Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses
(USC Thesis Other)
Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PRE-COLLEGE
EXPERIENCES AND OUTCOMES IN DIVERSITY COURSES
by
Karen Leilani Ravago
__________________________________________________________________
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 Karen Leilani Ravago
ii
Dedication
For my parents, Oscar and Fely Ravago, who always taught me to do my best and that no
one could ever take this away from me. Thank you for your love and support over the
years. I only hope that I can pay you back one day!
iii
Acknowledgements
First I want to thank my family, for your constant love and support through all my
endeavors – Mom and Dad, Michele, and my beautiful niece Genna who always makes
me laugh. I couldn’t have done any of this without you guys and I miss you every day.
All of my hard work is for you!
To Tim – my best friend, soulmate, and partner in crime (and RM/TM). Thank
you for your love, your laughter, and your never-ending patience. I’m so grateful to have
had you by my side for the last 10 years and I especially couldn’t have gotten through the
last 7 months without your strength. I love you!
To Sonja, Sumi, and Dekan – I can’t believe it’s been three years since we were
causing trouble in the front of Leadership class. Thanks for always sharing your wisdom,
and snacks! Dr. Daniels – thank you for always pushing me to get to the finish line and
for always being there when I needed to send a panicked email or text message. Sumi – I
can’t wait to see where this degree takes you. It’s been such an honor to learn from you
these last three years. Dekan – thanks for being my weekend writing partner in Pasadena,
it’s time to get it done now! To the rest of my Higher Ed cohort – you all were such an
inspiration for me, I’m so proud of everyone’s accomplishments!
To DC3 – Dr. Cole’s Diversity Course Dissertation Crew – I am so lucky to have
had the opportunity to join this group. Special thanks to Matt and Kevin as we pushed on
to the end – I couldn’t have done this without the weekly check-ins and late nights in
Student Union. Thank you for making sure I made it to defense! I want to express a
world of gratitude to my committee – Dr. Darnell Cole, Dr. Patricia Tobey, and Dr.
iv
Melora Sundt. Dr. Cole – thanks for putting up with us and for your Kool-Aid analogies.
You pushed us all to be better students and researchers and for that I am grateful.
Thanks, Dr. Tobey, for always being so calm and for reminding me to believe in myself.
To my friends from Rossier – Jessie, Jennie, Jason, Rocke, Nadine, Aba, Nicky,
and Nina – thank you for keeping me sane through this whole process. Now that I’m
done with school I have more time to plan Snuggie-okie parties! Jessie – I’m so glad that
we’re at UCLA together now, thanks for all the lunches and advice. Special thanks to
Rocke for being both a wonderful advisor and a great friend, and to Nadine for helping us
out even after you left our dissertation group!
To my friends from Keck – especially Wendy and Stephanie – I don’t miss the
job but I am grateful that it gave me the chance to meet all of you. Thanks especially to
the Disneyland crew for giving me a great distraction from the dissertation! To Dr. Jess
Pishney – your hard work always inspired me to keep pushing on, thanks for always
lending a supportive ear. To Amanda W. – thanks for being there throughout the whole
process and listening to me complain, can’t wait to call you “Doctor” next. To Lori and
Kedo and the rest of my 757’ers – it’s been three years since I left Virginia and I am
finally done! Thanks for letting me go when I needed to. Last but not least, thanks to all
of my family and friends near and far, for your understanding and patience during this
long journey. I can’t wait to reconnect with the real world now that it’s over!
v
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Goals of the Study and Research Questions 4
Organization of the Study 4
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 6
Accentuation Theory and Pre-College Experiences 8
Salience of Identity 11
White Racial Identity Development 13
How Race Affects the College Environment 15
Campus Cultural Organizations 15
Peer and Student-Faculty Interactions 16
College Major and Course-Taking Patterns 17
Diversity Course Experiences and Outcomes 18
Summary 21
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 23
Research Design and Framework 23
Site Selection and Population 25
Instrument 26
Participant Selection 27
Independent Variables 28
Dependent Variables 28
Data Analysis 29
Descriptive Statistics 30
Analysis of Variance 30
Limitations 31
vi
Chapter 4: Results 33
Treatment of the Data 33
Participant Demographics 35
Findings related to Research Question 1 37
Findings related to Research Question 2 39
Findings related to Research Question 3 41
Additional Diversity Course Outcomes 41
Critical Thinking on Race and Ethnicity 41
Diversity Course Experiences 44
Summary 46
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications 49
Conclusions related to Research Question 1 49
Ethnicity and Pre-College Experiences with Diversity 49
Major 51
Conclusions related to Research Question 2 53
Conclusions related to Research Question 3 55
Conclusions related to Additional Diversity Course Outcomes 56
Critical Thinking on Race and Ethnicity 56
Other Diversity Course Outcomes 57
Limitations 59
Implications for Future Research 60
Implications for Future Policy and Practice 63
Conclusion 64
References 66
Appendices
Appendix A: Western University Diversity Committee Guidelines for
Designation as a Diversity Course Requirement 70
Appendix B: Figure B.1: Typology of Diversity Courses 71
Appendix C: Diversity Survey 72
Appendix D: Email sent to students requesting Diversity Survey Participation 77
vii
List of Tables
Table 4.1
Analysis of Variance for Students' Primary Reason for Choosing a Course 38
Table 4.2
Analysis of Variance for Diversity Course Experience Variables (Other Cultures) 40
Table 4.3
Analysis of Variance for Diversity Course Experience Variables (Own Culture) 42
Table 4.4
Analysis of Variance for Critical Thinking about Race/Ethnicity 43
Table 4.5
Analysis of Variance for Conversations with Other Students 45
Table 4.6
Analysis of Variance for Conversations with Professor/TA 47
viii
List of Figures
Figure 4.1
Primary Reason for Enrolling in a Course 37
Figure 5.1
Summary of students reporting significant changes in awareness/understanding
beliefs/attitudes of students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds after taking a
diversity course 53
Figure 5.2
Summary of students reporting significant changes in awareness/understanding,
beliefs/attitudes of their own culture after taking a diversity course 55
Figure 5.3
Summary of students reporting significant interactions with other students,
professors, and teaching assistants, inside and outside of the classroom,
during their Diversity Course 58
Figure B.1
Typology of Diversity Courses 71
ix
Abstract
Given the varied experiences with diversity that students have when they arrive
on campus, it is important to study how students from all racial and ethnic backgrounds
select and enroll in diversity courses. The purpose of this study is to examine how pre-
college experiences with diversity affect students’ choice of diversity course and their
experiences and outcomes. Students in this quantitative study completed the 31-item
Diversity Survey, which was developed by the research team. In order to assess students’
pre-college experiences with diversity, participants were asked to indicate the
racial/ethnic composition of the high school they attended.
Findings indicated that there were differences by pre-college experiences,
ethnicity, and major on a variety of outcomes: primary reason for choosing a diversity
course, beliefs and attitudes about other cultures, and beliefs and attitudes about a
student’s own culture after completing a diversity course. In particular, Caucasian
students were more likely than students of other ethnicities to report negative changes in
their awareness, understanding, beliefs and attitudes about their own culture. The
findings from this study have implications for examining how diversity courses affect
students’ identity development and how outcomes from diversity courses vary by course
topic or rigor.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Colleges and universities provide a unique environment in which students from a
variety of different backgrounds come together to be vastly influenced by administrators,
faculty, and peers. Students bring with them to college an identity that is shaped by their
family, their community, etc. and “the quandary lies in just how much of a resocializing
agent higher education institutions wish to be” (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pedersen, and
Allen, 1998, p. 280). Students are influenced both inside and outside of the classroom,
through both curricular and co-curricular activities on campus. One area that has
received much attention in recent years is the way in which colleges and universities have
an effect on campus racial climate.
Erikson (1946) argued that late adolescence and early adulthood are key times for
the development of personal and social identity. He refers to a “psychosocial
moratorium” as a period of time where individuals can experiment with social roles
before making permanent commitments. Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002)
describe that this time of moratorium should also “involve a confrontation with diversity
and complexity” so that young adults can actively think about and make their own
decisions (p. 334).
Within the college environment, Gurin et al. discuss that there are a variety of
ways in which students can be exposed to racial and ethnic diversity. They refer to
“structural diversity” as the numbers of diverse students within the student population.
The term “informal interactional diversity” is used to describe information conversations,
2
social activities, and interactions outside of the classroom. “Classroom diversity” refers
to two concepts: interacting with diverse peers within the classroom and also course
content surrounding diversity that may be infused within the curriculum.
The latter types of diversity are important because the presence of diverse
students on a college campus does not necessarily dictate that students will have
meaningful interactions with each other across lines of difference. This again brings to
light the question of what role faculty and administrators play on a college campus in
fostering a positive racial campus climate. Researchers have documented a growing
segregation in public schools in the United States (Orfield, 2001; Valencia, Menchaca,
and Donato, 2002). Because of this, many students from all racial/ethnic groups enroll in
college after a predominantly homogeneous high school experience. College will be the
first opportunity for many students to interact with diverse peers and to explore topics of
diversity in the classroom (Gurin et al., 2002).
The issue of how diversity is covered in the classroom and through curriculum
has been a topic that has gained interest for many researchers in recent years. The
Association of American Colleges and Universities reported in 2000 that nearly 60% of
over 500 schools surveyed had a required course on multiculturalism as part of their
curriculum requirement (Humphreys, 2000). Researchers have studied how diversity
education affects racial prejudice (Hogan and Mallott, 2005), racial views and attitudes
(Chang, 2002), and social responsibility (Nelson Laird, Engberg, and Hurtado, 2005).
However, given that college students arrive on campus with a variety of pre-
college experiences, these factors must be taken into consideration when assessing how
3
they experience the college environment and what their outcomes are. Astin (1970)
provides a useful framework when looking at the impact of college on students,
accounting for “inputs” that students bring to their “environment” that may influence
their “outputs.” For example, a student will arrive on campus with fixed “inputs” such as
their ethnicity or their pre-college experiences with diversity. Environmental variables
can include the types of courses students take and co-curricular and extra-curricular
activities they are involved with. Output variables attempt to measure what a student has
gained during their experiences. Within the context of a diversity course requirement,
this framework highlights the importance of considering what experiences students may
or may not already have had with diversity and diverse peers prior to enrolling in a
required diversity course.
For example, in Chang’s (2002) work on how an undergraduate diversity course
requirement affects students’ racial views and attitudes, students in the study were
classified as white or non-white, and student’s degree of exposure to racial diversity was
also statistically controlled. In this study students were asked to identify the number of
people of their race or ethnicity within the following groups: high school classmates,
neighbors where they grew up, current close friends, and current neighbors. This
provides a way to control for exposure to diversity prior to taking a diversity course,
which Chang explains is a potential source of bias. This work relates to the current study
in that the research team is also examining the effects of pre-college experiences with
diversity.
4
Goals of the Study and Research Questions
This study will examine how two important entering characteristics or inputs –
race and pre-college exposure to racial diversity – affect a variety of outcomes related to
an undergraduate diversity course requirement at Western University. This study
assumes that pre-college exposure to racial diversity can be adequately measured through
self-reports by students and then linked to their educational outcomes from a diversity
course. Based on this assumption, this study seeks to answer the following main
questions:
To what extent do race/ethnicity and pre-college exposure to racial diversity affect:
1. Students’ primary reasons for enrolling in a diversity course?
2. Students’ awareness, understanding, beliefs, and attitudes about other
racial/ethnic backgrounds after completing a diversity course?
3. Students’ awareness, understanding, beliefs, and attitudes about their own
racial/ethnic background after completing a diversity course?
Organization of the Study
Chapter two provides a review of literature relevant to the various aspects of this
study, starting with theories and empirical research related to the study of pre-college
experiences. Building off of the concept of pre-college experiences as an “input”
variable that students bring to college, literature is covered regarding salience of identity.
An important part of looking at students’ entering characteristics is to be mindful of what
aspects of their identity they find most salient as they experience the college environment
(Astin, 1992). Chapter two also examines literature regarding how race affects other
5
variables in college, such as choosing extracurricular activities, majors, or courses. This
research provides a foundation for then looking at how race affects diversity course
experiences and outcomes, the last section of chapter two.
Chapter three describes the research methodology and framework used for this
study, namely Astin’s Input-Environment-output research framework (1970), along with
the site for the study and student population. Chapter three also covers the main
instrument that is used in this study – the Diversity Survey designed by the research team
in Spring 2009. This survey was designed to provide the research team with quantitative
measures of students’ pre-college exposure to diversity and experiences and outcomes
after taking a diversity course. Chapter three closes with a review of the data analysis run
on the results from the Diversity Survey, along with limitations that were problematic for
the study. Chapter four covers findings from the Diversity Survey related to each
research question, followed by a discussion of these findings in Chapter five. Limitations
are highlighted again in Chapter five, along with implications for future research, policy,
and practice.
