistent with the previous reliabilities, where all of these variables were joined together
to see what the alpha would result in. This alpha was .886, a particularly strong measure.
Reviewing Table 4.14 illustrates that removing any one of the variables would only
decrease the alpha, thus this was the strongest and most reliable combination of variables.

Table 4.14
Reliability for Factor Analysis of Critical Thinking and Social Engagement – WUSS
Variables
a

Alpha if
Item Deleted
Critical Thinking & Social Engagement
Have performed volunteer work .882
Ability to think critically .878
Ability to evaluate and choose b/t different courses of action .877
Knowing yourself: abilities, interests, limitations, personality .878
Important to influence social values .877
Important to help others who are in difficulty .874
Important to participate in a community action program .874
Important to promote racial understanding .877
Important to know about 3rd world development & human rights .876
Important to become a community leader .874
Have developed self-esteem/self-confidence .880
Have resolved interpersonal conflicts positively .877
Have got along with people from different races/cultures .878
Understanding of different religions/belief systems .877
Understanding of issues related to gender .876
Understanding problems facing community surrounding WU .877
Understanding of social problems facing our nation .873
Understanding of global issues .875
Reliability Coefficients (18 items) .883
Standardized (std) item alpha .886
a
Data collected in 2008.
98

Summarizing the Development of the Composite Variables
In summary, three composite variables were identified and created using factor
analysis and reliability tests: one for student-faculty interactions as an output variable;
one for critical thinking and social engagement as an input variable; and one for critical
thinking and social engagement as an output variable. Ideally, a fourth would have been
designed as well (one for student-faculty interactions as an input variable), but the
variables were unable to combine to produce a reliable composite. However, the output
composite created for student-faculty interactions using the fourteen different variables
should produce an extremely reliable measure. As for the composite created to determine
a student’s critical thinking and social engagement skills upon entering WU, it was not as
strong as the student-faculty interaction variable, but it was still statistically reliable. The
final variable, charged with gauging the critical thinking and social engagement skills a
student had after attending WU, was the strongest of the three possessing an alpha of
.886. Along with the individual variable measuring each student’s interactions with
teachers prior to attending WU, these three composite variables will be used for running
regressions.
With 62.9% of the studied population being female and 63% of the overall 553
students having at least one parent who had some graduate education, this may not be
representative of most college campuses. Even for WU, the sample population is overly
represented by females. Western University’s incoming class of 2004 was populated by
51% females and 49% males (see Appendix E). However, this study is still significant as
it begins to address the questions: do diversity courses have an impact on student-faculty
99

interactions; and do diversity courses, along with the student-faculty interactions that
students experience in college, have an impact on critical thinking and social
engagement? The results from this section of the study have laid the foundation for the
linear regressions that follow, which in turn assist in answering these research questions.

Linear Regression Analysis
Regressions are often used to learn more about the relationship that several
independent variables have with one dependent variable. The following section reports
the results of the linear regression analyses for the student-faculty interaction model as
well as the critical thinking and social engagement model. The standardized regression
coefficients from these analyses are reported along with the remaining variables that
prove to be significant following the addition of the environmental variables. Preparation
in controlling for each of the variables has been completed so that the regressions can be
administered, allowing for the examination of each variable and its impact.

Regressions for Student-Faculty Interactions
The first dependent variable that the regressions will address is student-faculty
interactions. There is potential for students and faculty to intermingle on a variety of
levels, whether it is asking for advice, conversing outside of the classroom or socializing
in each other’s homes. This section examines the impact that participant characteristics,
declared major, pre-college student-teacher interactions and diversity experiences in
college have on student-faculty interactions, followed by a summary of these findings.
100

Participant characteristics. As the results of the regressions show in Table 4.15,
gender does not have a significant impact on student-faculty interactions. This appears to
be inconsistent with Kraft’s (1991) research where women report that having supportive
faculty was a significant factor in student success and that women desire to be “taken
seriously,” thus valuing faculty interaction.
Prior research (Cole, 2000; Kraft, 1991; Wilson, Wood, & Gaff, 1974) has shown
that many factors come into play when race is used as a predictor for student-faculty
interactions. In this portion of the study, the race of a student did not have a significant
effect on whether or not students interacted with faculty. The same appears to be the case
in regards to the parent’s level of education. Regardless of the parent’s schooling, there
was no significance discovered in this study. This is contrary to what Pascarella and
Terenzini (1979) discovered in their research, finding that as parental education
increased, the frequencies of student-faculty interactions decreased. Given the high levels
of parental education in this study, 53% of the students reported parents experiencing at
least some grad school, one might have expected a significant result that supports
Pascarella and Terenzini’s findings. However, that is not the case in this research.

101

Table 4.15
Regression Coefficients for Student-Faculty Interactions
Independent Variables
Student-Faculty
Interactions
x

Student-Faculty
Interactions
y

Student-Faculty
Interactions
z

β β β

Student's Gender (Female) .075 .075 .074
White/Caucasian -.059 -.059 -.059
Parental Education .004 .003 .004
Major-Business -.030 -.029 -.029
Major-Biological Sciences -.024 -.023 -.023
Major-Education .023 .024 .023
Major-Engineering -.065 -.064 -.064
Major-English -.020 -.019 -.019
Major-Health Prof -.075 -.074 -.074
Major-History / Political Science -.032 -.031 -.031
Major-Humanities .009 .010 .010
Major-Fine Arts .066 .066 .066
Major-Math / Statistics .071 .072 .072
Major-Physical Science .013 .014 .014
Major-Social Science -.061 -.060 -.061
Major-Other Technology .002 .003 .003
Major-Other -.066 -.065 -.065
Major-Undeclared -.033 -.032 -.033
Asked Teacher for Advice .166*** .166*** .166***
R
2
.078 .078 .078
Diversity Course Variable
(x, y or z)
.008 -.002 .001
Racial Awareness Workshop .115** .115** .115**
Studied Abroad .049 .049 .049
Community Service .099* .099* .099*

Adjusted R
2
.063 .063 .063
R
2
.103 .103 .103
F 2.585*** 2.584*** 2.584***
Highest Condition Index 30.299 30.388 30.568
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Diveristy Course Variables used:
x
First DC Taken;
y
Number of DC's Taken;
z
Typology of 1st DC
102

Major declared. The major that a student declared upon entering WU appeared to
not be statistically significant in relation to student-faculty interactions either. Gamson
(1967) identified differences in student-faculty interactions by major, reporting that
students who interacted with faculty in the social sciences held personal and academic
relationships with their professors, whereas students working with faculty in the natural
sciences tended to connect only on an academic level. This study does not confirm nor
refute these findings as there were no significant relationships found, although there did
appear to be somewhat of a trend for math majors. For students who received advice from
teachers on their future and were math majors, they were edging close to significance ( β
= .086, p = .077).

Pre-college student-teacher interactions. Asking a teacher for advice after class
was found as significant ( β = .166, p < .001). This finding appears to be consistent with
Chapman and Pascarella’s (1983) findings that informal contact with faculty predicts
academic integration. Terenzini and Wright (1987) take it a step further saying that the
higher the degree of integration into college that students have, the greater their
commitment to the institution, which is defined by the frequency of their contact with
faculty. In the case of this student population, a significant amount of them asked
teachers for advice after class, thus predicting that they would interact with faculty when
they attend college.

103

Diversity courses. Given the findings as a result of the regressions, diversity
courses do not seem to have a significant effect on student-faculty interactions. This does
not mean that diversity courses did not have an influence on the student at all. It just
means that taking a course had no bearing on whether or not a student interacted more or
less with their professors. Many studies have shown that there are a variety of positive
outcomes linked to students who participate in diversity courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008;
Gurin, Dey, Hurtado & Gurin, 2002; Hurtado, 2007), however it was not represented in
this particular study.

Other diversity experiences. Through each of the regressions, two variables
remained significant, both of which were part of the student’s experiences with diversity.
Students who attended a racial awareness workshop while in college ( β = .115, p < .01)
were more likely to interact with faculty than those who did not. The same can be said for
students who participated in community service activities ( β = .099, p < .05). Cole’s
(2007) discoveries would support this conclusion as he found that as interracial
interactions increase, or as the structural diversity of a campus increases, so do student-
faculty interactions. Given that the majority of the student population at WU is Non-
White and that these students engaged in a variety of diversity experiences, the prediction
that they would have student-faculty interactions appears to be supported by the findings
of this study.

104

Summary of student-faculty interaction regressions. The findings in this portion
of the study state that students who had asked a high school teacher for advice about their
future, attended a racial awareness workshop in college and participated in a community
service project in college, all served as predictors for student-faculty interactions.
Regarding the overall impact of diversity courses taken by students’ 5
th
year of college, a
requirement necessary for completing their undergraduate degree, there appeared to be no
significance in relation to student-faculty interactions. These regression models, at best,
represented approximately 10.3% of the variance for student-faculty interactions
(adjusted R
2
= .063; see Table 4.15). The percent of variance (R
2
) explained that was
attributed to input variables (i.e. pre-test, student background, and college entry
variables) were as high as 7.8%. The contribution of the various diversity experiences
through the students’ 5
th
year of college (i.e. diversity course variables, racial awareness
workshop, studied abroad, and community service) added 4.0%.
When using regressions to understand relationships between variables, one of the
issues to keep in mind while analyzing the output is if there are multicollinearity
concerns. These exist when there is a high correlation between independent variables
(Pallent, 2005). In an effort to reduce multicollinearity among the variables in this
particular study, the goal was to keep the Condition Index for each of the regressions
close to 30. The highest Condition Index for the student-faculty interaction regressions
was 30.568, thus verifying a successful model.
Given these results, the answer to the first research question of this study, and its
sub-questions, is evident. Diversity courses alone do not have a significant impact on
105

student-faculty interactions. However, in conjunction with other diversity experiences,
these factors are important when considering whether or not students will have
interactions with faculty and should be taken into consideration when predicting these
behaviors.

