Running head: DIVERSITY COURSES 1
Disentangling the Impact of Diversity Courses:
Examining the Influence of Diversity Course Content on Students’ Civic Engagement
Michelle Castellanos and Darnell Cole
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Author Note
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michelle Castellanos,
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089.
E-mail: [email protected]
Michelle Castellanos is a Ph.D. Candidate in Rossier School of Education, University of
Southern California. Darnell Cole is an Associate Professor in Rossier School of Education,
University of Southern California.
*Note. This is a draft manuscript. A revised version is forthcoming in the Journal of
College Student Development.
DIVERSITY COURSES 2
Abstract
Utilizing Bennett’s (2001) genres of multicultural education, the authors examine whether
diversity course content clusters influence students’ civic engagement. Diversity course content
clusters were predicted to influence white students and students of color differently, given
principles identified by social development, cognitive development, and social identity theory.
Findings indicate that diversity courses that emphasize multicultural competence positively
influence all students over a period of four years. Courses that emphasize societal equity,
however, have a greater effect on students of color when compared to white students.
Implications for faculty, undergraduate curriculum committees, research, and theory are
discussed.
Key words: diversity course(s), civic engagement, typology, multicultural education
DIVERSITY COURSES 3
Disentangling the Impact of Diversity Courses:
Examining the Influence of Diversity Course Content on Students’ Civic Engagement
The role of institutions of higher education in promoting the democratic engagement of
America’s future leaders has been hotly debated (Fish, 2008; Wilhite & Silver, 2005). Today,
however, few disagree with the need to prepare students for life in a diverse and democratic
society (Ehrlich, 2000). In fact, a national initiative, the President’s Higher Education
Community Service Honor Roll, was recently launched in order to recognize colleges and
universities that promote civic engagement. For instance, in 2012, North Carolina State
University received the President’s Honor Roll award for their comprehensive community
service outreach programs.
The challenges of the 21st century, particularly the changing racial and ethnic demographic
landscape, economic difficulties, and increasing globalization, necessitate considerable attention
to differences between nations, groups, and individuals. As institutions of higher education
attempt to promote students’ social and democratic development, an emphasis on a liberal
education has become widespread. A liberal education has been described as a “…philosophy of
education that empowers individuals, liberates the mind, cultivates intellectual judgment, and
fosters ethical and social responsibility” (Schneider, 2008, p. 30).
In line with the ideals of a liberal education, a majority of colleges and universities have
developed programs and initiatives that address the needs of a multicultural society (Humphreys,
2000). Such programs include racial awareness workshops, study abroad, service learning, and a
diversity course requirement. While researchers have examined whether these and other college
experiences influence students’ civic outcomes, research on diversity courses remains limited in
that the variation of diversity course content is rarely considered (Zirkle, 2008). Although some
DIVERSITY COURSES 4
researchers have considered the impact of departmental diversity courses (e.g., ethnic studies), to
our knowledge, no study has examined undergraduate diversity course content, specifically.
Diversity courses aim to expose students to cultures, life experiences, and world views
different from their own. Such courses emphasize a range of topics including racial, ethnic, and
gender inequalities, as well global struggles for human rights, freedom, and power (Schneider,
2008). At American University of the West Coast (AUWC, pseudonym), for example, university
approved diversity courses range from “Race and Racism in America” to “Jazz: A History of
America’s Music.” A detailed analysis of diversity course content may help clarify the role of
such courses in promoting students’ civic outcomes. Furthermore, the effect of diversity course
content across different groups of students should be considered given (a) students’ varying
familiarity with the issues presented in diversity courses, (b) the rapidly increasing racial and
ethnic minority population, and (c) previous research indicating the long term effect of diversity
courses (Brandenberger, Bowman, Hill, & Lapsley, 2010; Hurtado, 2001).
In the current study, we examine whether diversity course content clusters influence
students’ civic engagement over the course of four years. We utilize Bennett’s (2001) genres of
multicultural education to formulate a typology of diversity course content clusters at AUWC, a
predominately white institution of higher education. The following research questions guide our
study: (1) To what extent, if any, do AUWC diversity courses vary in their course content? (2) If
course content varies, do diversity courses with distinct content have a differential effect on the
civic engagement of white students compared to students of color?
DIVERSITY COURSES AND STUDENTS’ CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
DIVERSITY COURSES 5
Ehrlich (2000) defines civic engagement as an active effort to make a difference in the civic
lives of communities as well as developing the knowledge, skills, and motivation needed to make
a difference. Civic engagement includes the promotion of community well-being through both
political and non-political processes (Ehrlich, 2000). Following Ehrlich, the Association of
American Colleges & Universities (AACU, 2010) developed a Civic Engagement VALUE
Rubric and operationalized civic engagement as a commitment to civic behavior, civic
leadership, intercultural awareness, and perspective taking. Scholars have examined the
relationship between students’ participation in diversity courses and a range of civic outcomes,
including civic mindedness (Cole & Zhou, 2013), cultural awareness (Engberg & Mayhew,
2004), interpersonal skills (Hurtado, 2001), pluralistic orientation (Engberg, 2007), social action
engagement (Nelson-Laird, 2005; Nelson-Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005; Zuniga, 2005),
diversity orientation (Bowman, 2010), pro-social orientation, recognition of racism
(Brandenberger et al., 2010), and acceptance of people with different racial and ethnic
backgrounds (Hurtado, 2005).