6
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
This study will examine one aspect of the college environment – diversity courses
– to see how students’ choice of diversity course, course experiences, and outcomes may
differ by ethnicity, pre-college exposure to diversity, and major. Of particular interest are
students who indicate that they attended high schools and grew up in neighborhoods that
were relatively homogeneous with regards to race. For many of these students, college is
their first opportunity to engage in meaningful cross-racial interaction, and the diversity
course that they choose may be their first opportunity to explore issues surrounding
diversity (Chang, 2002). Do students choose diversity courses that they are particularly
interested in, or whatever fits into their schedule? The study also seeks to examine
possible differences in experiences and educational outcomes as they may differ by
ethnicity. Is there a difference between White students and non-White students in their
subsequent awareness, understanding, beliefs and attitudes of those from other
racial/ethnic backgrounds after completing the diversity course requirement? How do
diversity courses affect students’ attitudes about their own cultures?
Using Alexander Astin’s “input-environment-output” research framework (1970),
this chapter will begin by reviewing literature regarding students’ pre-college experiences
with diversity and identity development. Astin describes inputs as the “…talents, skills,
aspirations, and other potentials for growth and learning that the new student brings with
him to college… the raw materials with which the institution has to deal” (p. 225).
Students’ ethnicity and their previous levels of interaction with diverse peers will be two
important input variables when exploring how students choose and experience diversity
7
courses. This chapter will then review the available literature on how ethnicity relates to
other factors in college, such as picking a major or choosing a course or extracurricular
activity, along with literature from the field of academic advising. Feldman and
Newcomb’s accentuation hypothesis (1969) posits that students’ predispositions from
high school are typically accentuated in college, which will be explored in greater detail
in this chapter.
Within Astin’s I-E-O framework, environment refers to the various aspects of
college that can affect the student. For example, Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002)
describe that there are a number of ways in which students are exposed to diversity on
college campuses. Relevant to this study is the concept of “classroom diversity”, which
refers to both course content on diversity issues and interactions with diverse peers in the
classroom. In this study, diversity courses and the nature of students’ experiences in
those courses are the main environmental variables that will be studied. Because the
study will look at the effects of diversity courses on peer interactions and student-faculty
interactions, some of this literature will be covered in Chapter 2. This study will also see
if participation in ethnic or culture specific clubs or organizations has an effect on
students’ diversity course experiences. Lastly, this chapter will examine the literature
regarding the outcomes of diversity courses, the last area of Astin’s framework.
Research has shown that in October 2008, 68.6% of 2008 high school graduates
were enrolled in colleges or universities (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). In 2007,
minority students comprised 32% of the college student population (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2009). The NCES also estimates that total enrollment in degree-
8
granting institutions is projected to increase by 15-20 percent by the year 2014. As race
relations evolve in the United States, the interplay of pre-college factors, campus climate,
and curricular decisions all create a new way to explore the college student experience.
Changing demographics call for a need to examine these issues in a different way, with
the understanding that both White and minority students arrive on college campuses with
a wide range of backgrounds and experiences. With this changing landscape of students
in higher education, scholars have researched how minority students experience the
college environment and how these environmental factors contribute to a variety of
outcomes (Astin, 1992; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). However, some researchers
argue that what is lacking is information on majority and minority students’ pre-college
experiences with diversity and interacting with diverse peers, and how this, and race
influence college students’ educational experiences and outcomes (Milem & Umbach,
2003; Torres, Howard-Hamilton, Copper, 2003).
Accentuation Theory and Pre-College Experiences
Feldman and Newcomb’s accentuation hypothesis (1969) posits that students’
predispositions are typically accentuated in college, particularly as they select peer
groups and activities. Of relevance to this study is the idea that students tend to
intentionally enroll in courses that are interesting to them, which accentuates their
particular attitudes, beliefs and experiences. Predispositions are challenged if students
cannot or do not choose a setting or a course that fits with their initial attitudes or beliefs
(Nelson-Laird, Engberg, Hurtado, 2005). This theory will guide this dissertation
9
research, in examining how pre-college exposure to diverse peers (as an input) affects
diversity course choices, experiences and outcomes.
For example, Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, and Oseguera (2008) examined students’
diversity experiences and their transition to college. Using Feldman and Newcomb’s
accentuation theory (1969) Locks et al. predicted that White students from predominantly
White backgrounds would be less likely to be predisposed to participating in diversity
activities (including diversity courses). They also hypothesized that minority students
coming from predominantly White backgrounds would be more comfortable with diverse
peers and would be more likely to participate in diversity activities.
Locks et al. found support for both hypotheses through their data analysis. Their
findings indicated that students of color were more likely than White students to have
greater pre-college exposure to diverse peers and have a greater disposition to engage in
diversity-related activities. Additionally, the authors found that White and minority
students who had more pre-college exposure to diverse peers and a higher disposition for
diversity activities also had higher perceptions of racial tension on campus. In the overall
study of diversity courses, this concept is interesting because if students are not
predisposed to diversity-related activities (such as diversity courses) and have lower
perceptions of racial tension on campus, they may not fully engage with the multi-faceted
issues of diversity during their time as undergraduates.
Locks et al.’s study builds off of research conducted by Saenz, Ngai, and Hurtado
(2007). Saenz et al. also explored how the pre-college environment predicted positive
interactions with diverse peers. They found that minority students coming from White
10
neighborhoods were more comfortable interacting with diverse peers and participating in
diversity activities. Within this study, it will be interesting to examine if these findings
are replicated in the context of diversity courses. For example, do minority students who
come from primarily White neighborhoods and high schools choose a diversity course
with a topic focusing on race and ethnicity? What types of diversity courses do White
students choose, and how do their outcomes vary based on pre-college experiences?
In a 2003 study by Milem and Umbach, the authors studied high school
segregation and desegregation to examine the neighborhoods that students grew up in and
where they attended school. This research provides a context for students’ pre-college
experiences with diversity. In Milem and Umbach’s study, students indicated that
segregation tended to persist in the neighborhoods, high schools, and peer groups from
which they originated, especially for White and African American students. Research
revealed that 81% of White students in the study grew up in White neighborhoods and
52% of African American students grew up in neighborhoods that were mostly people of
color. After collecting demographic data, Milem and Umbach surveyed students to
determine their predispositions to racial activities. The students were surveyed on
whether or not they planned to take a course devoted to diversity, join an organization
that promotes diversity, participate in a group or activity reflecting their own cultural
background, and get to know individuals of diverse backgrounds.
Milem and Umbach’s study found that most minority students planned to
participate in a cultural organization or other cultural activities on campus: 67% of Latino
students, 77% of Asian American students, and 87% of African American students. With
11
regards to diversity courses, only 38% of White students indicated plans to take a course
related to diversity in their first year of college, versus 45% of Asian American students,
50% of Latinos, and 68% of African American students. It is important to note that the
authors made no mention of a diversity course requirement at the sample institution, as
opposed to the institution in this current study, which requires students to take a diversity
course prior to graduation. Based on their analyses, Milem and Umbach assert that “the
students who are least likely to be prepared to engage diversity while in college are White
students.” (p. 622). These findings point to the importance of examining what kinds of
diversity courses White students choose, and what their experiences are in those courses.
In summary, researchers have provided support for Feldman and Newcomb’s
hypothesis that predispositions from high school have an effect on students’ choices in
college. This research mainly examines students’ interactions with peers and
predispositions to diversity activities in a broader sense. This current study will build off
this work to specifically examine how ethnicity and pre-college experiences with
diversity may affect one’s choice of diversity course and outcomes.
Salience of Identity
There seems to be a gap in the literature with regards to minority students who
choose not to participate in diversity courses or ethnic clubs or activities, and why they
make these choices. In Milem and Umbach’s study, large numbers of minority students
indicated that they planned to enroll in a diversity course; however, 55% of Asian
American students, 50% of Latinos and 32% of African American students did not plan
on enrolling in such a course. There were also large numbers of minority students
12
indicating that they did not plan on participating in cultural organizations or activities on
campus. These patterns emphasize the importance of considering factors such as
neighborhoods, high schools, and peer groups as important dispositional experiences
likely to affect one’s choices when arriving on campus.
Another study by Ethier and Deaux (1994) examined the salience of racial/ethnic
identity in different contexts, specifically a longitudinal study of Hispanic students
attending predominantly White institutions. The authors predicted that students with
strong cultural backgrounds would be more likely to participate in activities relevant to
their ethnic background. They also argued that self-definition is based on both the
current context and students’ pre-college experiences. They believed that students’
identities would be more salient if they were attending institutions that were drastically
different from their pre-college environment.
One important finding from Ethier and Deaux’s 1994 study was that “…students’
history of ethnic involvement predicted the degree to which they made efforts to maintain
their group membership…” (p. 249). For example, in the study, strength of ethnic
identity was measured by speaking Spanish at home, having Hispanic friends in high
school, and growing up in neighborhoods with high concentrations of Hispanics.
Students with strong ethnic backgrounds were more likely to be involved in Hispanic
organizations on campus and have Hispanic friends. Ethier and Deaux also found that
the Hispanic students who did not come from a strong ethnic background were more
likely to perceive threats to their identity, to have lower self-esteem associated with that
identity, and to lower their identification with the group. The authors of the study
13
suggested that students who did not come from a strong ethnic background may have felt
conflicted with being categorized as Hispanic despite their own self-identification, and
that they felt less accepted by students who strongly identified with their cultural
background.
Other studies lend support for the notion that students’ pre-college experiences
play a role in what aspects of their identity are most salient in college. For example, Yeh
and Huang (1996) surveyed Asian American college students who noted that geographic
location was an important factor in establishing their identity. More than half of the 78
students in the study commented that the presence or absence of other Asians in their
geographic location played a role in their ethnic identity development. Another study by
Smith (1991) attempted to reconceptualize the concept of racial identity development.
She described that the viewpoints of the groups that one participates in, otherwise known
as a reference group, influence one’s experiences. Therefore, depending on what
minority students’ pre-college experiences are, the reference group that is most salient
may not necessarily be related to race. Yet, when race is salient and when the pre-college
experiences are also diverse, what can we expect? This still remains to be clarified
White Racial Identity Development
In addition to ethnic identity development, it is also important in this study to
examine White racial identity development, which provides a context for how White
students experience diversity courses. Helms (1995) describes six racial identity statuses
that Whites use when engaged in a racial event. According to Helms, the concept of
“statuses” rather than “stages” is used because individuals may express attitudes or
14
behaviors that reflect more than one stage, and each status is not necessarily a static
condition that one reaches. As a person encounters meaningful racial material or events
in his or her life, “the ego selects the dominant racial identity status to assist the person in
interpreting the event” (p. 187). If he or she is unable to cope effectively, new statuses
may begin to evolve.
In the first status, Contact, individuals are oblivious to racism and how they are a
participant in it. They are satisfied with racial status quo. Disintegration status describes
a situation in which individuals feel disoriented or anxious because they have
encountered a racial moral dilemma. In the Reintegration status, Whites idealize the
White racial group, and have strong feelings of intolerance for other groups. The fourth
status, Pseudoindependence, is characterized by “intellectualized commitment to one’s
own socioracial group and deceptive tolerance of other groups” (p. 185). The next status,
Immersion/Emersion, describes a search for understanding of how racism personally
affects one’s life and how Whites benefit by being White. Lastly, the Autonomy status
describes not only an informed positive commitment to one’s racial group but also the
ability to understand the privileges of racism.
These concepts play an important role in the current study, as the research team
examines how White students experience diversity courses. Because diversity courses
cover such a wide range of topics, White students do not necessarily need to choose a
course related to issues of race and ethnicity. Not only will students come to college with
varied experience with diverse peers, but they will also arrive at varying statuses of
15
White racial identity development. These considerations will be important in examining
their diversity course outcomes.
How Race Affects the College Environment
Astin’s I-E-O framework (1970) links students’ entering characteristics (inputs)
with how they experience their environments and how their outcomes may differ as well.
One important input in this current study is race/ethnicity. This study seeks to examine
how ethnicity may influence students’ choice of diversity course and how outcomes may
differ according to ethnicity. Many researchers have examined how ethnicity affects
other aspects of the college environment, such as participation in campus cultural
organizations, choice of major, and course-taking patterns.