Regressions for Critical Thinking and Social Engagement
The final dependent variable that the regressions address is critical thinking and
social engagement. Critical thinking is a cognitive process that continues to mature over
time, with environment and context always playing a role in its development. The same
can be said for social engagement, considering that as time passes, these interactions may
increase or decrease given the circumstances. This section examines the impact that
participant characteristics, declared major, pre-college critical thinking and social
engagement skills, diversity experiences in college and student-faculty interactions in
college has on a student’s critical thinking and social engagement once they graduate.
This will then be followed by a summary of these findings.

106

Table 4.16
Regression Coefficients for Critical Thinking and Social Engagement
Independent Variables
Critical Thinking
& Social
Engagement
(WUSS)
x

Critical Thinking
& Social
Engagement
(WUSS)
y

Critical Thinking
& Social
Engagement
(WUSS)
z

β β β

Student's Gender (Female) .058 .049 .060
White/Caucasian -.057 -.069 -.066
Parental Education .011 .020 .017
CT & SE (CIRP) .263*** .260*** .257***
R
2
.180 .180 .180
Diversity Course Variable
(x, y or z)
-.041 .089* .056
Racial Awareness Workshop .176*** .168*** .172***
Studied Abroad .052 .055 .052
Community Service .085* .082* .087*
Student-Faculty Interactions .285*** .286*** .286***

Adjusted R
2
.299 .305 .300
R
2
.312 .318 .314
F 23.148*** 23.796*** 23.300***
Highest Condition Index 33.669 33.815 33.968
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Diveristy Course Variables used:
x
First DC Taken;
y
Number of DC's Taken;
z
Typology of 1st DC

Participant characteristics. Giancarlo and Facione (2001) reported that females in
their study scored significantly higher than males in their overall disposition towards
critical thinking. Contrary to Giancarlo and Facione’s findings, the outcomes from the
regressions shown in Table 4.16 do not reveal any significant correlations between
gender and critical thinking. Prior research (Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella & Nora,
1995) has also indicated that parents' education is significantly and positively related to
107

gains in critical thinking; yet there was no statistical significance found in this study.
There is also evidence (Hu & Kuh, 2003; Pascarella, Palmer, Moye & Pierson, 2001) that
students benefit differently from diversity experiences depending on their race in regards
to critical thinking. When exposed to people from diverse backgrounds, White students
benefited more in critical thinking development compared to students of color. This study
was unable to confirm those findings, nor any other significant results regarding race as a
predictor for critical thinking and social engagement.

Major declared. Declaring a major when applying for acceptance into an
institution can be a daunting task for students. Part of their critical thinking and social
engagement process is coming to a decision about how they want to spend the next four
to five years of their lives and selecting a major can influence multiple aspects of a
college experience. Research (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001) has shown that the major a
student selects has a variety of impacts on critical thinking. Only one major was found to
have a significant relationship in this model. It appears that students who choose to major
in the physical sciences are less likely to have critical thinking and social engagement
skills ( β = -.190, p < .05). Unfortunately, using major as an independent variable created
multicollinearity issues (Condition Index exceeded 200) in the regressions for critical
thinking and social engagement. Removing major from the model reduced the Condition
Index to an acceptable level. Fortunately, in doing this, there were only minor changes in
the beta values and the significance of each of the variables remained the same, aside
from losing the significance of students majoring in the physical sciences.
108

Pre-college critical thinking and social engagement skills. Giancarlo and
Facione’s (2001) research also addresses pre-college versus post-college critical thinking
skills, suggesting that critical thinking either maintains its current level or increases over
time. In this particular study, possessing critical thinking and social engagement skills
prior to college is a significant predictor of exiting college with critical thinking and
social engagement skills as well (as high as β = .263, p < .001).

Diversity courses. The impact of diversity courses was measured in three separate
regressions (year the first diversity course was taken, the number of diversity courses
taken and the typology level of the first diversity course taken). Only one of the variables,
the number of diversity courses taken, proved to be significant ( β = .089, p < .05). This
confirms previous research, such as that of Nelson-Laird, Engberg and Hurtado (2005),
who reported that students who enrolled in diversity courses were more likely to score
higher on critical thinking disposition.

Other diversity experiences. Once again, racial awareness workshops have been
found to significantly impact the output variable. Students who attended a racial
awareness workshop while in college (ranging from β = .168, p < .001 to β = .176, p <
.001) were more likely to possess critical thinking and social engagement skills at the
time of their graduation. Similarly, all three of the regressions reported that community
109

service had a significant influence on the outcome of critical thinking and social
engagement (ranging from β = .082, p < .05 to β = .087, p < .05). The findings from this
study along with prior research (Nelson-Laird, Engberg & Hurtado, 2005; Pascarella,
2001) continues to demonstrate that a variety of different diversity experiences appear to
positively influence growth in critical thinking and social engagement during college.

Student-faculty interactions. Researchers (Light, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner,
2004) have found and discussed connections between faculty interaction and the
strengthening of students’ critical thinking and social engagement skills. The results from
all three regressions seem to support this finding, indicating that the more interactions
with faculty that a student has ( β = .285, p < .001; β = .286, p < .001; β = .286, p < .001),
the more likely they are to have critical thinking and social engagement skills.

Summary of critical thinking and social engagement regressions. Possessing
critical thinking and social engagement skills prior to attending college is one of the main
predictors for students graduating college with critical thinking and social engagement
skills. However, if that same student were to also attend a racial awareness workshop in
college, participate in community service and had a high rate of student-faculty
interactions, critical thinking and social engagement skills would significantly increase.
The overall impact of diversity courses taken by students’ 5
th
year of college once
again showed no significance in these regressions. The critical thinking and social
engagement regression models in this section represented approximately 31.8% of the
110

variance for critical thinking and social engagement (adjusted R
2
= .305; see Table 4.16).
The percent of variance (R
2
) explained that was attributed to input variables (i.e. pre-test,
student background, and college entry variables) was as high as 18%. Incorporating the
various diversity experiences through the students’ 5
th
year of college (i.e. diversity
course variables, racial awareness workshop, studied abroad, and community service)
resulted in similar responses, adding the most for the dependent variable, “typology level
of first diversity course taken,” at 1.4% and equally amongst the other two variables at
1.3%.
As mentioned previously, keeping a low multicollinearity level (Condition Index
close to 30) is essential in creating a successful model when running regressions. Using
the “major” variables caused significant multicollinearity issues. In order to alleviate that,
the various majors were removed as independent variables. This resulted in a
considerable decrease of the Condition Index (the highest dropped to 33.968), bringing it
to a more acceptable level and producing a successful model.
These results provide an answer to the second research question of this study.
Neither the year a student first took a diversity course, the typology of the first diversity
course they took nor the number of diversity courses a student took at a university had a
significant impact on critical thinking and social engagement. However, taking diversity
courses and participating in other diversity experiences resulted in increased critical
thinking and social engagement.

111

Chapter 5
Summary, Implications, Recommendations and Conclusion

Introduction
The previous chapters have included research and discussion about student-
faculty interactions as well as critical thinking and social engagement at a private, tier-
one research institution. These factors as well as variables that impact these behaviors,
including diversity courses and diversity experiences, were also examined. The remaining
sections of this chapter provide a summary of the study, emphasizing any significant
results found as an outcome of regression analyses. Specific variables that had an impact
on this study’s outcomes are identified followed by discussion regarding its influence.
Following that section, the limitations of this study are presented. Lastly, the implications
and recommendations regarding student-faculty interactions as well as critical thinking
and social engagement are discussed to bring this study to a close.

Summary of the Study
To gain a complete understanding of the formation and influence of student-
faculty interactions in higher education, it requires an awareness of the many facets of
development theory. The most significant could possibly be sociocultural theory.
Vygotsky, considered to be a pioneer of sociocultural theory, believed that as humans
develop, there is a social process, in addition to the physical process, that occurs from
birth onwards (Tudge & Winterhoff, 1993). This development is assisted by adults and/or
112

peers who are more competent in the skills and technologies available within the culture.
For example, when a child goes to school for the first time, the development he
undergoes is assisted by teachers and his classmates. However, the development process
must be within a person’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), or the difference
between what learners can do without help and what they can do with help (1993). This is
a direct correlation to what our institutions of higher education serve as. Colleges and
universities provide the social and cultural environments where the learning takes place.
The professors, staff and peers assist the learners in their development during their tenure
at the institution.
This would then explain the significance of student-faculty interactions. Vygotsky
believed that social and cultural institutions, like a school for children or a university for
adults, channel the nature and focus of interpersonal interactions (Tudge & Winterhoff,
1993). This in turn mediates the development of a person's higher mental functioning
(such as thinking, problem-solving, and language learning). Simply put, schools from
kindergarten to post-secondary institutions provide opportunities for “interpersonal
interactions” like student-faculty relationships. These bonds in turn facilitate learning and
development.
Multiple studies have been conducted, providing sound evidence of how student-
faculty interactions impact students’ lives (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2008; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991; Terenzini & Wright, 1987). Yet there is somewhat limited information
on what factors contribute to student-faculty interactions (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2000,
Pascarella, 1980). Along with trying to better understand how diversity courses can
113