A recent meta-analysis on students’ diversity experiences reviewed 19 studies that examined
the relationship between diversity coursework and students’ civic outcomes (Bowman, 2011).
Findings from the meta-analysis indicate that diversity courses have a consistent and positive
effect on students’ civic outcomes. Of these studies, only three distinguished differences among
courses. The major distinction between these three studies was their emphasis on women studies
and/or ethnic studies courses rather than a catch-all diversity course grouping (Gurin et al., 2002;
Hurtado, 2001; Jayakumar, 2008). For example, Hurtado (2001) examined the relationship
between women’s studies and ethnic studies courses on students’ civic outcomes. Both ethnic
studies and women’s studies courses demonstrated positive effects on four civic outcomes:
DIVERSITY COURSES 6
acceptance of people from different races, cultures, cultural awareness, tolerance of people with
different beliefs, and interpersonal skills. Enrollment in ethnic studies courses but not women
studies, however, had significant effects on two additional civic outcomes: leadership abilities
and public speaking ability. Beyond the specification of a department-specific diversity course,
no study included in the meta-analysis considered variations in diversity courses.
Race and Ethnicity
Regarding the role of race and ethnicity, only seven studies in the current literature review
examined the effect of diversity courses across students from different racial and ethnic groups
(i.e., Bowman, 2010; Cole et al., 2011; Gurin, 1999; Gurin et al., 2002; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez,
2004; Lopez, 2004; Zhou et al., 2011). Findings from these studies indicate that white students
seem to experience positive gains on a range of civic outcomes as a result of participating in
diversity coursework. Such findings, however, are not as consistent for students of color.
In a recent study, Cole et al. (2011) examined whether diversity courses impact students’
understanding of the various forms of oppression that influence intragroup differences and
experiences (i.e., intersectional consciousness). An analysis of covariance indicated that white
students, but not students of color, experienced significant gains in intersectional consciousness.
Similarly, in his multi-institutional study, Bowman (2010) found that white students experienced
positive gains in three diversity orientation measures—comfort with differences, diversity of
contact, and relativistic appreciation—as a result of taking two diversity courses. Students of
color, on the other hand, experienced positive gains in only one of the three measures—diversity
contact—after completing three diversity courses and no gains after completing two courses.
Interestingly, Zhou, Cole, Castellanos, and Manson (2011) found that diversity courses with
global focus had a greater effect on the civic engagement of students of color, rather than white
DIVERSITY COURSES 7
students. Examining students’ familiarity and relationship with the content presented in diversity
courses may help explain inconsistencies in the literature.
In the current study, we contribute to the literature in three important ways. First, we utilize
Bennett’s (2001) genres of research in multicultural education to examine the effect of diversity
course content clusters on students’ civic engagement while controlling for a range of student
characteristics and college experiences. Second, we integrate Gurin et al.’s (2002) theoretical
framework, social identity theory, and social categorization theory to explain why diversity
courses may have differential effects across white and students of color. Third, we consider race
(i.e., white and students of color) as a possible moderator when examining the effect of diversity
courses on students’ civic engagement. While minimal research has considered the variation in
diversity course content, several researchers have called attention to this gap in the literature
(Chang, 2002; Engberg & Mayhew, 2007; Zirkle, 2008).
Genres of Research in Multicultural Education
In order to examine the variation of diversity course content, we borrow from the
multicultural education literature and utilize Bennett’s (2001) research genres of multicultural
education. Bennett’s framework was selected given its foundation in over three decades of
research, theoretical support in previous studies, and its ability to illustrate the multidisciplinary
nature and complexity of multicultural education (Bennett, 2001). Bennett’s research genres
have been used to frame King and Magolda’s (2005) model of intercultural maturity, as well as
to provide theoretical support for the impact of cultural diversity on online learning (Tapanes,
Smith, & White, 2009). Although the higher education literature does not provide a working
framework for examining differences among diversity courses, Bennett’s framework may be
directly applied to the undergraduate diversity course curriculum. At the core of Bennett’s
DIVERSITY COURSES 8
research genres are four broad principles of multicultural education: cultural pluralism, social
justice, affirmation of culture in teaching and learning process, and educational equity. These
core principles underlie the genre clusters, which are utilized in the current study: (1) curriculum
reform, (2) multicultural competence, (3) societal equity, and (4) equity pedagogy. Each genre
cluster is comprised of three sub-genres with shared purposes, values, and assumptions (please
see Figure 1).
The focus of the first cluster, curricular reform, is the transformation of Anglo
Eurocentric curriculum and the inclusion of marginalized perspectives. Students’ experiences,
cultures, and histories are utilized as a context to help them relate to other cultural perspectives.
The assumptions underlying the curricular reform cluster are (a) Eurocentric curriculum is a tool
for cultural hegemony and (b) knowledge is constructed and contested.
The multicultural competence cluster centers around students’ dispositions of open-
mindedness, awareness of racial and cultural prejudice, cultural consciousness, and the capacity
to interpret ones’ unconscious cues and culturally conditioned assumptions. Two major
assumptions underlie the multicultural competence cluster: (a) the reduction of cultural and racial
prejudice is possible and desirable and (b) individuals do not need to reject their identity or
cultural worldview in order to function comfortably in another cultural environment.
The assumptions that underlie the societal equity cluster include (a) broad societal change
is necessary for equity in educational access, participation, and achievement and (b) change is
not only possible but a basic democratic value. Unlike the former two genre clusters which focus
on curriculum and individuals, respectively, this cluster focuses on broader societal issues.