Campus cultural organizations. A myriad of studies have been done on students who
participate in campus cultural organizations. Again, considering Milem and Umbach’s
2003 research, they found that large numbers of minority students in their study planned
to participate in such organizations. Museus (2008) interviewed Asian American and
African American students on a predominantly White college campus and reported that
ethnic student organizations serve as a space for students to connect with peers with
similar backgrounds and to learn more about their own cultures. Inkelas (2004) also
studied Asian American undergraduate students to find that participation in ethnic clubs
and organizations deepened students’ commitment to their ethnic communities.
This research may provide a context for examining how diversity courses impact
minority students, especially those that come from predominantly White pre-college
environments. Using Feldman and Newcomb’s accentuation hypothesis (1969), minority
16
students with predominantly White pre-college experiences may choose a diversity
course focusing on an area other than race and culture, if race is not salient for them.
However, can the courses provide the same type of environment as ethnic clubs and
organizations? Similar to ethnic clubs and organizations, do diversity courses affect
minority students’ awareness, understanding, and attitudes about their own culture? How
does taking a diversity course affect minority students’ interactions with members of their
own racial and ethnic community?
Peer and student-faculty interactions. Similarly, literature has examined how peer and
student-faculty interactions differ by race and ethnicity. As mentioned in Chapter 1,
many college students arrive on campus from high school environments that are very
segregated. Valencia et al. (2002) use the term “hypersegregation” to describe the
patterns of Latino students attending schools that are more segregated now than they
were generations ago. Sidanius et al. (2004) use the term “ethnic enclaves” when
discussing how increased diversity on campus has led to the tendency for student from
different ethnic groups to remain relatively segregated and isolated from each other.
Because these patterns of peer interactions continue to be displayed on college campuses,
this current study is interested in seeing how diversity courses may affect how students
interact with peers of other racial/ethnic backgrounds.
Cole (2007) noted that race and ethnicity are significant to student-faculty
interactions and how students develop intellectually. He also references prior research
that states that when minority students represent a significant proportion of the student
population, they are more likely to have more frequent and engaging interactions with
17
faculty members. This research is important, because Cole then goes on to examine not
only how race/ethnicity affects student-faculty interactions, but then how student-faculty
interactions affect students’ intellectual self-concept. This work relates to the current
study with regards to exploring how students interact with faculty members and teaching
assistants during their diversity course.
College major and course-taking patterns. Ma (2009) examined patterns of college
major choice to see how they differed by race/ethnicity, gender, and nativity/immigration
status. She argued that it is especially important to examine differences in college major
choice by race because research shows that potential earnings by career field are unequal.
Degrees in engineering, computer science, and business tend to gain higher earnings
returns than degrees in humanities, social science and education.
In Ma’s study, college majors were classified into one of five categories:
technical, life/health, business, social science, and humanities. The author found that
minority students were more represented in technical, life/health, and business majors
than Whites. While the specific findings of Ma’s study are not the focus of this current
study, it is important to note how race affects choices in college. This study will examine
how race may affect choice of diversity course; are there differences by race in how
students choose their diversity courses? The implications are that not all diversity
courses may produce the same types of outcomes, and we may find that there are
differences between racial groups in choice of diversity course.
Similarly, as this study begins to explore diversity course-taking patterns, it is
important to note that much of the work being done on course-taking focuses on
18
community colleges and how enrollment in remedial or vocational coursework differs by
race (Maxwell, Hagedorn, Cypers, Moon, Brocato, Wahl, and Prather, 2003). The
authors found that rather than a simple White/non-White difference in community college
course enrollments, there was instead a variety of different patterns found among all
ethnic groups with regards to vocational, remedial, and college-level community college
courses.
In Maxwell et al.’s study, first-time community college attendees of Hispanic
background were highly concentrated in introductory automotive technology, remedial
math, and remedial English classes and less concentrated in business and computer
science courses. African American students were more likely to enroll in business, office
administration, and computer science courses. Asian American students were typically
enrolled in courses that were applicable towards Associate of Arts degrees or transferable
to 4-year universities, rather than vocational or remedial courses. The authors describe
that the lack of a common first year curriculum at the community college level
contributes to the lack of community among students. The same could be said for the
breadth of diversity courses offered at the institution in this current study. Because
courses cover a wide range of majors and topics, students may not have one common
outcome after completing the requirement.
Diversity Course Experiences and Outcomes
Focusing specifically on research done on the classroom environment in which
diversity courses take place, Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) describe the different
ways in which students are exposed to diversity on college campuses. They refer to
19
“structural diversity” as the numbers of diverse students on campus. “Informal
interactional diversity” can include informal discussions with peers, and interactions in
the residence halls, at campus events, and other activities on campus. A third form of
diversity experience, which will be the focus of this study, is “classroom diversity”. This
refers to both course content on diversity issues and interactions with diverse peers in the
classroom.
Gurin et al. focus on two types of outcomes based on these forms of diversity
experiences: learning outcomes (active thinking and academic skills, intellectual
engagement) and democracy outcomes (citizenship engagement, racial and cultural
understanding, and perspective-taking). The authors hypothesized that a curriculum that
exposes students to concepts surrounding race and ethnicity, in a classroom where they
are also interacting with diverse peers, “…will foster a learning environment that
supports active thinking and intellectual engagement” (p. 336).
The authors found that the impact of classroom diversity was statistically
significant and positive for White and Latino students. The interplay of all three types of
diversity – structural, informal interactional, and classroom – is important. The authors
found that numbers alone are not enough, but that curriculum alone is not enough either.
For this study, it will be important to determine how students differ by race not only in
their beliefs and attitudes about different cultures after taking a diversity course, but to
see if they put those new viewpoints into action.
Chang (2002) examined whether or not taking a required diversity course would
reduce students’ racial prejudice and increase intergroup understanding. Within his
20
study, students could choose from approximately 25 courses across a variety of
disciplines to meet the university diversity course requirement. Topics included race,
gender, social class, age, culture, disability, and sexual orientation. Students in the study
completed the Modern Racism Scale, which was developed by McConahay, Hardee, and
Batts in 1981. This scale assessed students’ level of prejudice towards Blacks. The main
finding from this study was that completing a course towards the diversity requirement
resulted in more favorable attitudes of Blacks. This outcome occurred regardless of
whether or not the course focused specifically on Black issues. Chang describes that
learning about one area of diversity in a course may then transfer to more critical thinking
about other topics not discussed in that course.
Hogan and Mallott (2005) build on Chang’s 2002 work, by also examining
whether or not completing a required course on race and gender issues reduces racial
prejudice. Students in this study also completed the Modern Racism Scale and were
divided into two groups – those who were enrolled in a race/gender course and those who
had never taken a race/gender course. One important finding from these authors was that
60% of the students in this study noted that they would take a race/gender course even if
it was not a requirement. Tying back to previous research in this chapter, what factors
influence the other 40% of students who do not feel compelled to take a race/gender
course? Hogan and Mallott (2005) found that, while taking a race/gender course did
reduce some aspects Black prejudice, racism and prejudice are multi-faceted issues and
race/gender courses did not necessarily affect all aspects of the problem.
21
The breadth of what constitutes a “diversity course” at any given school is a key
issue. Students in the current study, at Western University, can choose from over 100
different diversity courses, which are taught by over 70 instructors (Cole and Sundt,
2009). Courses must meet five criteria in order to be approved by the Western University
Diversity Review Committee (Appendix A). General guidelines include that courses
must examine dimensions of diversity in terms of social and/or cultural consequences,
and that at least 1/3 of the course should address these issues. Courses should also
provide opportunities for personal reflection, and comparative and analytical thinking.
The research team for this study at Western University used the five criteria for
Diversity Course Designation, along with syllabi from each class, to create a typology
that addresses the differences across diversity courses (Appendix B). Creating a typology
“reduces the wide variety of courses to four categories of diversity” and “suggests that
the variation across diversity courses is meaningful and distinct” (Cole and Sundt, 2009).
This study will use the typology as an environmental variable to examine course-taking
patterns by students. Will students in the study be evenly distributed across all four
levels in the typology? Do diversity course outcomes differ based on the level of
typology of the course students have chosen?
Summary
Previous literature discusses students’ pre-college exposure to diversity, and how
this, and race, affects a variety of variables in the college environment. Most
importantly, accentuation theory (Feldman and Newcomb, 1969) posits that students’
predispositions as they graduate from high school may be extended as they transition to
22
college. This, combined with research on high school peer groups, high schools, and
neighborhoods, suggests that the input variables that students bring to college can
strongly affect their college experience.
Previous literature also discusses the impact of a college diversity course
requirement on various outcomes. Based on prior research, diversity courses have
positive impacts on learning and democracy outcomes (Gurin et al., 2002) and reduction
of prejudice (Chang, 2002; Hogan and Mallott, 2005). However, what is missing is the
bridge between the two: how race and pre-college experiences with diversity affect
students’ choice of diversity course and what their experiences and outcomes are by race.
This study will seek to begin making those connections to see if there is a relationship
between inputs, diversity courses, and outcomes. The following chapter will discuss the
implementation of a survey designed to gain insights into students’ pre-college
experiences with diversity and how these may affect their outcomes in a diversity course.
23
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
A quantitative methodology was chosen for this study in order to answer the
following questions: Is there a relationship between ethnicity, students’ pre-college
experiences with diversity, or major and their primary reason for enrolling in a diversity
course? Namely, are students from diverse pre-college backgrounds more inclined to
choose a diversity course because the topic is of interest to them, as opposed to students
that are just looking to fulfill the requirement? Secondly, what is the relationship
between race, pre-college experiences, and major and students’ awareness,
understanding, beliefs, and attitudes of other cultures and their own culture? Lastly, how
do experiences in the diversity course differ by race and pre-college experience?
From a theoretical standpoint, Feldman and Newcomb’s accentuation hypothesis
(1969) suggests that students’ predispositions from high school are typically accentuated
in college. Thus, this study examines data on students’ race, high school environments
and the neighborhoods in which they grew up to see how these pre-college factors may
influence the nature of students’ experience and outcomes from taking a required
diversity course. Chapter 3 includes a description of the research design, the survey
instrument that is used, dependent and independent variables, and an explanation of how
data analysis will be conducted. The limitations of the study are also be discussed.
Research Design and Framework
Astin’s Input-Environment-Output model (1970) provides a research framework
for this study, with survey and student transcript data providing information addressing
all three aspects of the I-E-O model. Astin argued that students come to college with a
24
variety of inputs which influence how they experience the college environment and what
their outputs or outcomes are. This study posits that a student’s race and their diversity-
related pre-college experiences affect how they choose diversity courses and the nature of
their experiences within diversity courses. As described in Chapter 2, previous
quantitative studies examined the relationship between race, the racial composition of
one’s high school, and involvement in cultural activities upon arriving to college.
Current research supports the idea that most students of color have a greater disposition
towards engaging in diversity-related activities than White students (Locks et al., 2008;
Saenz et al., 2007). This study examines the extent race and pre-college experiences with
diverse populations impact the type of diversity course students choose and the
experiences students have in diversity courses, as well as the educational outcomes
students report.
This study is cross-sectional and quasi-experimental in design. Quantitative
survey design allows researchers to study a sample of the population and use these results
to then generalize to the wider population (Creswell, 2009). The study is cross-sectional
in that respondents to the Diversity Survey during the spring 2009 semester included
freshmen through seniors; however, it is not longitudinal because the survey does not
include a follow-up of the same students. Students that have not yet taken a diversity
course, but who completed the Diversity Survey during spring 2009 were removed from
the data set. This makes the study quasi-experimental; unlike experimental designs,
students were not pre-assigned to groups of students who would take a diversity course
and groups who would not.
25
Site Selection and Population
This study is part of a larger project on diversity courses, taking place at Western
University. Although Western University is a large private research university, there is
still a strong focus on the liberal arts curriculum, with the majority of general education
courses housed in the College of Letters, Arts and Sciences (Cole & Sundt, 2008).
Additionally, Western University provides an ideal student sample to draw from in terms
of race and ethnicity. This is important because of the study’s focus on differences in
diversity course outcomes by race. Western University has a racial and ethnic
composition that is found at very few colleges – no one racial group makes up more than
50% of the student population. In fall 2008, 47% of the undergraduate population was
White/Caucasian, 23% were Asian/Pacific Islander, 12% were Hispanic, 5% were
Black/African American, and 9% were international students (“About WU,” 2009)
These students are required to take at least one General Education (GE) Diversity
Course prior to graduation. “A course receives the Diversity Courses designation only
after having been approved by the USC Diversity Review Committee. These courses
range in the choice of topics available, the departments (20 different depts.) which offer
them, the number of weeks devoted to them over the course of the semester, and course
objectives” (Cole & Sundt, 2008, p. 3). Cole and Sundt also explain that in addition to
the diversity course requirement, students are also required to take a “Social Issues”
course as part of the GE requirement, which may have course content similar to diversity
courses. Some Social Issues courses are cross-listed as diversity courses as well. For the
26
purposes of this study, social issues courses are treated as separate courses from diversity
courses, and removed from the data set.