impact a student’s experience, these are some of the reasons this study was conducted.
However, consider for one moment, the idea of designing an empirical research project
that not only focuses on factors, such as diversity courses, that impact student-faculty
interactions, but exploring the potential outcomes in which student-faculty interactions
may influence students’ lives as well.
As mentioned earlier, Vygotsky studied sociocultural theory which covers how
students learn social skills and other behaviors, but how are critical thinking skills
influenced? Multiple studies (Kim & Sax, 2007; Light, 2001; Lundberg & Schreiner,
2004) have found or discussed how student-faculty interactions impact critical thinking.
Giancarlo and Facione (2001) study the disposition towards critical thinking in students
by using the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory which includes seven
elements that assist in the measurements, one of which is “open-mindedness.” Given that
one of the main foci of this research is to understand if a society-centered initiative like
providing diversity courses to students, can influence their behavior, why not consider if
there is a change in their “open-mindedness” or social awareness too, by measuring
critical thinking and social engagement both before and after college. This should help to
gauge whether or not diversity courses and student-faculty interactions had an impact on
these behaviors.
Designing an empirical research project that explores factors, such as diversity
courses and experiences, which contribute to student-faculty interactions, in addition to
studying the impact that those experiences have on critical thinking and social
engagement, has potential to offer a number of benefits: providing students with evidence
114

regarding the significance of developing relationships with faculty in order to improve
their educational experiences; verifying to students and faculty the significance of
diversity courses and experiences; to support any policies that assess the reviews of
faculty as instructors in addition to their research capabilities; to enrich the overall quality
of education at an institution, with a particular focus on diversity courses; to better
understand how student-faculty interactions may or may not impact critical thinking and
social engagement; and to substantiate any evidence of factors that encourage student-
faculty interactions. Given these prospective outcomes, the hope is that this research will
act as a springboard for further studies which will, in time, have a positive impact on
students, faculty and institutions of higher education.
This study is a non-experimental research design, single institution investigation,
utilizing student transcripts as well as self-reported survey data from experiences prior to
college and following their fourth year at the institution. Previous studies have shown that
self-reported data is reliable and valid in relation to its accuracy of the reported
experiences and is often used in fields of research (Baird, 1976; Cole, 2000; Pace, 1985;
Pike, 1995). Data from the CIRP provided background characteristics on the students and
described their experiences prior to attending Western University (WU). The WUSS
supplied information about what the students encountered during their time at WU.
As displayed in Model #1 (Figure 3.1), variables such as student characteristics
(gender, race and level of parental education), major declared, previous teacher-student
interactions, diversity courses and diversity experiences are all used to identify predictors
of student-faculty interactions. These variables are then used to see if there is a
115

correlation with critical thinking and social engagement. Since student-faculty
interactions are seen as intermediate educational outcomes because they consist of
ongoing experiences in post-secondary institutions (Cole, 2000), critical thinking and
social engagement was used as the final output in Model #2 (refer to Figure 3.2). As
mentioned earlier, sociocultural theory suggests that not only is a student’s capacity to
learn important, but the environment in which students ascertain information is essential
in promoting the learning and maturation processes. Thus, knowing which variables
impact student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement can help to
improve these relationships, help to develop better post-secondary institutions and serve
as a catalyst for future research.

Student-Faculty Interactions and Diversity Courses
Given that the CIRP assessed the experiences a student had prior to attending
Western University, four variables were identified that measured teacher-student
interactions, with the goal in mind that they may help to predict student-faculty
interactions. A factor analysis was conducted on these variables identifying potential
composite variables. However, after administering a reliability test on them, the variables
did not load onto one another with a proper reliability. Due to this, one variable was
selected and used as an individual input characteristic in each of the regressions, along
with the student’s gender, race, parental level of education and the major they selected
upon entering WU. The WUSS was then used to identify fourteen variables that
combined to create one composite variable, which measured the output of student-faculty
116

interactions following four years at WU. The percent of variance (R
2
) that was attributed
to the input variables in each of the regressions (shown in Table 4.15) was minimal, but
significant at7.8%.
The first research question in this study asked what kind of impact diversity
courses have on student-faculty interactions. Given that there are multiple reports and
studies that discuss the positive impact that diversity courses can have on a student (Cole
& Sundt, 2008; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado & Gurin, 2002; Hurtado, 2007; Nelson-Laird,
Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005), it is important to understand if they influence student-faculty
interactions in some way. Using student transcripts, diversity course syllabi and
classifying each of the courses into a typology (refer to Appendix D), three different
variables were created. Using these variables along with variables representing students’
diversity experiences (attending racial awareness workshops, studying abroad and
community service), this study was able to identify the impact these variables had.
The first diversity course variable was “the year the first diversity course was
taken.” Each student is required to take at least one diversity course before graduation, so
there was an interest to see if the year that the student took their first diversity course
made an impact on student-faculty interactions. Incorporating the students diversity
experiences along with this variable into the model, considering the courses taken
through each student’s fifth year, explained 10.3% of the variance, at best (adjusted R
2
=
.063).
The “number of diversity courses taken” was the second diversity course variable.
As mentioned before, students are required to take one diversity course, but some opted
117

to take more than that. This variable measured the number of diversity courses each
student took through 40 courses. Using this variable in the regression, in conjunction with
the other diversity experiences, helped to explain 10.3% of the variance as well (adjusted
R
2
= .063).
The final variable measuring diversity courses was “typology level of first
diversity course taken.” Using the figure from Appendix D as a model, each course
syllabi was graded and given a typology level. The typology level of the first diversity
course taken was used as a variable because it would be expected to make the most initial
impact on a student. Adding this variable into the regressions, in addition to the other
diversity experiences, also yielded a variance of 10.3% (adjusted R
2
= .063).

Critical Thinking, Social Engagement and Diversity Courses
Just as the CIRP was used to indentify pre-college characteristics for teacher-
student interactions, the same was applied in studying the output for critical thinking and
social engagement. Student gender, race and level of parental education were used again;
however, their selected major upon entering WU was dropped due to the fact that it
caused multicollinearity issues. Ten additional variables were selected from the CIRP and
combined into one composite variable, as a means of gauging the students’ levels of
critical thinking and social engagement prior to attending WU. Once that measure was
completed, fourteen variables were selected from the WUSS and combined into a
composite. This variable determined the output for critical thinking and social
engagement following their four-year experience at WU. The percent of variance (R
2
)
118

that was attributed to the input variables in these regressions (shown in Table 4.16) was
significant, explaining 18.0%.
Once again, the diversity course and diversity experience variables were used as
an environmental influence on the outcomes. However, student-faculty interactions were
also added as part of the environment, as this is an experience that could help to predict
change in critical thinking and social engagement. The first diversity course variable
added was, “the year the first diversity course was taken.” Incorporating this variable into
the model explained 31.2% of the variance (adjusted R
2
= .299). Replacing “the year the
first diversity course was taken” with “the number of diversity courses taken,” yielded a
variance of 31.8% (adjusted R
2
= .305). Lastly, using the diversity course variable,
“typology level of first diversity course taken,” helped to explain 31.4% of the variance
(adjusted R
2
= .300).

Overview of Correlates in the Student-Faculty Interaction Analysis
Overall, there were few predictors of student-faculty interactions found in this
study. Contrary to the findings of many other studies (Cole, 2000; Gamson, 1967; Kraft,
1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979; Wilson, Wood & Gaff, 1974), this research found no
significance in pre-college characteristics other than students who “asked teachers for
advice after class.” Conversely to that finding however, the environmental variables
showed stronger correlations, especially in terms of the diversity experiences a student
has while in college. The following sections discuss these findings further.

119

Participant characteristics. This study identified three participant characteristics
that were used to evaluate whether or not they were predictors of student-faculty
interactions, the first of which was gender. Cole (2000) and Kraft (1991) reported that
gender was a factor in their findings, however no significant relationship was found in
this research. Some studies (Cole, 2000; Cole, 2007; Wilson, Wood & Gaff, 1974) have
considered how race impacts student-faculty interactions and found significant results.
However, race was not found to have a significant relationship in these findings either.
The third participant characteristic that was considered was the level of parental
education. Pascarella and Terenzini (1979) found that as the parents’ level of education
increases, the frequency of student-faculty interactions decrease. Once again, no
significant result was found in this research in regards to parents’ level of education.
Although there appears to be no correlation between gender, race and parental
level of education in this study, this research does not confirm nor refute Cole (2000) and
Kraft’s (1991) findings regarding gender, Cole (2000, 2007) and Wilson, Wood and
Gaff’s (1974) results regarding race, and Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1979) findings
regarding parental level of education. The results could be, in part, due to the sampled
population and the faculty at WU and them feeling indifferent about their experiences.
WU is a research oriented institution with high demands on its professors to be published.
Given those requirements, it is possible that professors exert more energy on their
research than they do in the classroom where they might be building relationships with
students. Although one might expect there to be a negative correlation given this
120

situation, it is possible that when taking into consideration these characteristics, the
sampled students do not have a strong opinion about their experiences with faculty.

Major declared. The major a student selected upon entering WU appeared to not
hold significance either. Although Gamson (1967) suggests that faculty in some
disciplines encourage student-faculty interactions more than others, there were no
findings in this study that support or contradict these results. Regardless of the findings
here, or anywhere else, students in all majors should be encouraged to interact with
faculty in order to seek advice and guidance in relation to their discipline. Overall,
research (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Cole, 2008; Endo & Harpel, 1982; Pascarella,
Terenzini & Hibel, 1978) has shown that there are many positive outcomes from doing
so.