The fourth cluster—equity pedagogy—emphasizes the transformation of hidden attitudes
and expectation, school environments, instructional strategies, community relations, and
DIVERSITY COURSES 9
practices that disadvantage different groups of students, especially underserved students of color.
The major assumptions underlying this cluster include (a) all students have special talents and
the ability to learn, (b) the goal of public education is to enable all students to reach their full
potential, and (c) teacher and student cultural socialization influence teaching and learning.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Several theoretical perspectives guide our understanding of the effect of diversity courses
on students’ civic engagement: a) social and cognitive development theory and b) social identity
and self-categorization theory. Utilizing Langer (1978), Coser (1975), and Piaget’s (1985),
theories of cognitive and social development, Gurin et al. (2002) argue that diversity courses and
informal diversity-related experiences provide an optimal learning environment in which
students confront different perspectives, resulting in their social and intellectual development.
According to Coser (1975), new situations, unfamiliar individuals, and the expectations of others
encourage students to act and think in new ways. Theoretically, the disequilibrium resulting from
confronting multiple points of views and from interacting with diverse peers of equal status
should promote students’ civic engagement (Piaget, 1985).
While Gurin et al.’s (2002) framework has been helpful in guiding the literature on the
influence of diversity experiences, three additional points merit consideration. First, diversity
courses vary in their scope and span. Second, students from different racial and ethnic
backgrounds may have varying familiarity with the issues discussed in diversity courses. Third,
given the nature of diversity courses and the racial composition of diverse campuses, such
courses may include, and consequently resonate with some students more than others. The
contributions of social identity theory (SIT) and self-categorization theory (SCT) may help
explain the differential effect of diversity courses on students with different social identities.
DIVERSITY COURSES 10
According SIT and SCT, individuals are motivated to attain positive group
distinctiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Given their different social positions, members of
minority and majority groups’ possess distinct interests. Members of minority groups are highly
motivated to enhance their groups’ social position in society (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1999).
Members of a majority group, on the other hand, wish to retain their group’s high status. If group
membership is devalued, individuals will either leave the group or develop alternative appraisals
to strengthen their group ties.
While cognitive disequilibrium may be an important first step for students’ moral and
intellectual growth in diversity courses, the extent to which students possess familiarity with the
course content and the extent to which students’ social identities are validated or threatened may
influence whether such disequilibrium transfers into growth. Given the variation in diversity
course content, it is essential that researchers consider differences in the content presented as
well as students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Hypotheses
Given the theoretical perspectives outlined above we expect that diversity courses with a
distinct emphasis on societal equity will have a greater effect on the civic engagement of
students of color, while the multicultural competence cluster will have a greater effect on white
students. According to SIT, diversity courses that focus on societal inequalities and make group
identities salient should (a) motivate students of color to enhance their group status and become
more civically engaged and (b) motivate white student to resist the course content in order
maintain a positive group identity (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009).
We expect that multicultural competence courses will stimulate greater cognitive
disequilibrium among white students compared to students of color. Students of color may be
DIVERSITY COURSES 11
less likely to experience cognitive disequilibrium given their presumed familiarity with the issues
discussed within this cluster (e.g., cultural consciousness). This is not to say that students of
color do not benefit from courses in which they posses epistemic privilege; rather, the benefits
they experience may reflect gains in a different domain such as academic self-concept and/or
ethnic identity (Zirkel, 2008). While white students may experience resistance to multicultural
competence courses, given their emphasis on prejudice reduction, we expect that the cluster’s
emphasis on values such as open-mindedness will diminish this effect.
METHODS
Site and Data Sample
For this study, we utilized secondary data analysis from AUWC, a research university
(very high research activity) located in a major metropolitan city. AUWC has approximately
33,500 students (16,500 undergraduates and 17,000 graduate students) and admits an incoming
freshman class of approximately 2,700 students each year. The undergraduate campus population
is 50.4% female and 49.6% male, and made up of 46.6% White, 22.9% Asian/Pacific Islander,
12.1% Latina/o, 5.4% Black, and 0.9% Native American (unknown/other represent the
remaining population). AUWC was chosen as the site for this study given its size and the racial
and ethnic diversity of its student body.
The sample for the study was drawn from the population of students who enrolled as
freshmen in 2004 and were seniors in 2008. The specific sample included those who had
completed two surveys, the 2004 Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s (CIRP)
Freshman Survey and the 2008 AUWC Senior Survey. The CIRP Freshman Survey was
administered during students’ first weeks in college. The AUWC Senior Survey was
administered at the end of students’ fourth year in college. The number of students who
DIVERSITY COURSES 12
completed the 2004 CIRP Freshman Survey was 2,429, and of those, 20% also completed the
AUWC Senior Survey. The final sample consisted of students who completed both instruments
for a total of 404 students, due to a 20% response rate and listwise deletion. Students’ course
registration, course completion, and grades were obtained from academic transcripts and utilized
along with both instruments to create a longitudinal data file. Of the 404 students in the data
sample, 72% identified as white and 28% identified as students of color (i.e., African American,
Asian, and Latino/a). Sixty-three percent of the sample is female and approximately 85% of
students have average high school grades of A- or better.
AUWC undergraduate students are required to take at least one of over 100 different
approved courses in fulfillment of the diversity requirement. In order for a course to receive the
diversity course designation, faculty and/or academic departments must submit a course syllabus,
provide an explanation of diversity course qualifications, and a list of potential instructors.