Instrument
The “Diversity Survey” (Appendix C) was developed by the research team in
spring 2009 in order to begin surveying students about their experiences in diversity
courses. Students who have not completed the diversity course requirement were not
included in the final data set. The survey has three sections, with a total of 31 questions.
The first section includes students’ names, ID numbers, native language, and information
about parental educational levels. It then has questions about the racial/ethnic
composition of the high schools in which the student attended and the neighborhood in
which the student grew up. These introductory questions begin to address the pre-college
experiences students have with diversity and are used as an “input” variable. ID numbers
and other identifying information are not reported in the study. Names and ID numbers
were replaced with case numbers prior to the researcher receiving the data for analysis
Students are then asked to compare themselves to their peers on a variety of traits:
critical thinking skills, understanding of others, and ability to work cooperatively with
diverse people, among others. Another key question asks students to estimate how much
time he or she spends in a typical week participating in student clubs/organizations that
are ethnic or culture specific.
In section 2, the survey then asks students how many Diversity or Social Issues
courses they have taken. If they have taken one or more courses they are asked to enter
into a text box the name of the course they will be describing in the survey. Students are
27
then asked “What is the primary reason you enrolled in this course?” with their answer
choices being: Topic is of interest to me, General Education (GE) requirement, or course
fit my schedule. Responses to this question allow the researcher to begin examining the
first research question: Is there a relationship between race/pre-college experiences with
diversity and students’ primary reason for enrolling in a diversity course?
Continuing on to section 2, questions are then asked about the particular course
that students indicated. If students noted that they had not taken a diversity course, they
do not complete this section of the survey. Students who have completed a diversity
course are asked how the course has changed their awareness and understanding of other
racial/ethnic backgrounds, their own culture, and other religious backgrounds. Students
are also asked about various concepts that their course may or may not have emphasized:
critical thinking skills, understanding people of their own background and people of other
backgrounds (racial, religious, sexual orientation, and gender).
In addition to general understanding and awareness, the survey then asks about
their interactions with students of similar and varied backgrounds as a result of taking a
diversity course. These questions will address the next research question: Are there
differences by race in students’ experiences in diversity courses and their outcomes?
Participant Selection
Initially, the Diversity Survey was sent out to sample of 3,000 undergraduate
students on April 15, 2009. This included 1,000 freshmen 1,000 sophomores, 500
juniors, and 500 seniors, who were randomly selected from the undergraduate population
of approximately 16,000 students at Western University. Students were sent an email
28
(Appendix D) using a mass email program called WorldMerge. A link within the email
brought students to the Diversity Survey housed on the survey design site Survey
Monkey. Reminders were sent in May and June 2009 to students who did not complete
the survey (A. Fahmy, personal communication, August 20, 2009). The initial sample
included 302 students that completed the survey after the first mailing. An additional 178
responded after the two subsequent mailings, for a total of 480 students, of which 462 of
the surveys provided usable data.
Independent Variables
Student characteristics or inputs are the independent variables for this study.
Students’ race and gender are taken from student transcript data provided by the
Registrar’s Office at Western University, as these questions are not on the diversity
survey. Information about students’ pre-college experiences with diverse peers comes
from the first section of the diversity survey. Students are asked to describe the
racial/ethnic composition of the high schools in which they attended and the
neighborhoods in which they grew up. Response options are “I went to a high
school/grew up in a neighborhood of predominantly (European/Caucasian American,
African American, Asian American, Latino/Hispanic) people” or “I went to a high
school/grew up in a neighborhood with a mix of different ethnic groups.”
Dependent Variables
Survey items referring to students’ experiences in diversity courses are used as the
dependent variables. Students are first asked how many diversity courses they have
taken. If they have taken one or more courses, they are asked to enter the name of the
29
course that they will be describing in the survey. Students are then asked their main
reason for enrolling in the course, which is measured by one of three options: topic is of
interest to me, GE requirement, or course fit my schedule. These survey items begin to
address the study’s first research question: Is there a relationship between race and
students’ pre-college environment and their primary reason for choosing a course?
Students are asked how the diversity course has changed his or her awareness,
understanding, beliefs, and attitudes about students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds
and also aspects of their own culture. Responses are measured on the following scale:
very much in a positive way, somewhat in a positive way, very little in a positive way, in
a negative way, and not at all. Another dependent variable from the Diversity Survey
asks how much students have thought more critically about race and ethnicity as a result
of taking a diversity course, with the measures being: very much, some, very little, and
not at all. These same measures (very much, some, very little, not at all) are used to
assess students’ interactions with peers from other races and ethnicities and with their
own racial/ethnic community, as a result of the diversity course. These dependent
variables are used to assess students’ experiences and outcomes as a result of taking a
diversity course.
Data Analysis
The main purpose of this study is to examine how input variables such as race,
diversity-related pre-college experiences, and major relate to students’ experiences and
outcomes in a required undergraduate diversity course. In order to examine these
30
relationships, the following statistical techniques are used: descriptive statistics, factor
analysis, and analysis of variance.
Descriptive Statistics. Descriptive statistics are used to organize and describe the
characteristics of a set of data (Salkind, 2007). In this study, information on students’
race, gender, and major are matched with responses to the Diversity Survey distributed at
Western University in the Spring 2009 semester. Descriptive statistics provide a basic
description of the students that completed this survey. Within the Diversity Survey itself,
descriptive statistics are also provided for students’ responses to their pre-college
experiences with diversity – the racial/ethnic composition of the high schools in which
they attended and the neighborhoods in which they grew up. This provides an
understanding of students’ entering characteristics upon arriving at Western University.
Descriptive statistics are also run to see how many respondents to the Diversity Survey
completed a diversity course, versus those who have not taken one, and where students’
courses fall on the Diversity Course Typology (i.e. Was their course rated Introductory,
Basic, Intermediate, or Advanced?)
Analysis of Variance. Salkind (2007) describes that an analysis of variance, or ANOVA,
can be used when examining differences between groups on one or more variables, when
the participants are only being tested once, as they are in this study. In this study there
are a variety of independent and dependent variables. Independent variables include race,
gender, and racial/ethnic composition of one’s high school and pre-college neighborhood.
Key dependent variables include what type of diversity course is taken (based on the
Diversity Course Typology), primary reason for choosing a diversity course, and a
31
variety of outcomes relating to attitudes and behaviors after completing the course. The
use of a multivariate technique allows for the effects of the independent variables to be
estimated for each of the dependent variables, independent of one another.
Limitations
A variety of limitations exist within this study. First, the way that pre-college
experiences with diversity are measured can be open to interpretation. Students are asked
“How would you describe the racial/ethnic composition of the high school you
attended/the neighborhood where you grew up?” Response options are “I went to a high
school/grew up in a neighborhood of predominantly (European/Caucasian American,
African American, Asian American, Latino/Hispanic) people” or “I went to a high
school/grew up in a neighborhood with a mix of different ethnic groups.” Students who
select the same answer choice for this question may still have vastly different pre-college
experiences with diversity and with diverse peers.
Additionally, data analysis of Spring 2009 respondents to the Diversity Survey
showed that some students listed and described courses that were, in fact, neither
Diversity nor Social Issues courses. Because all class levels are represented in the
respondent pool, not all participants completed the survey directly after completing their
diversity course requirement, which may have an effect on their responses. Also, from
the Spring 2009 version of the Diversity Survey, the research team removed courses that
were listed as Social Issues courses. Because some courses are cross-listed as both
Diversity and Social Issues courses, and because many Social Issues courses cover
32
similar content to Diversity Courses, future iterations of the Diversity Survey may want
to treat Social Issues as Diversity Courses.
33
Chapter 4: Results
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between a student’s
ethnicity, their pre-college experiences with diversity (as measured by the racial/ethnic
composition of their high school) and various outcomes related to diversity courses.
These outcomes include (1) their primary reason for enrolling in a course, (2) their
awareness, understanding, beliefs, and attitudes about other racial and ethnic
backgrounds, and (3) their awareness, understanding, beliefs, and attitudes of their own
culture. Additionally this study examined other experiences students had while taking a
course, such as thinking critically about race and ethnicity and interacting with other
students and faculty.
Transcript data was matched to students’ responses on the diversity survey in
order to determine their gender, ethnicity, and major. These input characteristics, along
with the racial/ethnic composition of the high school they attended, are presented in the
first section of this chapter. The next section presents results on the different diversity
course outcomes, noting which of the input variables show significant differences in their
outcomes. Discussion of the results and implications are presented in Chapter 5.
Treatment of the Data
Four survey questions were initially asked in order to determine a student’s pre-
college experiences with diversity. These questions asked students to describe the racial
and ethnic composition of the high school in which they attended and the neighborhood
in which they grew up. In an initial attempt to create a composite variable for pre-college
experiences, it was determined that African American, Latino, and mixed high schools
34
and neighborhoods resulted in an unreliable Cronbach’s Alpha (.31, .62, and .54
respectively). However, predominantly Asian American high schools and neighborhoods
were combined into a composite variable of Asian American pre-college experiences,
with a Chronbach’s Alpha score of .83. Caucasian, African American, Latino, and mixed
pre-college experiences were measured using the student’s response for the composition
of their high school after composite variables were unable to be computed.
Students’ majors were grouped into five categories: STEM (science, technology,
engineering, math), Business, Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, and
Other/Undecided. STEM majors included those in engineering, natural sciences,
gerontology, and medicine. Business and accounting majors were grouped in the
Business category. The Arts and Humanities category encompassed fine arts, music,
theater, and humanities majors and those in the Cinema/Television school. Social
sciences majors and those in architecture and communications fell under the Social
Sciences category, and the Other/Undecided category included students in professional
schools (Education and Policy, Planning and Development) as well as
undecided/undeclared students.
Out of a total of 31 questions on the diversity survey, question 17 asked students
about their awareness and understanding of students of other racial and ethnic
backgrounds. Question 18 asked about their beliefs and attitudes. Both questions gave
the option to respond positively or negatively (see Appendix C). The initial responses
were measured on a 5 point scale (i.e. very much in a positive way, somewhat in a
positive way, very little in a positive way, in a negative way, and not at all). Two
35
separate scales were then created indicating either ‘in a positive way’ (i.e. very much in a
positive way, somewhat in a positive way, very little in a positive way or not at all) or ‘in
a negative way’ (i.e. in a negative way or not at all), and composite variables were
created for the negative outcomes. The variable measuring negative outcomes for
awareness, understanding, beliefs, and attitudes of other racial and ethnic backgrounds
resulted in a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .89. The variable measuring the same negative
outcomes but for a student’s own culture resulted in a Cronbach’s Alpha score of .76. A
factor analysis was run for the positive variables, in an attempt to also create composite
variables, but given the range of answer choices for positive variables and the difficulty
in coding a composite variable, positive awareness/understanding and positive
beliefs/attitudes are reported separately.
Participant Demographics
As noted in chapter 3 (methodology), the Diversity Survey was distributed to
3,000 undergraduate students (1,000 freshmen, 1,000 sophomores, 500 juniors, and 500
seniors). 462 students completed the survey, of which 30 did not respond to the question
on whether or not they had taken a diversity course and 37 indicated that they had not
completed the diversity course requirement. These 67 students were removed from the
data set. Of the 395 students remaining, only 228 took a diversity course that the
research team was able to verify as a diversity course. The remainder of the students,
when asked to enter the name of the course they would be describing in the survey into a
free-response text box, left the text box blank, entered more than one course, or entered
36
responses such as “I forget” or ‘Some art history class.” The research team was unable to
identify these courses and assign them to a level of typology and they were removed.
Chapter 3 described the way in which the typology was created to categorize the
different diversity courses. The typology includes 4 levels - introductory, basic,
intermediate, and advanced - for each diversity course that the research team was able to
rate. In this data set, 25 students took a level 1 course, 80 students took a level 2 course,
81 students took a level 3 course, and 20 students took a level 4 course. There is a subset
of diversity courses for which the research team was unable to obtain the syllabi for
rating purposes. 22 students in this data set took one of those courses and therefore do
not have a rating for their course.