Pre-college student-teacher interactions. This study did find that students who
“asked a teacher for advice after class” were more likely to report having student-faculty
interactions while in college at WU ( β = .166, p < .001). This result was more expected
than any other since having a positive experience with student-teacher interactions in
high school would logically lead to a student experiencing student-faculty interactions in
college. Chapman and Pascarella (1983) suggested that informal contact with professors
predicts integration into academics. Terenzini and Wright (1987) then goes on to say that
the more a student is integrated into college, the more commitment they have to the
institution, which is defined by how frequent students are in contact with faculty.
121

Pascarella (1980) also reported that students who are “seeking mentors” are a major
predictor of student-faculty interactions. Given all of these factors, it makes sense that
there was a significant relationship found for students who had “asked a teacher for
advice after class” in high school. Knowing this, we must continue to encourage students
at a younger age to build relationships with their teachers as this should translate into
academic success once they transition into a college environment.

Diversity courses. Participating in diversity courses was not a predictor of
student-faculty interactions in this study. Although numerous other positive outcomes
have come from similar diversity initiatives (Gurin, 1999; Hurtado, 2007; Nelson-Laird,
Engberg & Hurtado, 2005), this research could not produce significant results. This is
certainly not to say that diversity courses do not have an impact on students’ lives,
however, they do not appear to significantly impact student-faculty interactions. Hurtado
(2000) noted that diversity courses are just one aspect of diversity initiatives on college
campuses, and little research has been done to see what kind of impact this portion of the
overall action plan is having. Given that students who only took one diversity course or
none at all combined to create 80.9% of the sample population, it makes sense that there
would be little to report. Had students taken more courses, there might have been more of
an overall impact in their interactions with faculty (Gurin et al., 2002; Hurtado, 2007).

Other diversity experiences. Although there was no correlation found for students
who participated in study abroad programs and student-faculty interactions, there were
122

significant relationships discovered for students who participated in racial awareness
workshops ( β = .115, p < .01) and students who were involved in community service
activities ( β = .099, p < .05). Cole’s (2007) findings support the results found in this
study. He reported that as interracial interactions increase, or as the structural diversity of
the campus population increases, so do student-faculty interactions. Knowing that the
majority of the student population at WU is Non-White (51.0%), that the community
around WU is diverse and considering the activities these students participated in, it
would make sense that the sample population was likely to interact with people from a
different race, thus increasing student-faculty interactions. The ending result should then
be to continue to encourage students on our campuses to participate in racial awareness
workshops, community service projects and any other activity that produces interracial
interactions, as this will also result in student-faculty interactions, increased awareness
and respect of others and academic success in college.

Table 5.1
Significant Input and Environmental Variables for Student-Faculty Interactions
Independent Variables
Student-Faculty
Interactions
x

Student-Faculty
Interactions
y

Student-Faculty
Interactions
z

β β β
Asked Teacher for Advice Pos. Pos. Pos.
Racial Awareness Workshop Pos. Pos. Pos.
Community Service Pos. Pos. Pos.
Diveristy Course Variables used:
x
First DC Taken;
y
Number of DC's Taken;
z
Typology of 1st DC

123

Overview of Correlates in the Critical Thinking and Social Engagement Analysis
In the regressions studying critical thinking and social engagement, four of the
nine variables were found to be significant predictors. Identifying positive outcomes is
consistent with multiple studies that have been conducted regarding critical thinking and
social engagement (Giancarlo & Facione, 2001; Hu & Kuh, 2003; Nelson-Laird, Engberg
& Hurtado, 2005). The following section discusses these results further.

Participant characteristics. This portion of the study used the same three
participant characteristics that were used to evaluate student-faculty interactions: gender;
race; and level of parental education. Once again, none of these variables were found to
be significant predictors, contrary to what other studies have found (Giancarlo & Facione,
2001; Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella & Nora, 1995; Hu & Kuh, 2003). Although there
appears to be no direct significant correlation between gender, race and parental level of
education with critical thinking and social engagement, this does not mean that other
studies will not find significant relationships.

Pre-college critical thinking and social engagement skills. Giancarlo and Facione
(2001) found that possessing critical thinking skills prior to college predicts that a student
will have either the same level of critical thinking skills when they depart the institution
or it will have increased over time. The results from this study support those findings as
having critical thinking and social engagement skills prior to attending WU holds a very
strong and significant correlation ( β = .263, p < .001) to still having them four years later.
124

This is most likely because one of the main purposes of higher education is to create
opportunities for personal, social and intellectual growth, similar to what the mission of
WU (Appendix F) states, in that their central mission is “the development of human
beings and society as a whole.” Knowing that having critical thinking and social
engagement skills prior to attending college, and then maintaining them following the
college experience is encouraging as it shows that WU has been successful in this portion
of their purpose. All levels of education should continue to support and develop these
characteristics in their students.

Diversity courses. One of the diversity course variables, the number of diversity
courses taken, proved to be a predictor of critical thinking and social engagement ( β =
.089, p < .05). This is consistent with research conducted by Nelson-Laird, Engberg &
Hurtado (2005) who reported that students who enrolled in diversity courses at a
university were more likely to have a higher score on critical thinking disposition. One of
the goals of WU’s purpose in having diversity courses (Appendix A) is to “equip our
students with the background knowledge and analytical skills which will enable them to
understand and respect differences.” Apparently, WU has been successful in this aspect,
so it is important to keep supporting diversity courses as they not only meet the
requirements set forth at WU, but they are encouraging the development of critical
thinking and social engagement skills.

125

Other diversity experiences. Once again, other diversity experiences have proved
to be strong predictors of critical thinking and social engagement. There was no
significance found in the studied abroad variable, just as was the case when predicting
student-faculty interactions. However, both attending racial awareness workshops ( β =
.176, p < .001) and participating in community service activities ( β = .087, p < .05) were
significant predictors of critical thinking and social engagement. These findings are
consistent with prior research (Nelson-Laird, Engberg & Hurtado, 2005; Pascarella,
2001). As was the case with diversity courses, participating in these kinds of activities
challenges and strengthens critical thinking and a desire to be active in social initiatives.
The efforts that go into creating opportunities for students to engage in these activities
should continue to be supported by the administration as the results are clearly shown
here.

Student-faculty interactions. Multiple studies (Light, 2001; Lundberg &
Schreiner, 2004; Terenzini, Springer, Pascarella & Nora, 1995) have discussed and found
links between student-faculty interactions and critical thinking. Those studies are
supported by the findings in this research. This study reports that the more student-faculty
interactions a student has, the more likely they are to possess critical thinking and social
engagement skills. There was a very strong correlation between these two variables ( β =
.286, p < .001). For students who interact with faculty on a regular basis, one would
assume that there are intellectually stimulating conversations happening, that the student
is seeking feedback on homework and that the student recognizes the significance of
126

being helped by another person who is capable of assisting them. All of these occurrences
would aid in student in developing their critical thinking skills and would encourage them
to help others, just as they have been helped. Knowing this, it is imperative to encourage
student-faculty interactions, as the outcomes are significant not only to themselves, but to
others as well.

Table 5.2
Significant Input and Environmental Variables for Critical Thinking and Social
Engagement

Independent Variables
Critical Thinking
& Social
Engagement
x

Critical Thinking
& Social
Engagement
y

Critical Thinking
& Social
Engagement
z

β β β
CT & SE (CIRP) Pos. Pos. Pos.
Diversity Course Variable
(x, y or z)
x
First DC Taken
y
Number of DC's Taken
z
Typology of 1
st
DC Pos.
Racial Awareness Workshop Pos. Pos. Pos.
Community Service Pos. Pos. Pos.
Student-Faculty Interactions Pos. Pos. Pos.
Diveristy Course Variables used:
x
First DC Taken;
y
Number of DC's Taken;
z
Typology of 1
st
DC

Delimitations and Limitations
Although quantitative research strives to eliminate subjectivity and reduce
researcher bias, it is still open to partiality. Ways in which research measures are
constructed in tests, surveys, and questionnaires do not always remove all forms of bias,
127

but in fact has the potential to disguise it (Patton, 2002). With that said, there are
delimitations and limitations to this study, some that may be beyond the researcher’s
control.
In regards to the delimitations of this study, using a single site, as this research
does, limits the ability to generalize and apply the outcomes to other institutions, thus
bringing into question its external validity. Additionally, the level of parental education in
this study was so high, that the results may or may not apply to first-generation college
students. It is also important to consider that the average GPA for students who are
accepted into WU is 3.7, thus putting into question whether or not the results are
generalized. Another concern is the limited time frame this study was conducted in as it
might be difficult to gauge the impact the courses have on student-faculty interactions,
critical thinking and social engagement over a longer period of time. Using the Typology
of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2009) as a means to categorize the classes could
have presented some subjectivity into the project as well (see Appendix D). Guidelines
and rubrics were introduced by the WU Diversity Committee as they separated the
courses into four levels. Each level was in direct correlation to how far the course
exceeded the expectations of the diversity requirement. Although separating these classes
into different levels can benefit the overall analysis, it could also impact the validity of
the research. Consider, however, that multiple independent raters were used in assessing
the syllabi as a means to minimize bias and subjectivity. Lastly, the diversity course
curriculums and faculty were from Western University, making it difficult to generalize
their impact because they are site specific.
128

Some of the limitations in this study are concerned with the internal validity of the
research. Not being able to compare the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty
interactions with relationships established in non-diversity courses is an example of this.
Using information from an existing data source that was collected by others could limit
the analysis, outcomes and generalizability of the results of the data. Very few questions
on the CIRP discussed student-teacher interactions, making it difficult to create a
composite variable that measured multiple aspects if these types of relationships. When
creating the variable that measured the typology level of the first diversity course taken,
some of the students took more than one diversity course that semester. The higher score
was applied to the student, but it is possible that the score should have been different
given that two or more classes were taken. Another factor to consider is that a mean
replacement was done for 13 students with missing data (10 students with 1 score change,
2 students with 2 score changes, 1 student with 9 score changes). Considering the large
sample, this was a minimal adjustment. The collection procedures could also impact the
results since some surveys were completed on-line and some surveys were hand-written,
thus leaving room for the introduction of researcher bias. The design of testing and
retesting can also provide skewed results, since it is does not produce information that
directly relates to the question of environmental impact (Astin, 1970). Finally, not being
able to control for how the student subject responds can limit the outcomes as well.
Although surveys are a suitable method for studying the impact of an experience on an
outcome, it is difficult to know whether or not someone is being honest, if they are
rushing through the survey without thought or if they are being influenced by others.
129