Courses designated as meeting the diversity requirement must meet five criteria defined by the
Diversity Requirement Committee (DRC). First, courses must examine two or more dimensions
of human diversity and consider these dimensions in terms of their social and/or cultural
consequences. Second, at least one third of the course should address human diversity, and this
must be proportionately reflected in course materials and assignments. Third, courses must
provide students the opportunity for personal reflection on their attitudes toward other groups
and the effects of those attitudes on institutions. Fourth, syllabi are expected to demonstrate how
the course topics relate to issues students face in a contemporary context. Fifth, courses must
encourage comparative and analytical thinking about issues of diversity. Significant changes to
approved syllabi must be approved by the DRC and all courses are reevaluated every five years.
Variables
DIVERSITY COURSES 13
In accordance with Ehrlich (2000) and the AACU’s (2010) Civic Engagement VALUE
Rubric, we define students’ civic engagement as a value of and commitment to social action,
social justice orientation, leadership skills, perspective taking, and intercultural understanding.
Students were asked to indicate the importance they place on influencing social values, helping
others who are in difficulty, participating in a community action program, helping to promote
racial understanding, understanding different countries and cultures, and becoming a community
leader on a four-point Likert scale ranging from not important to essential. This six-item
composite combined to form a reliable attitudinal measure of civic engagement (std. α = .846).
While civic engagement comprises of both behaviors and attitudes, a recent meta-analysis found
that differences in the effect sizes of studies that utilize behavioral versus attitudinal measures of
civic engagement did not differ significantly (Bowman, 2011).
The independent variables were organized by students’ background characteristics and
three groups of college experiences. Six student background characteristics (pre-college civic
engagement, gender, race, parental education, average high school GPA, and pre-college
interracial interactions) were entered as control variables to determine the unique effect of
college experiences on students’ civic engagement (Bowman, 2010). The civic engagement
pretest variable represents a six-item composite, identical to the outcome variable (std. α = .800).
The first group of college experiences measures the type of diversity courses students
took and was identified based on Bennett’s (2001) four genre clusters: curriculum reform,
multicultural competence, societal equity, and equity pedagogy clusters. The second group of
college experiences represents diversity-related experiences outside of the classroom: attending
racial awareness workshops, interracial interactions, community service, and study abroad. The
final group of college experiences includes students’ academic experiences: student-faculty
DIVERSITY COURSES 14
interactions (8-items; std. α = .819), college major, and college GPA. Additionally, we included
interaction terms for each course content cluster and race in order to assess the moderating effect
of race on the influence of diversity course content clusters on students’ civic engagement.
--Please insert Table 1 about here--
Analysis
We utilized content analysis, multicollinearity analyses, descriptive statistics, factor
analyses, reliability analyses, and a regression analysis to examine our research questions. In
regards to the first research question, we conducted a content analysis and utilized the guidelines
set forth by Bennett (please see Bennett, 2001) in order to identify diversity course alignments
with the four genre clusters: curriculum reform, multicultural competence, societal equity, and
equity pedagogy. We evaluated all AUWC diversity course syllabi independently and utilized
Cohen’s kappa to assess our inter-rater reliability (κ=.772). Cohen’s kappa was utilized given the
ordinal nature of the cluster variables and its ability to account for the proportion of agreement
that is expected by chance (Cohen, 1968). Forty-six courses met requirements for two or more
genre clusters and were entered into multiple categories in the variable construction phase. We
conducted a multicollineary diagnostic to assess the overlap between the variables and found no
significant overlap between the cluster variables.
For the second research question, we calculated theoretically and conceptually supported
factors for civic engagement, pre-college civic engagement, and student-faculty interactions
using Principle Component Factor Analyses and Cronbach’s alphas. To examine the relationship
between diversity course clusters and civic engagement, we performed a regression analysis. In
accordance with Astin’s (1993) Input-Environment-Output (I-E-O) Model, we considered the
longitudinal effects of student background characteristics and college experiences on the
DIVERSITY COURSES 15
outcome variable of interest. We entered student background characteristics in block one of the
analysis to control for their effect on students’ civic engagement. If relevant input variables are
not controlled, spurious effects of diversity courses on the outcome variable might be observed.
These input variables were selected based on prior research indicating the significance of pre-
college civic engagement, gender (Bowman, 2011), race, parental education, high school GPA
(Engberg & Mayhew, 2004), and interracial interactions (Chang, 2002).
The college environment variables were entered in block two of the analysis. These
variables include the diversity course clusters, informal diversity-related experiences, interracial
interactions, and academic experiences (Bowman, 2011; Engberg, 2007; Gurin et al., 2002). In
order to account for the different effects of diversity content clusters on white and students of
color, we included an interaction term for each cluster variables and race. In order to avoid
multicollinearity, we centered each set of cluster variables prior to multiplying them by race
(Robinson & Schumacker, 2009).
--Please insert Figure 2 about here--
--Please insert Table 2 about here--
Limitations
Several limitations may be noted from this study. First, the current study utilizes single
institution data and has limited generalizability to other four-year institutions and universities.