The 228 students in the data set were comprised of 151 females and 73 males (4
students in the data set did not have a gender indicated). The racial/ethnic composition of
the students was as follows: 100 Caucasian, 68 Latino/Hispanic, 28 Asian American, 14
African American, 4 Native American, and 14 Unknown/Not Stated. There were 71
STEM majors, 32 Business majors, 38 in Arts and Humanities, 62 in the Social Sciences,
and 21 in the Other/Undecided category.
With regards to pre-college experiences with diversity, 110 students in the data
set reported attending a predominantly Caucasian high school, while 63 students
indicated that their high school was a mix of different ethnic groups. Using the new
composite variable of Asian-American pre-college experiences with diversity, 29
students fell under this category. 15 students reported a predominantly Latino/Hispanic
37
high school environment and only 2 students indicated attending a predominantly African
American high school.
Findings related to research question 1
The purpose of research question 1 was to determine if there were significant
differences in students’ primary reason for enrolling in a diversity course by ethnicity,
major, and pre-college experiences with diversity. In the Diversity Survey, students were
given three choices in responding to the question “What is the primary reason you
enrolled in this course?” – “Topic is of interest to me”, “General Education (GE)
requirement”, and “Course fit my schedule.” Descriptive results (Figure 4.1) showed that
the majority of students (74%) enrolled in a diversity course because it was a
requirement, while 22% enrolled because the topic was of interest to them and 4%
enrolled because the course fit their schedule.
Figure 4.1
Primary reason for enrolling in course
(N=228) Responses Percentage
General Education (GE) requirement 168 74%
Topic is of interest to me 51 22%
Course fit my schedule 9 4%
However, the findings reported in Table 4.1 revealed that African American
students and Social Sciences majors showed significant differences in their primary
reason for enrolling in a diversity course. Both of these groups were more likely to report
choosing a course not only because it was a requirement, but also because the topic was
38
Table 4.1
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Students' Primary Reason for Choosing a Course
Dependent Variables
Topic is of interest
to me
General
Education (GE)
requirement
Course fit my
schedule
ANOVA
Independent Variables
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Pre-College Experiences
with diversity
Caucasian high school 0.005 0.021 0.023 0.089 0.233 0.926
African American high
school 0.0080.8970.0050.576 0.0010.087
Asian American
h.s./neighborhood 0.1431.1890.1551.294 0.0070.060
Latino/Hispanic high
school 0.0120.1830.0000.001 0.0450.697
Mixed high school 0.000 0.003 0.016 0.016 0.078
Ethnicity
Caucasian 0.1420.5720.4211.709 0.4391.78
African American 0.599 10.787** 0.421 7.486** 0.035 0.609
Asian American 0.189 1.754 0.157 1.451 0.001 0.012
Latino/Hispanic 0.0370.1750.0280.131 0.622.977
Native American 0.020 1.169 0.025 1.451 0.003 0.166
International 0.000 ---0.000--- 0.000---
Unknown/not stated 0.102 2.708 0.127 3.366 0.015 0.382
Major
STEM 0.2100.9740.0110.049 0.5592.612
Business 0.1180.9700.2652.196 0.1851.527
Arts and Humanities 0.057 0.406 0.09 0.648 0.029 0.207
Social Sciences 1.285 6.620* 1.011 5.175* 0.023 0.116
Other 0.0020.0270.0060.074 0.0790.946
a
Between Groups
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
39
of interest to them. No group (by pre-college experience with diversity, ethnicity, or
major) was significant in choosing a diversity course because it fit their schedule. There
was no relationship between a students’ pre-college experience with diversity, as
measured by their high school composition, and their primary reason for choosing a
course.
Findings related to research question 2
Research question 2 explored how diversity courses affected students’ awareness,
understanding, beliefs, and attitudes about students of other racial and ethnic
backgrounds. Positive variables were reported separately for awareness/understanding
and beliefs/attitudes, while the composite variable for negative outcomes encompassed
negative changes in awareness, understanding, beliefs and attitudes.
The finding reported in Table 4.2 show some differences by ethnicity and major.
Students whose ethnicity was unknown or not stated, and Social Sciences majors, were
more likely than other students to report positive changes in their awareness and
understanding of students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. Business majors were
more likely to report positive changes in their beliefs and attitudes and no groups reported
negative changes in their attitudes towards students of other racial and ethnic
backgrounds.
40
Table 4.2
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Diversity Course Experience Variables (Other
Cultures)
Dependent Variables
Positive changes in
awareness and
understanding of
other cultures
Positive changes in
beliefs and
attitudes about
other cultures
Negative changes
in awareness,
understanding,
beliefs, and
attitudes of other
cultures
ANOVA
Independent Variables
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Pre-College Experiences
with diversity
Caucasian high school 0.869 1.156 0.484 0.639 0.732 2.943
African American high school 0.018 0.651 0.021 0.752 0.000 0.029
Asian American
h.s./neighborhood 0.149 0.405 0.226 0.610 0.040 0.330
Latino/Hispanic high school 0.106 0.533 0.048 0.238 0.015 0.230
Mixed high school 1.489 2.412 1.142 1.86 0.252 1.225
Ethnicity
Caucasian 1.230 1.67 1.631 2.232 0.147 0.593
African American 0.156 0.881 0.024 0.134 0.012 0.201
Asian American 0.511 1.613 0.766 2.509 0.041 0.396
Latino/Hispanic 0.406 0.645 0.743 2.509 0.004 0.017
Native American 0.011 0.200 0.040 1.006 0.001 0.041
International 0.000 --- 0.000 --- 0.000 ---
Unknown/not stated 0.365 3.236* 0.11 0.938 0.005 0.126
Major
STEM 1.039 1.645 1.186 1.874 0.381 1.773
Business 0.299 0.809 1.539 4.583** 0.116 0.965
Arts and Humanities 0.565 1.338 0.817 1.936 0.088 0.617
Social Sciences 2.279 3.926** 0.595 0.981 0.233 1.159
Other 0.128 0.521 0.046 0.183 0.022 0.28
Environmental Variables
Diversity Course Typology
Level 4.370 2.121 1.202 0.566 0.674 0.965
Ethnic/Cultural Clubs 11.899 2.636 2.694 0.574 3.014 1.968
a
Between Groups *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
41
Findings related to research question 3
Research question 3 also looked at awareness, understanding, beliefs, and
attitudes, but of the students’ own culture. As with the questions about other racial and
ethnic groups, the initial responses were measured on a 5 point scale and then converted
to two separate scales to indicate positive or negative changes.
As noted in table 4.3, students that attended a predominantly Caucasian high
school and Asian American students were more likely to report positive changes in their
beliefs and attitudes about their own culture. However, Caucasian students were more
likely than students of other ethnicities to report negative changes in their awareness,
understanding, beliefs and attitudes about their own culture.
Additional Diversity Course Outcomes
Critical Thinking on Race and Ethnicity. An additional question asked to what extent
students have thought more critically about race and ethnicity as a result of taking a
diversity course, with the measures being: very much, some, very little, and not at all.
Asian American students, students whose ethnicity was unknown or not stated, and
Social Sciences majors showed significant differences as compared to other students in
their critical thinking about race and ethnicity after taking a diversity course (Table 4.4).
Additionally, students showed significant differences on this measure based on the
typology level of their course. The Post Hoc Scheffe test revealed that students that took
a level 4 (advanced) diversity course were more likely to report thinking more critically
about race and ethnicity as compared to students who took a level 1 (introductory)
diversity course.
42
Table 4.3
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Diversity Course Experience Variables (Own
Culture)
Dependent Variables
Positive changes in
awareness and
understanding of
own culture
Positive changes in
beliefs and
attitudes about own
culture
Negative changes
in awareness,
understanding,
beliefs, and
attitudes of own
culture
ANOVA
Independent Variables
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Sum of
Squares
a
F
Pre-College Experiences
with diversity
Caucasian high school 1.550 2.089 2.180 2.977* 0.935 3.772
African American high school 0.018 0.633 0.017 0.568 0.001 0.129
Asian American
h.s./neighborhood 0.152 0.402 0.376 0.989 0.272 2.263
Latino/Hispanic high school 0.074 0.362 0.083 0.400 0.068 1.039
Mixed high school 0.765 1.225 1.260 2.060 0.048 0.232
Ethnicity
Caucasian 0.754 1.022 1.358 1.868 1.473 6.077*
African American 0.099 0.544 0.053 0.304 0.003 0.053
Asian American 0.331 1.015 1.144 3.705* 0.183 1.791
Latino/Hispanic 0.477 0.749 0.850 1.321 0.298 1.414
Native American 0.010 0.181 0.014 0.259 0.004 0.247
International 0.000 --- 0.000 --- 0.000 ---
Unknown/not stated 0.078 0.655 0.202 1.688 0.022 0.568
Major
STEM 0.089 0.137 0.278 0.427 0.086 0.399
Business 0.119 0.314 0.217 0.597 0.050 0.420
Arts and Humanities 0.505 1.252 0.312 0.74 0.269 1.920
Social Sciences 0.934 1.553 0.920 1.561 0.015 0.076
Other 0.160 0.637 0.237 0.929 0.004 0.042
Environmental Variables
Div. Course Typology Level 1.503 0.741 0.342 0.164 3.640 5.362*
Ethnic/Cultural Clubs 8.285 1.796 4.85 1.040 2.040 1.321
a
Between Groups *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
43
Table 4.4
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Critical Thinking about Race/Ethnicity
ANOVA
Independent Variable - Critical Thinking
Sum of
Squares
a
F
As a result of taking the Diversity Course I have
thought more critically about race/ethnicity
Pre-College Experiences with diversity
Table 4.4 Continued
Caucasian high school 1.028 1.371
African American high school 0.035 1.274
Asian American h.s./neighborhood 0.077 0.21
Latino/Hispanic high school 0.102 0.516
Mixed high school 1.042 1.68
Ethnicity
Caucasian 1.126 1.529
African American 0.257 1.474
Asian American 1.105 3.607*
Latino/Hispanic 1.094 1.742
Native American 0.021 0.396
International 0.000 ---
Unknown/not stated 0.31 2.755*
Major
STEM 1.453 2.294
Business 0.385 1.079
Arts and Humanities 0.241 0.570
Social Sciences 1.937 3.328*
Other 0.348 1.376
Environmental Variables
Diversity Course Typology Level 7.941 3.986**
Ethnic/Culture Specific Clubs/Organizations 2.070 0.667
a
Between Groups
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
44
Diversity Course Experiences. A subset of questions on the Diversity Survey also asked
students about their experiences within their diversity course. Students were asked how
often in their diversity courses they considered diverse perspectives in classroom
discussions and writing assignments, worked with other students on assignments, and
tried to better understand someone else’s views. After running an analysis of variance, it
was found that there were no significant differences by pre-college experience with
diversity, ethnicity, or major in these outcomes.
Students were also asked how often during their diversity course they had
conversations with students of the same and different racial and ethnic backgrounds, both
inside and outside of the classroom. Response choices were “Very often, often,
sometimes, never.” Results by ethnicity, pre-college experience with diversity, and
major were not significant for conversations with students of the same racial and ethnic
background, inside or outside of the classroom. Results were also not significant for
conversations with students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds inside the classroom.
However, outside of the classroom, Native American students and Social Sciences majors
were more likely to report having conversations with students from other racial and
ethnic backgrounds (Table 4.5).
45
Table 4.5
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Conversations with Other Students
ANOVA
Independent Variable - Conversations
Sum of
Squares
a
F
During the Diversity Course, how often did you have
conversations out of the classroom w/
students from racial/ethnic backgrounds diff. from
your own?
Pre-College Experiences with diversity
Caucasian high school 1.718 2.325
African American high school 0.028 0.982
Asian American h.s./neighborhood 0.063 0.171
Latino/Hispanic high school 0.249 1.351
Mixed high school 0.610 0.98
Ethnicity
Caucasian 0.993 1.341
African American 0.115 0.653
Asian American 0.468 1.530
Latino/Hispanic 0.213 0.332
Native American 0.171 3.342*
International 0.000 ---
Unknown/not stated 0.126 1.091
Major
STEM 0.743 1.163
Business 0.021 0.057
Arts and Humanities 0.183 0.430
Social Sciences 1.592 2.736*
Other 0.138 0.537
Environmental Variables
Diversity Course Typology Level 1.971 0.944
Ethnic/Culture Specific Clubs/Organizations 8.541 1.859
a
Between Groups
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
46
Lastly, students were asked how often they had conversations with professors and
teaching assistants during the Diversity Course, again both inside and outside of the
classroom. Responses were coded “Very often, often, sometimes, never, does not apply.”
A variety of outcomes were found across different input variables (significant results
shown in table 4.6). Asian students were more likely to report having conversations with
their professors in the classroom, while students with Asian pre-college experiences and
students whose ethnicity was unknown or not stated reported the same for conversations
with a TA in the classroom.