Implications and Recommendations
There are multiple implications that can be gleaned from this study for faculty,
students, policy makers, administrators and researchers. The over-arching goal when
focusing on these key players at an institution of higher education should be to create
opportunities for the advancement of everyone involved, especially the students and the
instructors. To do this requires effort from everyone. Nelson-Laird (2005, p. 471)
suggests that there is a need to create classrooms, course content and pedagogies that
encourage the understanding of multiculturalism. There should also be support for an
increase of positive interactions that students have with peers that are different from
themselves, thus maximizing the power of peer-to-peer learning (Nelson-Laird, 2005). It
is also important to recognize the impact that having a structurally diverse campus can
have for students. Cole’s (2007) findings suggest that as interracial actions increase on
college campuses, so do student-faculty interactions. Initiating opportunities for diverse
interactions has other impacts as well. The disposition towards critical thinking increases
according to multiple studies (Nelson-Laird, 2005; Pascarella, 2001; Pascarella, Palmer,
Moye & Pierson, 2001). All of these pieces contribute to growing bodies of research
(Antonio, 2001; Chang, 2002; Cole, 2000; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado & Gurin, 2002) that
focus on the benefits of interracial interactions and support pedagogical change in
institutions of higher education. In doing so, these changes will “promote the cultivation
of citizens and leaders who are more engaged in social action, then higher education will
be fulfilling its role in society as instigator of progress” (Nelson-Laird, 2005, p. 471).
130

Strategy for faculty. Given the results of this study, there appears to be a few
strategies that faculty could employ which would benefit students and themselves. The
first of which is to create opportunities for student-faculty interaction. It seems simple
and obvious, but when you consider just how significant these interactions are in the lives
of the students, one can see that the students are not the only ones benefitting from it. It
starts with the individual student, but then leads to their peers, to the faculty and to the
community. Critical thinking is impacted, social engagement increases and the cycle
begins to where people become more concerned with others and they start to act on their
concerns rather than just thinking about it and what it means for themselves as
individuals. Knowing this, any faculty member should be compelled to adopt this
practice. One approach to doing this could be to encourage departments to minimize the
faculty to student ratio. Having smaller, faculty led courses; versus faculty delegating
major responsibilities to teaching assistants (TA’s) is an alternative method as well.
Faculty should share how important student-faculty interactions are with their
peers and with teachers of tomorrow as it could be one of the more significant things they
do. Spreading this around should increase the awareness and start the interaction process
at an early age. As seen in this study, students who asked teachers for advice prior to
college are more inclined to do so when they get to their respective institutions.
Another strategy that is imperative for faculty to do is encouraging students to
become involved in varieties of diversity experiences. Seeing just how significant it is for
students to participate in racial awareness workshops and community services projects is
131

quite amazing. Knowing that these opportunities have such a crucial impact, every
instructor should attempt to incorporate activities that encourage interracial interaction,
while at the same time leave little room for underrepresented minorities to feel tokenism
(Cole, 2000). Professors could also introduce a community service piece to their courses.
Doing so would not only impact the student-faculty relationship, but it would also impact
students’ critical thinking and social engagement skills, not to mention all of the good
that come of it for the communities where the work takes place.
One final strategy is to get faculty to participate in campus activities outside of the
classroom. Doing so will provide additional opportunities for interaction which then leads
to the same benefits listed above. Becoming a resident faculty member, participating in
campus community service events, attending sporting events, facilitating racial awareness
workshops and holding office hours during finals away from their offices and inside the
residence halls, are all examples of how faculty can create opportunities for interactions.

Policy and administrative implications. One of the single most important things
administrators can do is implement strategies for recruiting and retaining
underrepresented minorities on campus. This is a crucial step in the success of everyone
involved. Having a structurally diverse campus leads to increased student-faculty
interactions, enhances critical thinking and social engagement and prepares the students
for a global society.
Just as there is a diversity course requirement at WU, institutions should adopt a
community service mandate. This is an all around benefit for everyone that does not need
132

justification. The institution just needs to help derive ways for students to participate.
Creative opportunities could include: spending vacation time away from the traditional
sites and going to destinations that could use assistance; campus wide community service
days where students, staff and faculty can all participate in helping their surrounding
neighborhoods; developing courses where the students have to get in groups of five, they
must create and implement community service projects that involve other students,
faculty and staff so that by the end of the semester/quarter, the groups are able to conduct
a final presentation to the class on what their experience was like. There really is not limit
to the creativity in this, and in the end, everyone profits from it somehow, especially the
students you will increase their disposition for critical thinking as well as their social
engagement skills.
Given that none of the diversity experiences (racial awareness workshops,
studying abroad and community service) received participation from a majority of the
sample population, and was still found to have a significant impact, makes one wonder
just how essential this variable could have proven to be if more students had been
involved. In light of this, diversity initiatives should be implemented on all campuses,
regardless of how the populations break down. All-male schools, all-female schools,
Predominantly White Institutions (PWI’s), Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCU’s), technological schools, liberal arts schools, trade schools and all other
campuses can benefit from requiring diversity courses and/or racial awareness
workshops. Looking at the variety of courses that WU offers in fulfilling the requirement,
administrators should be able to create many options that cover multiple interests.
133

Lastly, administrators should also be sure to pay close attention to the evaluations
of professors that students return at the end of each course. Although not all of them may
take the evaluations seriously, the students do have a prime opportunity to be honest
about their experiences with faculty. Including an additional question about the
relationship between students and their faculty members should provoke some interesting
responses which in turn could prove useful for future research. Weighing these heavily
when it comes to pay raises, teaching opportunities and tenure, should hold faculty
accountable and inspire them to do better.

Research recommendations. First and foremost, further research needs to be done
regarding the impact of diversity courses. Although there was little evidence of influence
in this research, continued studies in this area should be able produce significant
outcomes. In addition to that, variables that predict student-faculty interactions could use
some attention as well. This study reported valuable findings in variables that predict
these types of interactions, however, the more we find out about what variables influence
student-faculty interactions, the more effort we can put into preparing our youth for
success. Studying the impact of the major a student chooses needs more attention and
could go a long way into proving just how important general education requirements can
be.
A simple recommendation for future research is to use one of the surveys already
created that have a variety of questions that measure student-faculty interactions (CSEQ,
YFCY and WUSS) and other variables related to higher education. If using the CIRP to
134

gauge pre-college characteristics, be sure that the university uses a few of the optional
supplemental questions found at the very bottom of the survey, to address student-teacher
interactions.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Cole and Sundt (2008) found that course and
instructor evaluations from diversity courses taken in 2007 yielded higher scores than
non-diversity courses. It would be interesting to further consider the implications of these
findings considering this study was unable to unearth any significant correlations
between diversity courses and student-faculty interactions. Perhaps a qualitative study
looking into perceptions of faculty in diversity courses would help further this research.
Additional research needs to be conducted on the relationship between critical
thinking and social engagement. These two variables have such a profound link as can be
seen in this study and in Nelson-Laird’s research (2005). Not to mention the fact that
student-faculty interactions, participation in multiple diversity courses, and involvement
in diversity experiences can all be used to predict them.
Lastly, a reminder to the reader, less than 20% of the participants in this study
took more than one diversity course, yet this variable was found as significant in
predicting critical thinking and social engagement. Gaining a better understanding of
what this means in future studies could prove to be a valuable factor when discussing the
student experience.

135

Conclusion
Given the results of this study, the answer to the all of the research questions is
evident, diversity courses do not appear to have a direct impact on student-faculty
interactions and only one diversity course variable had an impact on critical thinking and
social engagement (the number of diversity courses taken). However, taking these classes
may have led students to become involved in community service projects or participating
in racial awareness workshops, variables that do have direct influence on student-faculty
interactions, critical thinking and social engagement. All of this can be confirmed by this
study’s findings.
Research regarding the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions,
critical thinking and social engagement might be better served through qualitative study
as a starting point. By using this approach, researchers may be able to better understand
what students are experiencing in the courses that could potentially impact these
outcomes. Knowing this information, more useful surveys could be created that focus on
specific questions that better measure student-faculty interactions, critical thinking, social
engagement and their predictors. With this information, universities around the world can
further justify their efforts in training their students to have a more global perspective.
This study is supported by and has confirmed Vygotsky’s views on sociocultural
theory. The university is the perfect place to present opportunities for interpersonal
interactions, as can be seen by the benefits of racial awareness workshops and community
service projects. It is also the catalyst for developing higher mental functioning as can be
seen in the outcomes of critical thinking and social engagement. Educational institutions
136

on any level are valuable. The next step is to show the world that the United States is
placing a higher value on our educational system, by not taking funding away from this
essential piece of society.
In Chapter 1 of this study, a quote from Dr. Slaughter (2003, p. 6) was shared,
“the presence of diversity should not be seen as synonymous with the presence of
equity.” This rings true more now than it did when the research first began. It is not
enough just to live in a diverse society, or go to school on a campus that is racially
diverse, or to work in a racially diverse office. Interactions need to exist between people
of different backgrounds and individuals need to empathize, understand and experience
what it truly means to live in a diverse world. Emphasis needs to be taken from
egocentrism and put towards the global society, because oddly enough, in the end, it all
comes back to helping the individual.
137

References

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

American Council on Education (ACE) Website. (2008). Generational gains in
postsecondary education appear to have stalled, new ACE report finds.
http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Releases2&TEMPLAT
E=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=29423

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

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1985). Introduction to research in education (3
rd

ed.). New York: CBS College Publishing.