Utilizing single-institution data within the context of this exploratory study, however, allowed
for a more nuanced examination of diversity course content. Second, given the limited sample,
students of color were aggregated into one group. While it is not uncommon to aggregate
students of color in this way (Bowman, 2010; Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Nelson Laird, 2005), there
is a risk that important group differences may be minimized. Third, the total number of diversity
DIVERSITY COURSES 16
courses students took by their fourth year in college was calculated from the first 40 courses
taken. The assumption is that traditional college students take 5 courses each semester. This
method of calculation neglects the fact that students may take more than 5 courses each semester,
and may have taken 40 courses before the end of their fourth year. Therefore, the total number of
diversity courses students took within the four years of college may have exceeded the number
that was calculated in this study. Students who have taken 40 courses, however, are likely to
have met AUWC’s unit requirements for graduation. Fourth, we were unable examine the effect
of diversity course content clusters on students with low ethnic identity. Our data was limited to
students’ self-reported racial and ethnic identification rather than the intensity of their
identification. Data regarding the intensity of students’ ethnic identification would allow for
further exploration of the principles set forth by SCT.!Finally, our outcome measure of civic
engagement, although longitudinal, reflects students’ self-reports. Self-reported measures in the
current study, however, reflect the importance students place on engaging in civic thoughts and
behaviors during their first and fourth year in college. The use of an identical pre-test measure of
civic engagement serves to reduce potentially inflated effects.
Findings
With regard to our first research question, whether AUWC diversity courses vary in their
course content, we found Bennett’s model to be a useful framework for distinguishing diversity
course content. Three of Bennett’s four clusters were identified in AUWC’s diversity course
curriculum—curriculum reform (51%), multicultural competence (27%), and societal equity
(22%). No courses met the requirements for the equity pedagogy cluster which was not
surprising given its emphasis on teaching strategies and the absence of an undergraduate
education major at AUWC. Although 36.8% (46) courses met the requirements for two or more
DIVERSITY COURSES 17
clusters, a multicollinearity diagnostic indicated that there was no significant overlap between
the cluster variables: variance inflation factors were as low as 1.4 and as high as 1.9.
In order to address our second research question—do diversity course content clusters
have a differential effect on the civic engagement of white and students of color—we ran a
regression analysis with interaction terms by white students and students of color. The overall
regression model represented approximately 33.9% (adj. R2=.307) of the variance for civic
engagement (please see Table 3). Although students’ background characteristics explained
approximately 22% of variance, the college environment variables contributed another 11% to
the variance explained in the model. More specifically, the findings indicated that three of the
student background characteristics were significant in predicting gains in students’ civic
engagement: high school grade point average (β=.099, p<.01), race (β=.119, p<.05), and pre-
college civic engagement (β=.405, p<.001). This suggests that students with good high school
grades, students who indicated that they are not white, or report being civic-minded prior to
attending college are more likely to report gains in civic-engagement after four years of college.
When considering the college environment, three college experiences were found to
promote students’ civic engagement: racial awareness workshops (β=.093, p<.05), interracial
interactions (β=.177, p<.001), and interactions with faculty (β=.186, p<.001). Regarding our
primary variables of interest, only the multicultural content cluster was found to predict civic
engagement for all students (β=.116, p<.05). Interestingly, the main effect for the social equity
cluster was not significant, yet, the interaction term for race (i.e., white and students of color)
and the social equity cluster was significant and positive (β=.136, p<.05). This finding suggests
that diversity courses which emphasize societal equity have a differential effect for white
students compared to students of color. Diversity courses that emphasize societal equity appear
DIVERSITY COURSES 18
to have a greater effect on students of color compared to white students. No other interaction
terms were significant in the analysis.
-- Please insert table 3 about here --
DISCUSSION
There are a number of discussion points that emerge as a result of the findings in this study. First,
among all of the courses and co-curricular experiences students have while in college, the
required diversity course, diversity-related experiences, and student-faculty interactions were
significant toward enhancing students’ civic engagement. The implications for institutional
agents such as student affairs professionals, faculty, and senior-level executives is that formal as
well as informal opportunities for students to interact with and learn about people who are
different from themselves has a positive effect on students’ civic engagement (Pusser et al.,
2007). In the current era of institutional accountability and an increasingly globalized world, it
seems that an alignment with democratic outcomes is both ethical and strategic as institutions
articulate the kind of growth students can expect from their college education (AACU, 2010).
Second, diversity courses are not created equal, in that, diversity courses with distinct
goals and objectives can have a differential effect on students’ educational outcomes. While the
aims and intent of diversity course requirements are still realized through a broad cross-section
of diversity courses, salient differences based on the results in this study suggests that greater
attention must be given to the type of diversity courses students take. Furthermore, such findings
raise the question of whether a single course can capture the aim and intent of the diversity
course requirement, or whether more than one course should be required.
As noted by several scholars, research on diversity courses remains under-examined with
regard to the variation in diversity course content and is in need of theoretically informed inquiry
DIVERSITY COURSES 19
(Chang, 2002; Engberg, 2007; Zirkle, 2008). In the current study, diversity courses that focused
on developing students’ multicultural competence were the only courses that had a positive
effect across all students. Students of color, however, appear more greatly affected in terms of
their civic engagement by diversity courses that directly address societal issues. Such evidence
suggests that Bennett’s genres of multicultural education offer a useful conceptual framework
toward examining the differential effects of diversity courses on students’ civic engagement.
Given that only three of Bennett’s four genre clusters were represented in AUWC’s
diversity course curriculum, however, future researchers should consider how Bennett’s model
may be modified to further examine the variation in the diversity course curriculum. Bennett’s
fourth cluster—equity pedagogy—did not appear to be a good fit given its emphasis on teaching
and learning strategies. With increasing globalization, however, institutions of higher education
now place a greater emphasis on cross-national perspectives. Given the absence of an
undergraduate teaching major at most institutions and previous research indicating the
differential effects of diversity courses with a global focus on white and students of color (Zhou
et al., 2011), future research should consider modifying Bennett’s framework to include a
content cluster with global and international foci, rather than teaching strategies. Empirically-
based research studies that explore these kinds of questions can create the capacity for framing a
more nuanced approach toward the curricular design and pedagogical goals of diversity courses.