Outside of the classroom, students from predominantly Caucasian and Latino high
schools were more likely to report conversations with TAs. There were differences in
course typology with regards to having conversations with a professor outside of the
classroom. A Post Hoc Scheffe test reported significance at the .05 level for students
taking a level 3 class to have conversations with professors outside of the classroom as
compared to students taking a level 4 class.
Summary
Chapter four highlights that a variety of significant differences are found across
ethnic groups, pre-college experiences with diversity, and major for each of the research
questions addressed. African American students and Social Sciences majors were more
likely to report choosing their diversity course not only because it was a requirement but
also because the topic was of interest to them. When examining students’ changes in
their awareness, understanding, beliefs, and attitudes of students of other racial and ethnic
47
backgrounds, students whose ethnicity was unknown or not/stated and Social Sciences
and Business majors reported positive changes.
Table 4.6
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Conversations with Professor/TA
ANOVA
Independent Variable – Conversations
Sum of
Squares
a
F
During the Diversity Course, how often did you have
conversations with a professor in the classroom?
Ethnicity
Asian American 0.966 3.084*
During the Diversity Course, how often did you have
conversations with a professor out of the classroom?
Environmental Variables
Diversity Course Typology Level 7.018 3.500*
During the Diversity Course, how often did you have
conversations with a TA in the classroom?
Pre-College Experiences with Diversity
Asian American high school/neighborhood 1.391 3.715*
Ethnicity
Unknown/not stated 0.377 2.880*
During the Diversity Course, how often did you have
conversations with a TA out of the classroom?
Pre-College Experiences with Diversity
Caucasian high school 2.448 3.377*
Latino/Hispanic high school 0.654 3.362*
a
Between Groups
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
48
With regards to students’ changes in their awareness, understanding, beliefs, and
attitudes of their own culture, a key finding was that Caucasian students were more likely
than students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds to report negative changes. In
examining findings related to students’ interactions with peers, faculty, and teaching
assistants, this study found differences across a variety of groups. Chapter five will
provide a discussion of the main findings from the study, along with their implications.
49
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications
Using Alexander Astin’s “Input-Environment-Ouput” research framework (1970),
this study sought to examine the relationship between students’ entering characteristics
upon arriving to college and their experiences and outcomes in a required diversity
course. Chapter 4 presented results showing the interplay between a student’s ethnicity,
pre-college experiences with diversity, and major and how those characteristics affected
student’s experiences in a diversity course. The input variables were also examined to
see how course outcomes may differ across groups. Chapter 5 will provide discussion
related to findings for each research question, along with limitations of this study and
implications for future research and practice.
Conclusions related to research question 1
Ethnicity and Pre-College Experiences with Diversity. Research question 1 examined
the relationship between students’ ethnicity, pre-college experiences with diversity, and
major and their primary reason for choosing the diversity course they described in the
2009 Diversity Survey. This question stems from Feldman and Newcomb’s accentuation
hypothesis (1969), which posits that students’ predispositions are accentuated in college.
With regards to ethnicity and pre-college experience with diversity, this study was
interested in seeing if non-White students, or students who experienced a predominantly
non-White high school environment, exhibited any significant differences in their reasons
for enrolling in a diversity course.
Feldman and Newcomb’s accentuation hypothesis is supported in previous
literature when looking at White and non-White students’ transition to college. Locks,
50
Hurtado, Bowman, and Oseguera (2008) predicted that White students from
predominantly White high school environments would be less likely to participate in
diversity activities (which included diversity courses), and their study findings supported
this hypothesis. In their study, students of color had a greater disposition to engage in
diversity-related activities. Similarly, Saenz, Ngai, and Hurtado (2007) found that
minority students coming from White neighborhoods were more comfortable
participating in diversity activities.
At Western University, students are required to complete a diversity course as
part of their undergraduate requirements. The spring 2009 Diversity Survey asked
students to choose their primary reason for choosing their diversity course: because the
topic was of interest to them, because it was a General Education requirement, or because
the course fit their schedule. An analysis of variance was run on these three items, and
students’ ethnicity and high school composition. The hypothesis was that, similar to
previous research, there would be differences in White and non-White students, with non-
White students being more likely to choose a course because the topic was interesting and
not just because it was a requirement. This study found support for this hypothesis
specifically for African American students. Findings were significant for them choosing
a course not only because it was a requirement but also because of the topic was of
interest.
Limitations exist in the way the Diversity Survey addressed pre-college
experiences with diversity. Students were asked quantitatively to describe the racial and
ethnic composition of the high school they attended and the neighborhood where they
51
grew up. This was then used as a proxy for their pre-college experiences with diversity.
Because a composite variable was unable to be created for high school and neighborhood
composition, other than for Asian high schools and neighborhoods, the composition of
the student’s high school was used as the measure for this variable. However, students
who choose the same option in the survey still may have differing experiences with
regards to their interactions with diverse peers before entering college. Future studies
should look at this input variable more closely in order to fully understand what students
feel are their true pre-college experiences with diversity, rather than just grouping all
students together based on their high school composition.
Major. This research question also looked at the relationship between students’ major
and their primary reason for choosing a course. Previous literature (Steele, 2008)
discusses the challenges of advising students in the science, technology, engineering, and
math (STEM) fields. Steele noted that STEM students are often concerned with a gap in
their math and science preparation as they transition to college. Given the rigor of these
academic majors, Steele noted that STEM students may need additional review or
remedial classes. Based on this work, it was hypothesized that STEM students in the
Diversity Survey would be more likely to report choosing their diversity course because
it fit into their schedule. However, when an analysis of variance was run on students’
major, it was Social Sciences majors that showed significant results for choosing their
diversity course not only because it was a requirement, but also because the topic was of
interest to them (as with African American students). No group, by major, ethnicity, or
52
pre-college experiences with diversity, showed significance for choosing a course
because it fit their schedule.
The majority of students indicated that they chose their diversity course because it
was a general education requirement. These results are expected because students at
Western University are required to complete a diversity course in order to graduate. In
addition to Steele’s work on the challenges of advising STEM students (2008), current
literature in the field of academic advising also describes some of the difficulties in
advising apathetic students who are unmotivated and uninterested (Luther, 2009). Luther
refers to data from the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the
2008 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE); the NSSE found that
many students avoid studying and attending class and the CCSSE noted that students
rarely discuss course material with faculty outside of the classroom. Findings from the
Diversity Survey for research question 1 support this literature, with the majority of
students choosing their diversity course because it was a requirement. However, one
important point to note is the difference between studies that take place at a school where
the course is a requirement versus where it is not required. A follow-up question in the
Diversity Survey for students who indicated they chose their course because it was a
requirement may have been to ask them if they would have taken a diversity course
anyway had it not been required. This may be a better measure of Feldman and
Newcomb’s accentuation hypothesis (1969) when looking at student’s predispositions to
taking a diversity course.
53
Similarly, other factors may play a role in why students choose to take certain
courses. One suggestion for future research may be to disaggregate these results by class
year. Perhaps first year students are just trying to complete requirements and may not be
as thoughtful about what course they are selecting to fulfill their diversity course
requirement. At the same time, you may also have seniors who have pushed some of
their requirements off, and are also just trying to fit things into their schedule prior to
graduation. Upperclassmen may also choose courses based on professors that they have
had for other classes, or the professors’ supposed level of rigor. These factors may be
more important to students than whether or not a course’s topic is of interest to them.
Conclusions related to research question 2
Research question 2 examined how a diversity course affected students’
awareness, understanding, beliefs and attitudes of students of other racial and ethnic
backgrounds. An analysis of variance was run to see if there were significant differences
in these outcome variables by ethnicity, pre-college experience with diversity, or major.
A summary of these findings are shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1. Summary of students reporting significant changes in
awareness/understanding, beliefs/attitudes of students of other racial/ethnic backgrounds
after taking a diversity course.
Changes in: Positive Changes Negative Changes
Awareness/understanding of Unknown/not stated
students of other racial/ethnic
backgrounds
ethnicity, Social
Sciences majors No significant
findings
Beliefs/attitudes of students of Business majors
other racial/ethnic backgrounds
54
As noted in Chapter 4, positive changes in awareness/understanding and
beliefs/attitudes were reported separately, while negative changes were combined across
two variables. Students whose ethnicity was unknown or not stated, along with Social
Sciences majors, were the two groups that showed significant changes in awareness and
understanding of students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds after taking a diversity
course. Business majors showed positive changes in their beliefs and attitudes, and no
groups were significant with regards to negative outcomes towards other students after
taking a diversity course.
Chang’s (2002) work examined whether or not taking a required diversity course
reduced students’ racial prejudice and promoted intergroup understanding. His findings
revealed that completing a diversity course requirement lowered students’ level of
prejudice toward Blacks, but these results were not reported specifically by ethnicity or
major. Similarly, Henderson-King and Kaleta (2000) found that students who were not
enrolled in a diversity course had less favorable attitudes towards Latinos and African
Americans, and students who did take a course did not show any significant changes in
their attitudes towards the same groups. Again, these authors did not specifically report
their findings according to ethnicity or major, as they are in the current study.
It is difficult to make any conclusions regarding ethnicity in terms of this research
question. The only group showing significant findings by ethnicity was actually students
whose ethnicity was unknown or not stated, when matched up with their transcript data.
In order to correct for this in future studies, the research team should consider adding a
question about ethnicity on the Diversity Survey, rather than obtaining the information
55
from students’ transcripts. With regards to major, additional research or qualitative work
can be done to more fully understand why Social Sciences and Business majors show
gains in positive outcomes while other majors do not.
Conclusions related to research question 3
Similarly, research question 3 also asked about students’ awareness,
understanding beliefs, and attitudes after taking a diversity course, but of a student’s own
culture. Again, positive outcomes were examined separately, while negative awareness,
understanding, beliefs, and attitudes of one’s own culture were grouped into one variable.
Figure 5.2 provides a summary of these findings.
Figure 5.2. Summary of students reporting significant changes in
awareness/understanding, beliefs/attitudes of their own culture after taking a diversity
course.
Changes in: Positive Changes Negative Changes
Awareness/understanding of No significant
your own culture findings Caucasian students
Beliefs/attitudes about your Caucasian high school,
own culture Asian American students
Taking a diversity course did not significantly positively affect any one group’s
awareness and understanding of their own culture, by ethnicity, pre-college experience
with diversity, or major. Students that attended a predominantly Caucasian high school,
and Asian American students, were more likely than other students to report positive
changes in beliefs and attitudes of their own culture. Caucasian students were more
56
likely to report negative changes in thoughts about their own culture compared to
students of other ethnicities.
Research is lacking in the area of how diversity courses affect students’ thoughts
about their own culture. Previous literature has been concentrated on how the courses
affect the way that students view and interact with students of other racial and ethnic
backgrounds. Similarly, previous literature (Chan, 2007) discusses how a culturally-
sensitive curriculum can affect ethnic identity development for minority students, but
there is a gap in the literature examining how diversity courses may affect identity
development for White students. Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Nora (2001)
note that many White undergraduate students are apathetic or even hostile toward the
idea of participating in diverse learning communities. Many students feel that “diversity
has been shoved down their throats” (p. 173). Thus, the findings from this current study
that White students report negative changes in their awareness, understanding, beliefs,
and attitudes of their own culture warrant much further examination. Additionally, the
finding regarding students from predominantly Caucasian high schools should be
disaggregated by race in future studies. The findings from this study could be used in
future research examining White and non-White students’ ethnic identity prior to taking a
diversity course and seeing what changes occur as a result of the course. This concept
will be discussed further in section on implications for future research.
Conclusions related to additional diversity course outcomes
Critical Thinking on Race and Ethnicity. In this study, Asian American students,
students whose ethnicity was unknown or not stated, and Social Sciences majors all were
57
more likely than other groups to report changes in their critical thinking about race and
ethnicity after taking a diversity course. Additionally, students who took a level 4
diversity course also reported the same changes in critical thinking as compared to
students taking level 1 diversity courses. Nelson Laird (2005) studied the relationship
between students’ experiences with diversity courses and their disposition toward critical
thinking, and found that “involvement in diversity courses was a significant positive
predictor of students’ disposition to think critically” (p. 381). However, in this study he
also found that White students scored higher on measures of self-confidence in their
critical thinking skills. Results were not reported specifically by major in Nelson Laird’s
study. In the 2009 Diversity Survey, students were asked to self-report their critical
thinking skills as a result of taking a diversity course; future studies may want to use a
survey similar to the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory used in Nelson
Laird’s study to more accurately assess critical thinking.