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. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Baird, L. L. (1976). Using self-reports to predict student performance. New York: The
College Board.

Chang, M. (1996). Racial diversity in higher education: Does a racially mixed student
population affect educational outcomes? Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.

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

Chang, M. J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on
student’s racial views and attitudes. The Journal of General Education, 51(1), 21-
42.
138

Chang, M. J. (2007). Beyond artificial integration: Re-imagining cross-racial interactions
among undergraduates. New Directions for Student Services, 120 (Winter), 25-
38.

Chapman, D. W. & Pascarella, E. T. (1983). Predictors of academic and social integration
of college students. Research in Higher Education, 19(3), 295-322.

Checkoway, B. (2001). Renewing the civic mission of the American research university.
The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 125-147.

Chickering, A. & Reisser, L. (1991). Education and identity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

Cole, D. (2000). Faculty-Student interactions of African American and white college
students at predominantly white institutions. Dissertation Abstracts International,
60(11), 3926. (UMI No. 9950764)

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. (2008). Constructive criticism: The role of student-faculty interactions on
African American and Hispanic students’ educational gains. Journal of College
Student Development, 49(6), 587-605.

Cole, D. & Sundt, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student’s
higher order thinking skills. University of Southern California: Rossier School of
Education.

Cole, D. & Sundt, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of diversity courses. University of
Southern California: Rossier School of Education.

Endo, J. & Harpel, R. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction on students’
educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16(2), 115-138.

Erikson, E. (1946). Ego development and historical change. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 2, 359-396.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Facione, P. A. (2010). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment,
1-24.

139

Facione, P. A., Giancarlo, C. A., Facione, N. C., Gainen, J. (1995). The disposition
toward critical thinking. Journal of General Education, 44(1), 1-25.

Feldman, K. & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Gamson, Z. (1967). Performance and personalism in student-faculty relations. Sociology
of Education, 40, 279-301.

Giancarlo, C. A. & Facione, P. A. (2001). A look across four years at the disposition
toward critical thinking among undergraduate students. The Journal of General
Education, 50(1), 29-55.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. & Pulido-Tobiassen, D. (1999). Teaching “diversity”: A place to
begin. http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3499

Gunn, M. (2007). The transformation series: A change of heart.
http://www.harambeechurch2.org/downloads/sermons/topical/Transformation%2
0Series/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20A_Change_of_Heart%5B1%5D.pdf

Gurin, P. (1999). Expert report of Patricia Gurin: Theoretical foundations for the effect
of diversity. 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., 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.

Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) Website. (2009). Home of the Cooperative
Institutional Research Program: About CIRP. http://www.heri.ucla.edu/index.php

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

Hu, S. & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and
personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 320-334.

Humphreys, D. (2000). National survey finds diversity requirements common around the
country. Diversity Digest: Faculty involvement.
http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/F00/survey.html

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

140

Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., Gurin, P. Y. & Gurin, G. (2003). College environments,
diversity, and student learning. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of
Theory and Research (Vol. 18, pp. 145-189). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L. & Landreman, L. (2002). Students’ precollege
preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research In Higher
Education, 43(2), 163-186.

Insight Assessment Website. (2010). Insight Assessment: Measuring critical thinking
worldwide. http://www.insightassessment.com/home.html

Kim, Y. K. & Sax, L. J. (2007). Different patterns of student-faculty interaction in
research universities: An analysis by student gender, race, SES, and first-
generation status. CSHE Research & Occasional Paper Series, (August), 1-20.

Kraft, C. L. (1991). What makes a successful black student on a predominantly white
campus. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 423-443.

Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the national
survey of student engagement. Change, 33(3), 10-17.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Lounsbury, M. & Pollack, S. (2001). Institutionalizing civic engagement: Shifting logics
and the cultural repackaging of service-learning in US higher education.
Organization, 8(2), 319-339.

Lundberg, C. A. & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student
interaction as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity.
Journal of College Student Development, 45(5), 549-565.

McEwan, E. K. & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s
not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Mendes de Leon, C. F., Glass, T. A. & Berkman, L. F. (2003). Social engagement and
disability in a community population of older adults. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 157(7), 633-642.

141

Nelson, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of diversity courses on students’ values,
attitudes and beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California.

Nelson-Laird, T. F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects
on academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical
thinking. Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 365-387.

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.

Ostrander, S. A. (2004). Democracy, civic participation, and the university: A
comparative study of civic engagement on five campuses. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 74-93.

Pace, C. R. (1985). The credibility of student self-reports. Los Angeles: University of
California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Pallent, J. (2005). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using
SPSS version 12 (2
nd
ed.). New York: Open University Press.

Pallent, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using
SPSS version 15 (3
rd
ed.). New York: Open University Press.

Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-Faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review
of Educational Research, 50 (Winter), 545-595.

Pascarella, E. T. (2001, November/December). Cognitive growth in college: Surprising
and reassuring findings from the national study of student learning. Change, 33,
20-27.

Pascarella, E. T., Palmer, B., Moye, M., & Pierson, C. T. (2001). Do diversity
experiences influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College
Student Development, 42, 257-271.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1978). Student-faculty informal relationships and
freshman year educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Research, 71, 183-
189.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1978). Student-faculty informal contact and college
persistence: A further investigation. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 214-
218.

142

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Interaction effects in Spady’s and Tinto’s
conceptual models of college dropout. Sociology of Education, 52, 197-210.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). Twenty years of research on college students:
Lessons for future research. Research in Higher Education 32(1), 83-92.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21
st
century:
Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education 21(2), 151-165.

Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T. & Hibel, J. (1978). Student-faculty interactional
settings and their relationship to predicted academic performance. Journal of
Higher Education, 49, 450-463.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Piaget, J. (1975). The equilibrium of cognitive structures: The central problem of
intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pike, G. (1995). The effects of background, coursework, and involvement on students’
grades and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 32(1), 15-30.

Ruble, D. N. (1994). A phase model of transitions: Cognitive and motivational
consequences. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 163-214.

Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.

Shor, I. & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming
education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.

Slaughter, J. B. (2003). The search for excellence and equity in higher education. Paper
presented at the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering Annual
Distinguished Lecture, Atlanta, GA.

Slaughter, J. B. (November, 2004). Diversity and equity in higher education: A new
paradigm for institutional excellence. Paper presented at the Diversity Leadership
Council Conference, Baltimore, MD.

Slaughter, J. B. (February, 2007). After Michigan, what? Policy Perspectives:
Educational Policy Institute, Virgina Beach, VA.

Spiezio, K. E., Baker, K. Q. & Boland, K. (2006). General education and civic
engagement: An empirical analysis of pedagogical possibilities. The Journal of
General Education, 54(4), 273-292.
143

Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995). Influences affecting
the development of students’ critical thinking skills. Research in Higher
Education, 36(1), 23-39.

Terenzini, P. T. & Wright, T. M. (1987). Influences on students’ academic growth during
four years of college. Research in Higher Education, 26(2), 161-179.

The Quote Garden. (2009). Quotations about baseball: Barry Switzer.
http://www.quotegarden.com/baseball.html

The Teagle Foundation Website. (2009). The Teagle Foundation: Our mission.
http://www.teaglefoundation.org/

Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.

Tudge, J. R. H & Winterhoff, P. A. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives
on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human
Development, 36, 61-81.

U.S. Census Bureau (2009). State and county quick facts.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Western University Website. (2009). Office of Academic Records and Registrar:
Diversity review materials.

Western University Course Catalogue. (2009-2010). Western University: Los Angeles.

Wilson, R., Wood, L. & Gaff, J. (1974). Social-psychological accessibility and faculty-
student interaction beyond the classroom. Sociology of Education, 47, 74-92.

Yancy, G. (2009, October 11). Diversity in academe: A professor tackles racism in the
classroom [Electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
144

Appendix A
Diversity Course Requirement Guidelines (Revised 04/22/09)

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

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

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

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

145

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

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

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

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

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

146

Appendix B

Diversity Committee Course Review Sheet

147

Appendix C

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

148

Appendix D

Typology of Diversity Courses (Cole & Sundt, 2008)

149

Appendix E
Western University’s Freshman Profile and Admission Information (2004-2005)

150

Appendix F
Role and Mission of Western University
The central mission of the Western University is the development of human beings and society as
a whole through the cultivation and enrichment of the human mind and spirit. The principal
means by which our mission is accomplished are teaching, research, artistic creation, professional
practice and selected forms of public service.
Our first priority as faculty and staff is the education of our students, from freshmen to post-
doctorals, through a broad array of academic, professional, extracurricular and athletic programs
of the first rank. The integration of liberal and professional learning is one of WU's special
strengths. We strive constantly for excellence in teaching knowledge and skills to our students,
while at the same time helping them to acquire wisdom and insight, love of truth and beauty,
moral discernment, understanding of self, and respect and appreciation for others.
Research of the highest quality by our faculty and students is fundamental to our mission. WU is
one of a very small number of premier academic institutions in which research and teaching are
inextricably intertwined, and on which the nation depends for a steady stream of new knowledge,
art, and technology. Our faculty are not simply teachers of the works of others, but active
contributors to what is taught, thought and practiced throughout the world.
WU is pluralistic, welcoming outstanding men and women of every race, creed and background.
We are a global institution in a global center, attracting more international students over the years
than any other American university. And we are private, unfettered by political control, strongly
committed to academic freedom, and proud of our entrepreneurial heritage.
An extraordinary closeness and willingness to help one another are evident among WU students,
alumni, faculty, and staff; indeed, for those within its compass the Trojan Family is a genuinely
supportive community. Alumni, trustees, volunteers and friends of WU are essential to this family
tradition, providing generous financial support, participating in university governance, and
assisting students at every turn.
In our surrounding neighborhoods and around the globe, WU provides public leadership and
public service in such diverse fields as health care, economic development, social welfare,
scientific research, public policy and the arts. We also serve the public interest by being the
largest private employer in the city of Los Angeles, as well as the city's largest export industry in
the private sector.
WU has played a major role in the development of southern California for more than a century,
and plays an increasingly important role in the development of the nation and the world. We
expect to continue to play these roles for many centuries to come. Thus our planning,
commitments and fiscal policies are directed toward building quality and excellence in the long
term.
Adopted by the WU Board of Trustees, February, 1993.
151