The pursuit of such nuanced research among coursework in post-secondary institutions is long
overdue.
The implications for faculty designing and committees approving such courses are that
the primary goal of exposing students to diversity through curriculum is necessary but
insufficient. Perhaps diversity course objectives should also aim to produce other educationally
DIVERSITY COURSES 20
productive learning outcomes like civic engagement. This aim would require faculty and
diversity course curriculum committees to carefully consider the content and pedagogical
techniques utilized to foster explicit learning outcomes for different groups of students.!
Likewise, students and/or student affairs administrators should consider which educational
outcomes are desired when deciding which type of diversity course to complete, particularly if
the goals are to educate future leaders who can compete in a diverse society and develop a sense
of commitment to one’s community.
Our third discussion point concerns the need for further interrogation and integration of
multiple theoretical perspectives when considering the cognitive and social processes that white
and students of color may experience. The combined use of Gurin et al.’s framework, SIT, and
SCT, in the current study, allowed us to consider the different processes that white and students
of color experience in diversity courses with distinct foci. These frameworks provide at least two
likely explanations for the differential effects across the two groups of students. First, Gurin and
colleagues argue that white students may be more likely to experiences democratic gains from
taking a diversity course given their limited interactions and exposure to people from different
racial and ethnic backgrounds. Second, SIT and SCT emphasizes the powerful influence of
social identity, the need to maintain a positive self-identity, and the different psychological
processes that majority and minority groups undertake.
Further research is needed to support these interpretations and explain why white students
and students of color may experience different gains as a result of completing the same diversity
course. Although we found that multicultural competence courses had similar effects on white
and students of color, there may be some cases where multicultural competence courses also
incite resistance among white students. Furthermore, the degree to which students identify with
DIVERSITY COURSES 21
their social group may influence how they experience and respond to diversity courses.
According to SCT (Hornsey, 2008), less self-identified majority members may be more willing
to compromise their high status, compared to those with a greater sense of ethnic identity. Less
self-identified minority members, on the other hand, may be less motivated to enhance their
group status compared to minority students with a greater sense of ethnic identity. In both cases,
students with a lower ethnic identity may be more likely to disassociate themselves from their
social group when threatened. Empirical research is needed to substantiate such claims.
Fourth, researchers should examine the extent to which there are similarities and
differences within different groups of racial and ethnic minority students. Previous research has
indicated differences in the experiences of Asian students compared to underrepresented students
of color such as African American, Latino/a, and Native American students. Although Asian
students are not typically considered an underrepresented student group in college, this is in large
part because most students included in these college-related demographics tend to be
international and tend to include relatively few Hmong, Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese –
some of the most underserved Asian student populations (Teranishi, 2007). The challenge with
disaggregating underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students often is, as in the current
study, their limited representation on highly selective college campuses.
In conclusion, disaggregating diversity course content is critical to assessing the impact
of diversity courses on different groups of students. Future research should further consider (1)
disaggregating racial and ethnic minority students, (2) the pedagogical approaches and racial and
ethnic backgrounds of faculty who teach such courses, (3) the interracial interactions inside
diversity classrooms, (4) how Bennett’s model may be modified to better capture the
undergraduate diversity course curriculum, and (5) integrating multiple theoretical perspectives
DIVERSITY COURSES 22
to better understand the experiences of students from different backgrounds. These points are
important because course content is only one piece of the puzzle; whether the course content, for
instance, is perceived as threatening or not to certain groups of students is also influenced by
how the content is presented and discussed by the faculty and students in class.
DIVERSITY COURSES 23
References
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2010). Civic Engagement VALUE Rubric.
Washington, DC: Author.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217.
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1,
3-7.
Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach to
racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445-472.
Bowman, N. A. (2010). Dissonance and resolution: The non-linear effects of diversity courses
on well-being and orientations toward diversity. Review of Higher Education, 33, 543–
568.
Bowman, N.A. (2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A meta-analysis of
college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Review of Educational Research,
81(1), 29-68.
Brandenberger, J. W., Bowman, N. A., Hill, P. L., & Lapsley, D. K. (2010). How long do
the effects of college diversity experiences last? Social concerns and wellbeing 13 years
after graduation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Denver, CO.
Chang, M.J. (2002). The impact of an undergraduate diversity course requirement on students’
racial views and attitudes. The Journal of General Education, 51 (1).
DIVERSITY COURSES 24
Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement
or partial credit. Psychological bulletin, 70(4), 213.
Cole, E.R., Case, K.A., Rios, D., & Curtin, N. (2011). Understanding what students bring to the
classroom: Moderators of the effects of diversity courses on student attitudes. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(4), 397-405.
Cole, D., & Zhou, J. (2013). Do diversity experiences help college students become more
civically minded? Applying Banks’ multicultural education framework. Innovative
Higher Education.
Coser, R. (1975). The complexity of roles as a seedbed of individual autonomy. In L. A. Coser
(Ed .), The idea of social structure : Papers in honor of Robert K. Merton (pp . 85-102).
New York : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of "we": Social
attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 3-20.
Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. New York, NY: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Engberg, M. E. (2007). Educating the workforce for the 21st century: A cross-disciplinary
analysis of the impact of the undergraduate experience on students’ development of
a pluralistic orientation. Research in Higher Education, 48, 283–317.
Engberg, M. E. (2004). Improving intergroup relations in higher education: A critical
examination of the influence of educational interventions on racial bias. Review of
Educational Research, 74, 473–524.
Engberg, M. E., & Mayhew, M. J. (2007). The influence of first-year “success” courses on
student learning and democratic outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 48,
241–258.
DIVERSITY COURSES 25
Fish, S.(2008). Save the world on your own time. NY: Oxford University Press.
Gurin, P. (1999). Selections from the compelling need for diversity in higher education, expert
reports in defense of the University of Michigan. Equity & Excellence in Education,
32(2), 36-62.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–366
Gurin, P., Nagda, B., & Lopez G.E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education democratic
citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 6 (1), 17-34.
Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self!categorization Theory: A Historical
Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204-222.
Humphreys, D. (2000). National survey finds diversity requirements common around the
country. Diversity Digest, 5(1).
Hurtado, S. (2001). Linking diversity and educational purpose: How diversity affects the
classroom environment and student development. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity
challenged: Evidence on the impact of affirmative action (pp. 187-203). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Publishing Group.
Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup mediation research. Journal
of Social Issues, 61 (3), 595-610.
Jayakumar, U. M. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and
global society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforce competencies. Harvard
Educational Review, 78, 615–651.
King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of intercultural maturity.
Journal of college student development, 46(6), 571-592.
Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes,
DIVERSITY COURSES 26
& R. Kiss (Eds .), New Directions in Attribution Research (vol. 3, pp . 35–38). Hillsdale,
NJ : Erlbaum.
Lopez, G. E. (2004). Interethnic contact, curriculum, and attitudes in the first year of college.
Journal of Social Issues, 60, 75–94.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 Fast Facts
U.S. Department of Education.
Nelson-Laird, T.F. (2005). College students’ experiences with diversity and their effects on
academic self-confidence, social agency, and disposition toward critical thinking.
Research in Higher Education, 46 (4).
Nelson-Laird, T.F, Engberg, M.E., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects:
Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement. The
Journal of Higher Education, 76 (4), 448-476.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual
development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1975).
Pusser, B., Breneman, D. W., Gansneder, B. M., Kohl, K. J., Levin, J. S., Milam, J. H., et al.
(2007). Returning to learning: Adults’ success in college is key to America’s future.
Indianapolis: Lumina Foundation for Education.
Schneider, C.G. (2008). “Liberal Education Takes a New Turn”. National Education Association
Almanac of Higher Education, pp. 29–40.
Tajfel, H. & J. C. Turner (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel &
W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson.
Tapanes, M. A., Smith, G. G., & White, J. A. (2009). Cultural diversity in online learning: A
study of the perceived effects of dissonance in levels of individualism/collectivism and
tolerance of ambiguity. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 26-34.
DIVERSITY COURSES 27
Teranishi, R. T. (2007). Race, ethnicity, and higher education policy: The use of critical
quantitative research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 37-49.
Robinson, C., & Schumacker, R. E. (2009). Interaction effects: centering, variance inflation
factor, and interpretation issues. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 35(1), 6-11.
Wilhite, S. C., & Silver, P. T. (2005). A false dichotomy for higher education: Educating citizens
vs. educating technicians. National Civic Review, 94, 46-54.
Zhou, J., Cole, D., Castellanos, M., & Manson, S. (2011). Beyond domestic diversity: Examining
the impact of global diversity courses on students’ civic engagement. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Charlotte, NC.
Zuniga, X., Williams, E. A., & Berger, J. B. (2005). Action-oriented democratic outcomes:
The impact of student involvement with campus diversity. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 660–678.
DIVERSITY COURSES 28
Appendix A
Summary of Variables and Indices in the Research Model
Variable name Measures Scale
Gender Male, Female 1-2
Parental Education 1= H.S. diploma or less 2= College degree or less 3= Graduate degree or less
1-3
Average High School Grades 1=D 2=C
3=C+ 4=B-
5=B 6=B+
7=A- 8=A
1-8
Interracial Interactions (pre and post) Socialized with different racial/ethnic groups
1= Not at All 2= Occasionally 3= Frequently
1-3
Race White, Student of Color 0-1
Civic Engagement (pre and post): Importance placed on… influencing social values; helping others who are in difficulty; participating in community action programs promoting racial understanding; becoming a community leader; keeping up to date with third world issues
6= Lowest 24= Highest
1-24
College GPA 1=F 2=D- 3=D
4=D+ 5=C- 6=C
7=C+ 8=B- 9=B
10=B+ 11=A- 12=A
1-12
College Major 1=Arts and Humanities, 2=Biological/Physical Science, 3=Business, 4=Education, 5=Engineering, 6=Social Science 7=Other
1-7
Racial Awareness Workshops No, Yes 0-1
Studied Abroad No, Yes 0-1
Community Service No, Yes 0-1
Student-Faculty Interactions 1-14=Not at all 15-28=Occasionally 29-42=Frequently
1-42
Total Diversity Courses taken (Multicultural Competence; Social Equity Diversity; Curriculum Reform)
0=0, 1=1, 2=2, 3= 3, 4= 4
0-4
DIVERSITY COURSES 29
Figure 1. Research genres of diversity course content (Adapted from Bennett, 2001).