Other Diversity Course Outcomes. Lastly, this study examined students’ interactions
during their diversity course across a variety of groups: students of the same racial/ethnic
background, other racial/ethnic backgrounds, professors, and teaching assistants. Figure
x provides a summary of the students that showed significant findings. With regards to
interacting with students of the same and different racial/ethnic backgrounds, Native
American students and Social Sciences majors were the only groups shown to be
significant. These findings support a variety of research (Sidanius, Van Laar, Levin, and
Sinclair, 2004 and Chang, Astin, and Kim, 2004) reporting that as campuses become
more diverse, students from different ethnic groups tend to remain relatively segregated
58
and isolated from each other. Given the low numbers of Native American students on
campus, the finding that Native American students in this study interacted with students
of other racial/ethnic backgrounds is not surprising.
Figure 5.3. Summary of students reporting significant interactions with other students,
professors, and teaching assistants, inside and outside of the classroom, during their
Diversity Course.
During the Diversity Course
how often did you have Inside the classroom
Outside of the
classroom
conversations with:
Students of the same racial/ No significant No significant
ethnic background findings findings
Students of other racial/ No significant
Native American
students,
ethnic backgrounds findings Social Sciences majors
Professors
Asian American
students Diversity Course
Typology Level
Teaching Assistants Asian American high Caucasian high school,
school/neighborhood, Latino high school
Unknown/not stated
ethnicity
Cole (2007) builds on literature relating to interracial interactions by seeing how
interracial interactions affect student-faculty interactions, which then affect a student’s
intellectual self-concept. Cole notes that minority students have “more frequent and
engaging faculty contact when they represent a significant portion of the population” (p.
267). Figure 5.3 shows significant findings for students having conversations with
professors and teaching assistants both inside and outside of the classroom. Of
59
importance with regards to these findings is that level of interaction with professors
outside of the classroom differed by diversity course typology level. Future research
from a qualitative perspective can expand on these findings to explore what the nature of
the conversations were. Previous research also notes that the ethnicity of the professor
and the other students in the class may affect the nature of interactions that take place.
Limitations
In addition to limitations that occurred in addressing each research question, a
variety of general limitations also exist within this study. This section will first address
issues related to sample size and how to accurately determine which diversity courses
students are describing when providing information on their experiences. Additionally
this section also discusses future suggestions for data collection that may have made this
study more robust, such as how many total diversity courses a student has taken and
when the courses were taken. Issues of how best to assess a student’s pre-college
experiences with diversity are also covered.
Of the 3,000 students that were initially sampled, only 228 students comprised the
data set that was used for the majority of this study’s analysis. As mentioned in Chapter
4, 462 students completed the survey but students were removed from the data set if they
had not completed a diversity course, or did not accurately provide the name of the
diversity course that they described in the survey. In the future, this problem may be
remedied in a few different ways. It may help to survey students immediately after they
complete their diversity course, so that their recollections of the course title and their
experiences are more recent. Additionally, the research team has already obtained
60
information from students’ transcripts on ethnicity, gender, and major; it may be useful to
also match up the student’s diversity course from their transcript.
Similarly, other members of the research team are examining the effects of the
timing of a student’s diversity course (i.e. did they take their course as a freshman or a
senior?) and the cumulative number of diversity courses that students took during their
undergraduate careers. This study does not look at those variables, due to the fact that
students were not surveyed on these points and transcript data for these points was not
obtained. In the future, researchers may be interested in pulling this data from students’
transcripts.
As mentioned in the discussion of research question 1, future research should
examine students’ pre-college experiences with diversity in a different way than using the
racial/ethnic composition of a students’ high school as the measure. It has been
suggested that transcript data may also be useful in examining this variable
quantitatively, through the use of students’ high school CEEB (College Entrance
Examination Board) codes. However, knowing the general racial/ethnic composition of a
student’s high school still may not accurately assess their true pre-college experiences
with diverse peers.
Implications for future research
One of the key findings from this study was that White students were more likely
than non-White students to report negative changes in their awareness, understanding,
beliefs, and attitudes of their own culture after taking a diversity course, which ties into
literature on White identity development. Milem and Umbach (2003) found that White
61
students were the least likely to be prepared to engage with issues of diversity in college.
Lawrence and Bunche (1996) concluded that one diversity course can begin to serve as a
catalyst for White students to start exploring their racial identity development, but “more
than one course is needed to guide and support White students as they progress towards
further development of a positive White anti-racist identity” (p. 531). Case (2007) found
that a required diversity course resulted in greater awareness of White privilege and
feelings of White guilt. Again, using Feldman and Newcomb’s accentuation hypothesis
(1969) future studies should continue to examine how White students choose and
experience diversity courses if they are not necessarily pre-disposed to engaging in issues
of diversity.
Some may raise the issue of whether or not diversity courses are achieving the
goals that they purport to be achieving, especially if we find that White students report
negative feelings about their own race. However, these findings tie back to Helms’ work
on White racial identity development (1995). Her work describes that Whites first begin
in a place where issues of race and ethnicity are not salient to them, and they are
oblivious to these issues. Because the United States continues to be a country in which
these issues arise on a daily basis, colleges and universities will still be a place in which
White students may experience feelings of cognitive dissonance if they have not dealt
with issues of race before. Therefore, this study’s findings of White students reporting
negative feelings about being White after taking a diversity course should actually be
expected. This shows that they may be moving from Helms’ Contact status, where they
are oblivious about race issues, to Disintegration status, where a situation makes them
62
feel uncomfortable or anxious. It is important for students to have a space to explore
different statuses of White racial identity as they grow in their own personal
development.
Similarly, while the current study examines differing outcomes by ethnicity,
future research can also explore how diversity courses affect ethnic identity development
for non-White students, who come to college at varying stages of their development.
Phinney (1992) developed a quantitative instrument for measuring ethnic identity, the
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM), which could be used as a pre and post-
measure to see how diversity courses affect students’ ethnic identity development. A
related issue is investigating what types of diversity courses White and non-White
students enroll in by topic. The course typology used by the research team groups
diversity courses by the extent to which they meet the criteria required to be designated
as a diversity course (i.e. how in depth does a course go in addressing issues of
diversity?) However, a typology could also be created based on topic – race/ethnicity,
gender issues, music, art, literature, etc. There are diversity courses offered that span
each of these topics. Ethier and Deaux (1994) found that students with strong cultural
backgrounds were more likely to participate in activities relevant to their cultural
background. Future researchers should consider examining students’ level of
connectedness with their ethnic identity and how this may or may not influence the type
of course they choose.
63
Implications for future policy and practice
Two key findings from this study lead to important implications for future policy
and practice. As assessment of diversity courses continues, the research team’s Diversity
Course Typology will be a critical model in exploring potential ways to revise diversity
course curriculum. This study found that students who took a level 4 (advanced)
diversity course were more likely to report thinking more critically about race and
ethnicity as compared to students who took a level 1 (introductory) course. One of the
criteria that Western University uses as a guideline in order to designate a course as a
diversity course is that it “encourage comparative and analytical thinking about issues of
diversity” (see Appendix A). Although the survey specifically asks students about
critical thinking on race and ethnicity, rather than their overall critical thinking skills, it is
still a cause for concern that students who only took an introductory level were not as
likely as students at the advanced level to report changes in their critical thinking. Chang
(2002) addresses the issue of diversity courses being offered across a wide variety of
topics, noting that students may not specifically take a course focusing on race and
ethnicity. However, the goal of diversity courses, regardless of the topic, should be to
develop “students’ ability to think more critically about one significant difference in US
society” (p. 22), which should then transfer into thinking about other differences as well.
University officials that are involved in shaping diversity course curriculum should
consider the varying outcomes that diversity courses produce and how this can be
remedied as assessment continues.
64
As noted in the section on implications for future research, it is also a cause for
concern that this study reported White students experiencing negative attitudes about
their own culture after taking a diversity course. What responsibility do diversity course
instructors have in addressing these negative outcomes? What responsibility do
universities in general have in addressing identity development across all races and
ethnicities? When White students experience negative attitudes about White culture after
taking a diversity course, this may trigger a variety of issues with regards to campus
climate and interactions with other students. How can these negative attitudes after
taking a diversity course be mediated? Mayhew, Grunwald, and Dey (2005) demonstrate
the link between incorporating diversity-related issues into a campus curriculum and the
effects that this has on students’ perceptions of a positive campus climate for diversity.
Students who perceived their curriculum to be diverse were more likely to also report a
positive campus climate; however, students who took courses related to marginalized
groups were less likely to perceive a positive campus climate. This literature, along with
the current findings from the 2009 Diversity Survey, highlights the importance of
examining how diversity courses may produce seemingly negative outcomes.
Conclusion
A wide range of issues exist related to the assessment of diversity courses,
including learning about how students come to enroll in the specific diversity course of
their choosing and what their subsequent experiences and outcomes are. Astin’s (1970)
Input-Experience-Output framework and Feldman and Newcomb’s accentuation
hypothesis (1969) have guided the researchers in this study in looking at some of these
65
issues. As campuses continue to realize the importance of creating a positive climate for
diversity for all students, this study reiterates the role that diversity courses can play in
reaching those goals. Given the continued and recent instances of negative racial
incidents on campuses nationwide, it is critical that higher education administrators
persist in exploring avenues for students of all backgrounds to build bridges across lines
of difference and diversity courses offer a variety of avenues in which these bridges can
be built.
66
References
About USC. (2009). USC at a glance – Student facts. Retrieved October 8, 2009 from
http://www.usc.edu/about/ataglance/student_facts_200910.html
Astin, A. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact. Sociology of
Education, 43(3), 223-254.
Astin, A. W. (1992). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). College enrollment and work activity of 2008 high
school graduates. Retrieved October 8, 2009 from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm
Case, K.A. (2007). Raising White privilege awareness and reducing racial prejudice:
Assessing diversity course effectiveness. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 231-235.
Chan, E. (2007). Student experiences of a culturally-sensitive curriculum: ethnic identity
development amid conflicting stories to live by. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
39(2), 177-194.
Chang, M. J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on
students' racial views and attitudes. Journal of General Education, 51(1), 21-42.
Chang, M., Astin, A., Kim, D. (2004). Cross racial interaction among undergraduates:
Some consequences, cause, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45(5),
529-553.
Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty
contact and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3),
249-281.
Cole, D. & Sundt, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of diversity courses. Year end report
to the Teagle Foundation.
Cole, D. & Sundt, M. (2008). Assessing the impact of diversity courses on students’
higher order thinking skills. Grant proposal to the Teagle Foundation.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Erikson, E. (1946). Ego development and historical change. Psychoanalytic Study of the
Child, 2, 359-396.
67
Ethier, K., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change:
Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(2), 243-251.
Feldman, K. & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education:
Theory and impact on education outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3),
330-366.
Henderson-King, D., & Kaleta, A. (2000). Learning about social diversity: The
undergraduate experience and intergroup tolerance. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71(2), 142-164.
Helms, J. (1995). An update on Helms’ White and people of color racial identity models.
Handbook of Multicultural Counseling, 181-198.
Hogan, D. E. & Mallott, M. (2005). Changing racial prejudice through diversity
education. Journal of College Student Development, 46(2), 115-125.
Humphreys, D. (2000). National survey finds diversity requirements common around the
country. Diversity Digest, Fall 2000.
Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing campus
climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review
of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.
Inkelas, K.K. (2004). Does participation in ethnic cocurricular activities facilitate a sense
of ethnic awareness and understanding? A study of Asian Pacific American
Undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3), 285-302.
Lawrence, S.M. & Bunche, T. (1996). Feeling and dealing: Teaching White students
about racial privilege. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(5), 531-542.
Locks, A., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of
campus climate and diversity to student’s transition to college. The Review of
Higher Education, 31(3), 257-285.
Luther, N. (2009). Advising in the face of apathy: Collaboration, connection, and
communication in higher education. Academic Advising Today, 32(4).
68
Ma, Y. (2009). Pre-college influences and college major choice: Gender, race/ethnicity,
and nativity patterning. Theory in Action, 2(2), 96-122.
Maxwell, W., Hagedorn, L.S., Cypers, S., Moon, H.S., Brocato, P., Wahl, K., & Prather,
G. (2003). Community and diversity in urban community colleges: Coursetaking
among entering students. Community College Review, 30(4), 21-46.
Mayhew, M.J., Grunwald, H.E., & Dey, E.L. (2005). Curriculum matters: Creating a
positive climate for diversity from the student perspective. Research in Higher
Education, 46(4), 389-412.