Appendix G

Full Model of Variables Used to Answer Research Question #1
(Student-Faculty Interactions)

INPUT ENVIRONMENT OUTPUT

Student Characteristics:

SEX
Male/Female

RACE_R
Caucasian/Non-Caucasian

ParentED_R
High School or less
College Grad or less
Grad School or less

Major:

MajorBio
MajorBus
MajorEd
MajorEng
MajorEnglish
MajorHealth
MajorHisPoli
MajorHuman
MajorFineArts
MajorMath
MajorPS
MajorSS
MajorOtherTech
MajorOther
MajorUndeclared

Student-Teacher Interactions:

ACT0414
Asked Teacher for Advice

Diversity Courses:

FirstDCYear_R
(First time a DC was taken
through 40 courses)

DiversityTaken_R
(# of courses taken includes
fifth year through 40 courses)

DCTypology1st_R
(Typology Level of 1st DC)

Diversity Experiences:

ever_5R
(Since enrolling at WU, have
you ever: Attended a
racial/cultural awareness
workshop)

ever_8R
(Since enrolling at WU, have
you ever: Studied abroad)

CommunityServiceR
first_5R
(In your first year at USC,
did you: Perform
community service work as
part of a course)
freq_11R
(Since enrolling at USC,
indicate how often you:
Performed community
service work as part of a
course)

Student-Faculty Interactions:

FSIConstruct_N
prof_1N – prof_12N
Prof – Encourage Grad Sch
Prof – Work on Research
Prof – Advice on Education
Prof – Respected you
Prof – Publish Paper
Prof – Emotional Support
Prof – Letter of Rec
Prof – Improve Study Skills
Prof – Challenged Prof
Prof – Challenged You
Prof – Discuss After Class
Prof – Help with Goals
freq_4N
Guest in Prof’s Home
hours_3N
Talk w/ Faculty After Class

152

Appendix H

Full Model of Variables Used to Answer Research Question #2
(Critical Thinking & Social Engagement)

INPUT ENVIRONMENT OUTPUT

Student Characteristics:

SEX
Male/Female

RACE_R
Caucasian/Non-Caucasian

ParentED_R
High School or less
College Grad or less
Grad School or less

Critical Thinking & Social
Engagement (CIRP):

CritThinkCIRP
ACT0412 – Open-Minded
RATE0403 – Self-confidence
RATE0413 – Self-confidence
VIEW0409 – Judgment
GOAL0405 – Analyticity
GOAL0409 – Analyticity
GOAL0416 – Systematicity
GOAL0417 – Truth Seeking
GOAL0421 – Inquisitiveness
FUTACT12 – Open-Minded

Diversity Courses:

FirstDCYear_R
(First time a DC was taken
through 40 courses)

DiversityTaken_R
(# of courses taken includes
fifth year through 40 courses)

DCTypology1st_R
(Typology Level of 1st DC)

Diversity Experiences:

ever_5R
(Since enrolling at WU, have
you ever: Attended a
racial/cultural awareness
workshop)

ever_8R
(Since enrolling at WU, have
you ever: Studied abroad)

CommunityServiceR
first_5R
(In your first year at USC,
did you: Perform
community service work as
part of a course)
freq_11R
(Since enrolling at USC,
indicate how often you:
Performed community
service work as part of a
course)

Student-Faculty Interactions:

FSIConstruct_N

Critical Thinking & Social
Engagement (WUSS):

CritThinkWUSS_R
freq_25R – Systematicity
change_1R – Judgment
change_4R – Judgment
change_8R – Self-confidence
change_9R – Self-confidence
change_15R – Analyticity
change_17R – Open-Minded
change_18R – Open-Minded
change_19R – Open-Minded
change_21R – Open-Minded
change_22R – Inquisitive
change_23R – Inquisitive
impor_5R – Analyticity
impor_9R – Analyticity
impor_16R – Systematicity
impor_17R – Truth Seeking
impor_19R – Inquisitiveness
impor_20R – Systematicity
153

Appendix I

All Variables Used in the Study with Value Labels and Coding

VARIABLES SCALE
Input (CIRP)
Student’s Gender (SEX)
0 = Male
1 = Female
Student’s Race (RACE_R) 1 = Non-White
2 = White
Parents’ Level of Education (ParentED_R) 1 = High School or Less
2 = College Grad or Less
3 = Grad Degree or Less
Student’s Major (MAJOR04)
(MajorBio)
(MajorBus)
(MajorEd)
(MajorEng)
(MajorEnglish)
(MajorHealth)
(MajorHisPoli)
(MajorHuman)
(MajorFineArts)
(MajorMath)
(MajorPS)
(MajorSS)
(MajorOtherTech)
(MajorOther)
(MajorUndeclared)
0 = Not Selected
1 = Selected
Teacher-Student Interaction (ACT0414) 1 = Not at all
2 = Occasionally
3 = Frequently
Critical Thinking & Social Engagement
(CritThinkCIRP) – COMPOSITE VARIABLE
(ACT0412, RATE0403, RATE0413, VIEW0409,
GOAL0405, GOAL0409, GOAL0416, GOAL0417,
GOAL0421, FUTACT12)
Continuous

154

VARIABLES SCALE
Environment (WUSS & Transcripts)

First Time a Diversity Course was Taken Through 40
Courses
(FirstDCYear_R) – COMPOSITE VARIABLE
(COURSE01 – COURSE40)
0 = None Taken
1 = 1
st
Year
2 = 2
nd
Year
3 = 3
rd
Year
4 = 4
th
Year
5 = 5
th
Year

Number of Diversity Courses Taken Through 40 Courses
(DiversityTaken_R) – COMPOSITE VARIABLE
(COURSE01 – COURSE40)
0 = No Diversity Course
1 = 1 Diversity Course
2 = 2 Diversity Courses
3 = 3 Diversity Courses
4 = 4 Diversity Courses
5 = 5 Diversity Courses
6 = 6 Diversity Courses
7 = 7 Diversity Courses
8 = 8 Diversity Courses

Typology Level of First Diversity Course Taken
(DCTypology1st_R) – COMPOSITE VARIABLE
(COURSE01 – COURSE40)

0 = None Taken
1 = Typology 1
2 = Typology 2
3 = Typology 3
4 = Typology 4
Racial Awareness Workshop (ever_5R)
0 = No
1 = Yes
Studied Abroad (ever_8R)
0 = No
1 = Yes
Community Service
(CommunityServiceR) – COMPOSITE VARIABLE
(first_5R, freq_11R)
0 = No
1 = Yes
Output (WUSS)
Student-Faculty Interactions
(FSIConstruct_N) – COMPOSITE VARIABLE
(prof_1, prof_2, prof_3, prof_4, prof_5, prof_6,
prof_7,
prof_8, prof_9, prof_10, prof_11,prof_12, freq_4,
hours_3)
Continuous
Critical Thinking & Social Engagement
(CritThinkWUSS_R) – COMPOSITE VARIABLE
(freq_25, change_1, change_4, change_8, change_9,
change_15, change_17, change_18, change_19,
change_21, change_22, change_23, impor_5, impor_9,
impor_16, impor_17, impor_19, impor_20)
Continuous
155

Appendix J

2004 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Instrument

156

157

158

159

Appendix K

2008 Western University Senior Survey (WUSS) Instrument

Name Label (question text)
WUID
PID
time_degree How long has it taken you to earn your degree?
deg_1
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Changed major one or more times
deg_2
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Added additional majors and/or minors
deg_3
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Couldn't get courses when I needed them
deg_4
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Poor advising
deg_5
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Took extra time to improve my GPA
deg_6
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Internship
deg_7
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Travel or study abroad
deg_8
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Extracurricular activities
deg_9
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Work/employment
deg_10
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Family commitments
deg_11
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Illness or accident
deg_12
How important were the following factors in increasing the time it took
to earn your degree: Other
prof_1
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following:
Encouragement to pursue graduate/professional study
prof_2
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: An
opportunity to work on a research project
prof_3
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following:
Advice and guidance about your educational program
prof_4
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following:
Respect (treated you like a colleague/peer)
prof_5
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: An
opportunity to publish a paper
prof_6
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following:
Emotional support and encouragement
prof_7
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: A
letter of recommendation
prof_8
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following:
Assistance to improve your study skills
prof_9 How often have professors at WU provided you with the following:
160