!
Ethnic Identity Development
Prejudice Reduction
Ethnic Group Culture
School & Classroom
Climate
Student Achievement
Cultural Styles in Teaching &
Learning
Social Action Demographics
Culture & Race in Popular Culture
Curriculum Theory
Historical Inquiry
Detecting Bias
Societal Equity
Multicultural Competence
Curriculum
Reform
Equity Pedagogy
Genres of Research in Multicultural Education
Assumptions:
1. Eurocentric curriculum is a tool for cultural hegemony
2. Knowledge is constructed and contested
Assumptions:
1. Broad societal change is necessary for equity in educational access, participation, and achievement
2. Change is not only possible but a basic democratic value
2.
Assumptions:
1. The reduction of cultural and racial prejudice is possible and desirable
2. Individuals do not need to reject their identity or cultural worldview in order to function comfortably in another cultural environment.
2.
Assumptions:
1. All students have special talents and the ability to learn
2. The goal of public education is to enable all students to reach their full potential
3. Teacher and student cultural socialization influence teaching and learning.
2.
DIVERSITY COURSES 30
Figure 2. Methodological framework for assessing students’ civic engagement (n=404).
COLLEGE EXPERIENCES:
Diversity-related Experiences
Racial awareness workshops Interracial interactions
Community service Study abroad
Academic College Experiences
College major College GPA
Student-faculty interactions (8-items, std. α =.819)
Diversity Course Clusters Curriculum reform
Social equity Multicultural competence
OUTPUT:
Civic Engagement (6-items, std. α=.846)
STUDENT INPUT:
Student Background Characteristics Pre-college civic
engagement (6-items, std. α=.799)
Gender Race
Parental education Average high school GPA
Interracial interactions (pre-college)
!
DIVERSITY COURSES 31
Table 1
Factor Analysis and Cronbach Alphas
Variablesa
Factor Loading
Alpha if Item
Deleted Pre-College Civic Engagement Importance placed on influencing social values .652 .779 Importance placed on helping others who are in difficulty .681 .773 Importance placed on participating in a community action program .749 .756 Importance placed on helping to promote racial understanding .741 .758 Importance placed on understanding different countries and cultures .715 .765 Importance placed on becoming a community leader .696 .769 Reliability Coefficients (6-items) .798 Standardized (std) item alpha .799 Post-College Civic Engagement Importance placed on influencing social values .731 .823 Importance placed on helping others who are in difficulty .771 .816 Importance placed on participating in a community action program .785 .811 Importance placed on helping to promote racial understanding .714 .826 Importance placed on understanding different countries and cultures .764 .816 Importance placed on becoming a community leader .745 .821 Reliability Coefficients (6-items) .844 Standardized (std) item alpha .846 Student-Faculty Interactions
Professor provided encouragement to pursue graduate/professional Study
.563 .808
Professor provided advice and guidance about your educational program
.690 .790
Professor provided respect (treated you like a colleague/peer) .676 .795 Professor provided emotional support and encouragement .686 .791 Professor provided a letter of recommendation .567 .808 Professor provided intellectual challenge and stimulation .633 .801 Professor provided an opportunity to discuss your coursework outside of class
.704 .791
Professor provided help in achieving your professional goals .790 .773 Reliability Coefficients (8-items) .816 Standardized (std) item alpha .819 a Data collected in 2004 and 2008.
DIVERSITY COURSES 32
Table 2 Descriptive Data of Student Participants Independent Variables
All Students (n=404)
M SD Student Background Characteristics Students’ Gender 1.63 — Parents Education 2.46 .62 Average High School Grades 7.35 .83 Socialized with members of a different racial/ethnic group (pre-college) 2.83 .40 Race (white, student of color) .28 .45 Pre-civic engagement (composite) 14.38 3.59 Diversity Experiences Outside of the Classroom: Racial Awareness Workshops .28 .45 Studied Abroad .34 .48 Socialized with members of a different racial/ethnic group 2.83 .39 Community Service .44 .50 Academic College Experiences College Major 4.09 2.33 College GPA 8.75 1.11 Student-Faculty Interactions (composite) 18.18 3.33 Diversity Courses Typology: Multicultural Competence .07 .62 Multicultural Competence * Race .05 .41 Social Equity .10 .64 Social Equity* Race .04 .35 Curriculum Reform .17 .82 Curriculum Reform* Race .02 .46
DIVERSITY COURSES 33
Table 3 Regression Table for Civic Engagement Independent Variables
n= 404 Standardized β
Student Background Characteristics Gender (female) .052 Parents Education .034 Average High School Grades .099** Socialized with members of a different racial/ethnic group (pre-college) .040 Race (white, student of color) .119* Pre-civic engagement (composite) .405***
R2 .221 Diversity Experiences Outside of the Classroom: Racial Awareness Workshops .093* Studied Abroad .049 Socialized with members of a different racial/ethnic group .177*** Community Service .035 Academic College Experiences: College Major -.009 College GPA .001 Student-Faculty Interactions (composite) .186*** Diversity Courses Typology: Multicultural Competence .116* Multicultural Competence * Race -.031 Social Equity -.017 Social Equity* Race .136* Curriculum Reform .030 Curriculum Reform* Race .001
R2 .339 Adjusted R2 .307
Note: Separate regression analyses were run for the curriculum reform and social equity clusters, however, findings were not significant. Standardized coefficients are reported. * p ≤.05, ** p ≤.01, *** p ≤ .001.
!