Milem, J. & Umbach, P. (2003). The influence of precollege factors on students’
predispositions regarding diversity activities in college. Journal of College
Student Development, 44(5), 611-624.
Museus, S. (2008). The role of ethnic organizations in fostering African American and
Asian American students’ cultural adjustment and membership at predominantly
White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 49(6), 568-586.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Projections of education statistics to
2014. Retrieved October 8, 2009 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2014/sec_2b.asp
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.
Orfield, G. (Ed.). (2001). Diversity challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative
action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How College Affects Students. Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco.
Phinney, J.S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with
diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156-176.
Saenz, V., Ngai, H.N., Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions
across race for Africa, Asian American, Latino, and White college students.
Research in Higher Education, 48(1), 1-38.
69
Salkind, N.J. (2007). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: The Excel
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Sidanius, J., Van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic enclaves and the
dynamics of social identity on the college campus: The good, the bad, and the
ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 96-111.
Smith, E. (1991). Ethnic identity development: Toward the development of a theory
within the context of majority/minority status. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 70(1), 181-188.
Steele, M. (2008). The challenges of advising science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics students. Academic Advising Today, 31(3).
Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, F., Cooper, D. (2003). Identity development of diverse
populations: Implications for teaching and administration in higher education.
ASHE- ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(6), 1-125.
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., and Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, Desegregation, and
Integration of Chicano Students: Old and New Realities. In R. Valencia (Ed.),
Chicano School Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 83-99, 104-
109). Taylor and Francis.
Whitt, E.J., Edison, M.I., Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences
on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of
college. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2), 172-204.
Yeh, C., & Huang, K. (1996). The collectivistic nature of ethnic identity development
among Asian-American college students. Adolescence, 31(123), 645-661.
70
Appendix A
Western University Diversity Committee Guidelines for
Designation as a Diversity Course Requirement
1. Diversity Course Requirement must examine two or more dimensions of human
diversity and must consider these dimensions in terms of their social and/or cultural
consequences.
2. As a rule, at least one third of the course should be addressed to these issues, and this
should be proportionately reflected in the assigned readings, lectures, and topics for
papers, quizzes, tests, or other graded formal course requirements.
3. Each course should give students the opportunity for personal reflection on the
formation of their own attitudes toward other groups and the effect of those attitudes on
the institutions (e.g., cultural, professional, political)
4. All syllabi are expected to show how the topics addressed related to issues facing
students in a contemporary context.
5. Course encourages comparative and analytical thinking about issues of diversity.
Taken from http://www.usc.edu/dept/ARR/private/forms/DiversityGuidelines.pdf
71
Appendix B
Figure B.1: Typology of Diversity Courses
72
Appendix C
Diversity Survey
1. Name (First and Last)
2. 10-digit I.D.
3. Is English your native language (No/Yes)
4. If English is not your native language, what is your native language?
5. What is the highest level of education completed by your mother? (Less than high school
graduate, high school graduate, Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree,
Professional/Ph.D., Do not know)
6. What is the highest level of education completed by your father? (Less than high school
graduate, high school graduate, Associate’s degree, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s degree,
Professional/Ph.D., Do not know)
7. How would you describe the racial/ethnic composition of the high school you attended?
a. I went to a high school that consisted of predominately European/
Caucasian American students
b. I went to a high school that consisted of predominately African American
students
c. I went to a high school that consisted of predominately Asian American
students
d. I went to a high school that consisted of Latino/ Hispanic American
students
e. I went to a high school that consisted of a mix of different ethnic groups
f. Other_______________________________________________________
8. If you answered “other” to question 7, please describe the racial/ethnic composition of
your high school
9. How would you describe the racial composition of the neighborhood where you grew up?
a. I grew up in a neighborhood of predominately European/ Caucasian
American people
b. I grew up in a neighborhood of predominately African American people
c. I grew up in a neighborhood of predominately Asian American people
d. I grew up in a neighborhood of predominantly Latino/ Hispanic American
people
e. I grew up in a neighborhood of a mix of different ethnic groups
f. Other_______________________________________________________
10. If you answered “other” to question 9, please describe the racial/ethnic composition of
your neighborhood
73
11. Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared to the average person your age.
We want the most accurate estimate of how you see yourself (Highest 10%, Above
average, Average, Below Average, Lowest 10%)
a. Critical Thinking Skills
b. Emotional Health
c. Intellectual self-confidence
d. Social self-confidence
e. Self-understanding
f. Understanding of others
g. Ability to see the world from someone else’s perspective
h. Tolerance of others with different beliefs
i. Openness to having my own views challenged
j. Ability to discuss and negotiate controversial issues
k. Ability to work cooperatively with diverse people
12. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following (Agree strongly, agree
some, disagree some, disagree strongly)
a. It is important to have laws prohibiting homosexual relationships
b. Racial discrimination is no longer a major problem in America
c. Same-sex couples should have the right to legal marital status
d. Affirmative action in college admissions should be abolished
e. Undocumented immigrants should be denied access to public education
f. Students from disadvantaged social backgrounds should be given
preferred treatment in college admissions
g. Women and men should receive equal pay
13. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, how much time did
you spend during a typical week participating in: (None, Less than 1hr, 1-3 hrs, 5-10 hrs,
More than 10 hrs)
a. Student clubs/ organizations that are ethnic or culture specific
b. Activities to enhance your spirituality (worship, meditation, prayer, etc.)
14. How many Diversity or Social Issues courses have you taken (1, 2, 3 or more, none)
15. If you have taken one or more courses, enter the name of the course that you would like
to describe in the survey.
16. What is the primary reason you enrolled in this course? (Topic is of interest to me,
General Education requirement, Course fit my schedule)
17. The Diversity/Social Issues course has changed your awareness and understanding of:
(Very much in a positive way, somewhat in a positive way, very little in a positive way,
in a negative way, not at all)
a. Students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds
b. Positive aspects of your own culture
c. Students of other religious backgrounds
74
18. The Diversity/Social Issues course has affected or changed your beliefs and attitudes
about: (Very much in a positive way, somewhat in a positive way, very little in a positive
way, in a negative way, not at all)
a. Students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds
b. Positive aspects of your own culture
c. Students of other religious backgrounds
19. From taking a Diversity/Social Issues course your sense of self-confidence in
social/intellectual settings is
a. much higher
b. higher
c. the same
d. lower
e. much lower
20. To what extent did your diversity course emphasize each of the following? (Very Often,
Some, Very Little, Not at all)
a. Developing your critical thinking skills
b. Understanding people of the same racial and ethnic backgrounds
c. Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds
d. Understanding people of other religious backgrounds
e. Understanding people of other sexual orientations
f. Understanding people of the other gender
21. To what extent did your Diversity/Social Issues course encourage contact with the
course: (Very often, some, very little, not at all, does not apply)
a. Professor in the classroom
b. Professor out of the classroom
c. Teaching assistant (TA) in the classroom
d. Teaching assistant (TA) out of the classroom
22. As a result of taking a Diversity or Social Issues course to what extent have you
interacted: (Very much, some, very little, not at all)
a. In the classroom with students from racial or ethnic backgrounds different
from your own
b. Out of the classroom with students from racial or ethnic backgrounds
different from your own
c. With your own racial or ethnic community
d. With a racial or ethnic community different from your own
e. With students from the same religious background
f. With students from different religious backgrounds
23. As a result of taking a Diversity or Social Issues course have you thought more critically
about: (Very much, Some, Very little, Not at all)
a. Race/Ethnicity
b. Religion
c. Sexual Orientation
d. Gender
75
24. In your experience during the Diversity/Social Issues course, how often did you: (Very
often, Often, Sometimes, Never)
a. Consider diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political
beliefs, etc.) in classroom discussions
b. Consider diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political
beliefs, etc.) in writing assignments
c. Work with other students on class assignments
d. Try to better understand someone else’s viewpoints by imagining how an
issues looks from his or her perspective
25. In your experience during the Diversity/Social Issues course, how often did you have
conversations: (Very often, Often, Sometimes, Never)
a. With students who are different from you in terms of their personal values
b. With students from different religious backgrounds
c. In the classroom with students of the same racial or ethnic background
d. Out of the classroom with students of the same racial or ethnic background
e. In the classroom with students from racial or ethnic backgrounds different
from your own
f. Out of the classroom with students from racial or ethnic backgrounds
different from your own
26. In your experience during the Diversity/Social Issues course, how often did you have
conversations with: (Very often, Often, Sometimes, Never, Does not apply)
a. Professor in the classroom
b. Professor out of the classroom
c. Teaching assistant (TA) in the classroom
d. Teaching assistant (TA) out of the classroom
27. In the past year how has your awareness and understanding changed in regards to: (Very
much in a positive way, somewhat in a positive way, very little in a positive way, in a
negative way, not at all)
a. Students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds
b. Positive aspects of your own culture
c. Students of other religious backgrounds
28. In the past year how have your beliefs and attitudes changed in regards to: (Very much in
a positive way, somewhat in a positive way, very little in a positive way, in a negative
way, not at all)
a. Students of other racial and ethnic backgrounds
b. Positive aspects of your own culture
c. Students of other religious backgrounds
76
29. In the past year your sense of self-confidence in social/intellectual settings is
a. much higher
b. higher
c. the same
d. lower
e. much lower
30. In the past year to what extent have you interacted: (Very much, some, very little, not at
all)
a. In the classroom with students from racial or ethnic backgrounds different
from your own
b. Out of the classroom with students from racial or ethnic backgrounds
different from your own
c. With your own racial or ethnic community
d. With a racial or ethnic community different from your own
e. With students from the same religious background
f. With students from different religious backgrounds
31. In the past year have you thought more critically about: (Very much, Some, Very little,
Not at all)
a. Race/Ethnicity
b. Religion
c. Sexual Orientation
d. Gender
77
Appendix D
Email sent to students requesting Diversity Survey Participation
Dear Student,
We are conducting a survey of all WU undergraduates to assess your WU experience.
Your opinion is highly valued. This is a great chance to provide us with feedback about
your time here at WU.
Please click on the following link to complete the survey:
http://wustudentaffairs.qualtrics.com/SE?SID=SV_aad9DRZW9p16x8w&SVID=Pr
od
All students completing the survey will be automatically entered into a random drawing
to win one of 10 prizes valued at $50. If you win, you will have the opportunity to
choose one of the following prizes:
• A $50 gift certificate for the WU Bookstore
• A $50 gift card that can be used at WU food and dining facilities (Dining Dollars)
The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. You will be notified when the
survey is completed. Responses are confidential. Aggregate (group) data will be used to
inform WU staff and the WU community about your experiences.
If you have problems with the link or survey or any other questions, please email us at
surveys@wu.edu.
We thank you in advance for taking time to participate in this survey. In the future,
survey results will be posted at the WU Student Outcomes Research website:
http://www.wu.edu/student-affairs/sor/
Ali Fahmy, Director
Office of Student Outcomes Research, Division of Student Affairs
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution
PDF
Exploring student perceptions and experiences regarding the role of diversity courses and service-learning on cross-racial interactions
PDF
The effect of diversity courses on international students from China and Hong Kong: a focus on intergroup peer relationships
PDF
Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement
PDF
Relational leadership: underrepresented student perspectives on diversity courses
PDF
Assessing the impact of diversity courses on students’ values, attitudes and beliefs
PDF
The impact of diversity courses on students' critical thinking skills
PDF
Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?
PDF
Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree
PDF
Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study
PDF
What are the relationships among program delivery, classroom experience, content knowledge, and demographics on pre-service teachers' self-efficacy?
PDF
An awareness of local identity: influence of Hawaiian, Asian, and Pacific (HAP) issues course at Kapi‘olani Community College
PDF
Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions
PDF
The at-risk student perspective of education in an alternative education program
PDF
Values and beliefs related to diversity amongst students being prepared as teachers
PDF
Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging
PDF
Kū i ke ao: Hawaiian cultural identity and student progress at Kamehameha Elementary School
PDF
Academic advising, engagment with faculty, course load, course type, and course completion rates for urban community college students with learning disabilties
PDF
Student engagement experiences of African American males at a California community college
PDF
Comparing the effectiveness of online and face-to-face classes among California community college students
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ravago, Karen Leilani
(author)
Core Title
Examining the relationship between students’ pre-college experiences and outcomes in diversity courses
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
09/24/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
curriculum,diversity courses,identity development,OAI-PMH Harvest
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
karenravago@gmail.com,ravago@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3473
Unique identifier
UC1475025
Identifier
etd-Ravago-4105 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-479042 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3473 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Ravago-4105.pdf
Dmrecord
479042
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ravago, Karen Leilani
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
Tags
diversity courses
identity development