Negative feedback about your academic work
prof_10
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following:
Intellectual challenge and stimulation
prof_11
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following: An
opportunity to discuss your coursework outside of class
prof_12
How often have professors at WU provided you with the following:
Help in achieving your professional goals
first_1
In your first year at WU, did you: Participate in Learning Communities
offered by the College of LAS
first_2 In your first year at WU, did you: Take a Freshman Seminar course
first_3
In your first year at WU, did you: Participate in programs sponsored by
the residential hall or college where you lived (if applicable)
first_4
In your first year at WU, did you: Participate in other programs
designed for freshmen
first_5
In your first year at WU, did you: Perform community service work as
part of a course
first_6
In your first year at WU, did you: Perform community service work that
was not required by a course
ever_1 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Had a part-time job on campus
ever_2 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Had a part-time job off campus
ever_3
Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Worked full-time while attending
school
ever_4
Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in student
government
ever_5
Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Attended a racial/cultural
awareness workshop
ever_6
Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in an internship
program
ever_7
Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in leadership
training
ever_8 Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Studied abroad
ever_9
Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in undergraduate
research or creative projects
ever_10
Since enrolling at WU, have you ever: Participated in a WU Honors
Program
freq_1
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Worked on independent
study projects
freq_2
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Discussed course
content with students outside of class
freq_3
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Worked on group
projects in class
freq_4
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Had been a guest in a
professor's home
freq_5
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Participated in
intramural sports
freq_6
Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Failed to complte
homework on time
freq_7 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Felt bored in class
freq_8 Since enrolling at WU, indicate how often you: Studied with other
161

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
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
162

hours_1
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Studying/homework
hours_2
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Socializing with friends
hours_3
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Talking with faculty outside of
class
hours_4
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Exercising/sports
hours_5
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Partying
hours_6
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Working (for pay)
hours_7
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Volunteer work
hours_8
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Student clubs/groups
hours_9
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Watching TV
hours_10
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Housework/child care
hours_11
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Reading for pleasure
hours_12
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Using a personal computer
hours_13
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Commuting
hours_14
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Playing video games
hours_15
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Prayer/meditation
hours_16
During the past year, how much time did you spend during a typical
week doing the following activities: Classes/labs
self_1
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Academic ability
self_2
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Artistic ability
self_3
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Athletic ability
self_4
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Competitiveness
self_5
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Cooperativeness
self_6
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Creativity
self_7
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Drive to achieve
self_8
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Emotional health
self_9
Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared with the
average person your age: Leadership ability
163

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
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
164

change_11
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Appreciation of
the cultural arts
change_12
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Function
independently, without supervision
change_13
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Plan and
execute complex projects
change_14
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Work
cooperatively
change_15
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Resolve
interpersonal conflicts positively
change_16
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Identify moral
and ethical issues
change_17
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Get along with
people from different races/cultures
change_18
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Understand
different religions/belief systems
change_19
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Understand
issues related to gender
change_20
Compared with when you first enrolled at WU, please indicate how your
ability or skill level has changed in the following areas: Understand
issues surrounding lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people
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
165

close friendships with other students
success_6
Since enrolling at WU, how successful have you been in: Utilizing
campus services available to students
satis_1
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
General education courses
satis_2
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Courses in your major field
satis_3
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Overall quality of teaching by faculty
satis_4
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Overall quality of teaching by TA’s
satis_5
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
The degree to which you can experience intellectual growth
satis_6
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Academic advising before declaring a major
satis_7
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Academic advising in your major
satis_8
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Advising on other matters (careers, life plans, etc.)
satis_9
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
WU's commitment to academic excellence
satis_10
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Relationships with other students
satis_11
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Relationships with faculty members
satis_12
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Relationships with student affairs administrative personnel
satis_13
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Relationships with administrative personnel in other offices
satis_14
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Racial harmony on campus
satis_15
Please rate your satisfaction with WU in each of the following areas:
Services provided by the Division of Student Affairs
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
166

choice_over
If you could make your college choice over, would you still choose to
enroll at WU?
continue Do you plan to continue your studies beyond the bachelor's degree?
degree_1
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Law (L.L.B. or J.D.) -
Immediately upon graduation
degree_2
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Law (L.L.B. or J.D.) -
Future plans
degree_3
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Medicine (M.D.) -
Immediately upon graduation
degree_4
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Medicine (M.D.) - Future
plans
degree_5
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Other Medical -
Immediately upon graduation
degree_6
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Other Medical - Future
plans
degree_7
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Second Bachelor's Degree
- Immediately upon graduation
degree_8
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Second Bachelor's Degree
- Future plans
degree_9
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Master's Degree -
Immediately upon graduation
degree_10
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Master's Degree - Future
plans
degree_11
Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Doctorate - Immediately
upon graduation
degree_12 Which, if any, degrees do you plan to pursue: Doctorate - Future plans
grad_program
What graduate/professional degree program is of primary interest to
you?
V191
ug_influence
To what extent has your overall undergraduate experience influenced
your future plans for graduate or professional studies?
accepted Have you already been accepted to a graduate or professional program?
school Which graduate or professional program will you attend?
grad_activity What is most likely to be your principal activity upon graduation?
other_activity If you answered "other" what is your principal activity?
employ_plan
If employment will most likely be your primary activity, which of the
following best describes your current state of plans for employment
immediately after graduation?
employ_type
If you have accepted a position, in what type of organization or sector
will you work?
other_employ If you answered "other" what is the type of organization?
occup_cat
Which occupation category best describes the position you have
accepted or are seeking?
related_ug
Is your prospective position related to your undergraduate field(s) of
study?
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?
167

impor_1
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Becoming accomplished in one of the performing arts
impor_2
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Becoming an authority in my field
impor_3
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Obtaining recognition from my colleagues for contributions to
my special field
impor_4
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Influencing the political structure
impor_5
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Influencing social values
impor_6
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Raising a family
impor_7
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Having administrative responsibility for the work of others
impor_8
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Being very well off financially
impor_9
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Helping others who are in difficulty
impor_10
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Making a theoretical contribution to science
impor_11
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Writing original works (poems, novels, short stories, etc.)
impor_12
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Creating artistic work (painting, sculpture, decorating, etc.)
impor_13
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Becoming successful in a business of my own
impor_14
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Becoming involved in programs to clean up the environment
impor_15
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Developing a meaningful philosophy of life
impor_16
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Participating in a community action program
impor_17
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Helping to promote racial understanding
impor_18
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Keeping up to date with political affairs
impor_19
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Keeping up to date with issues related to third world development
and human rights
impor_20
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Becoming a community leader
impor_21
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Integrating spirituality into my life
impor_22
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Becoming a life-long learner
impor_23
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Identifying myself as a Trojan
impor_24
Indicate the importance to you personally of each of the following
items: Remaining active in the Trojan Network
social_class Which of the following best describes your social class when you were
168

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

169

Appendix L

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
170

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
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
171

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
172

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
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
173

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

174

Appendix M

Diversity Course Syllabus Rating Rubric

GUIDELINE #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.

GUIDELINE #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.

GUIDELINE #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).

GUIDELINE #4

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

GUIDELINE #5

Course encourages comparative and analytical thinking about issues of diversity.

Scoring the syllabi under each guideline:

1 = Meets Requirement
2 = Marginally Exceeds Requirement
3 = Exceeds Requirement
4 = Well Exceeds Requirement

175

Appendix N

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"

176

Appendix O

Summary of Significant Student and Institutional Variables with Research Questions

Student-Faculty
Interactions
Critical Thinking &
Social Engagement
(WUSS)
Research Question β β
What impact does the
year that a student
took their first
diversity course
have on
student-faculty
interactions?
Asked Teacher for Advice
(.166***)

Racial Awareness
Workshop
(.115**)

Community Service
(.099*)
Critical Thinking &
Social Engagement (CIRP)
(.263***)

Racial Awareness Workshop
(.176***)

Community Service
(.085*)

Student-Faculty Interactions
(.285***)
What impact does
the number of
diversity courses
taken have on
student-faculty
interactions?
Asked Teacher for Advice
(.166***)

Racial Awareness
Workshop
(.115**)

Community Service
(.099*)
Critical Thinking &
Social Engagement (CIRP)
(.260***)

# of DC's Taken
(.089*)

Racial Awareness Workshop
(.168***)

Community Service
(.082*)

Student-Faculty Interactions
(.286***)
What impact does
the typology level
ofthe first diversity
course that the student
took have on
student-faculty
interactions?
Asked Teacher for Advice
(.166***)

Racial Awareness
Workshop
(.115**)

Community Service
(.099*)
Critical Thinking &
Social Engagement (CIRP)
(.257***)

Racial Awareness Workshop
(.172***)

Community Service
(.087*)

Student-Faculty Interactions
(.286***)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines the impact that diversity courses (DC’s), created to increase social awareness on college campuses, have on 553 students’ interactions with faculty, critical thinking and social engagement. Conducted at a large, private tier one research institution, this study reviews a pre-college survey, post-college survey and student transcripts using a quantitative approach through factor analyses, reliabilities and multiple regressions. The findings suggest that the number of DC’s students take impacts critical thinking and social engagement (β = .089, p < .05). Participation in racial awareness workshops and community service also significantly impact critical thinking, social engagement and student-faculty interactions. These results reinforce the notion that diverse interactions are essential to the development of the individual as well as the collective whole.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome

PDF

Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students

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

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

PDF

Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

PDF

Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students

PDF

Do Asian students' social and academic integration positively affect their course completion ratio at the community college?

PDF

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

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

PDF

How is an undergraduate engineering program uniquely positioned to create a diverse workforce through the recruitment of African American students? A faculty perspective

PDF

Student engagement experiences of African American males at a California community college

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Bolen, Kevin John (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/13/2010

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

Tag critical thinking,diversity courses,OAI-PMH Harvest,social engagement,student-faculty interactions

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email bolen@usc.edu,kjbolen@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3431

Unique identifier UC1165924

Identifier etd-Bolen-4114 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-389670 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3431 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Bolen-4114.pdf

Dmrecord 389670

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bolen, Kevin John

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