Demonstrating the effectiveness of two scaffolds for fostering students’ domain perspective reasoning

Abstract

Domain perspective reasoning refers both to students’ recognition of authors’ domain perspectives during reading and students’ abilities to draw on varied domain perspectives to reason about and understand a complex social issue. Two instructional manipulations were examined in this study. First, students were asked to identify authors’ domain perspectives during reading (i.e., DP-ID condition) or not (i.e., with authors’ domain perspectives instead supplied in texts). Second students were provided with a Palette of Perspectives as an instructional scaffold to support their inferencing regarding how a common issue, that of immigration, may be examined through a variety of diverse domain perspectives. Although students’ assignment to the DP-ID condition was not associated with the number of domain perspectives they included in writing, both DP-ID condition and being provided with a Palette of Perspectives were associated with students’ performance on a domain perspective application task. Implications for domain perspective reasoning are discussed.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Performance across students’ areas of student and class standings

Students’ majors were coded as representing the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. The other category included students majoring across multiple subject areas or being undecided with regard to their major. Students majoring in different subject areas did not significantly differ on any measures of interest, p-values > 0.12. Moreover, students’ subject areas of study were not associated with the types of representations of multiple texts that they constructed, $\chi$ ²(12) = 19.57, p = 0.08.

Table 8 includes descriptives of variables of interest across students’ areas of study.

Table 8 Descriptives of variables of interest across students’ areas of study

Likewise, no differences across any measures of interest were found in association with students’ class status (i.e., as undergraduates or graduate students), p-values > 0.11.

Table 9 presents descriptive information.

Table 9 Descriptives of variables of interest in association with students’ class standing

Because the DPA task asked students to consider which additional domain perspectives, beyond those provided in texts, were relevant to understanding the topic of immigration, I further examined whether the perspectives that students specified included their own majors or areas of study. Indeed, for 15.33% of students (n = 21), their areas of study or majors were among the domain perspectives that they specified. For instance, in specifying the need to consider sociological perspectives on immigration one student (majoring in sociology) wrote: “Sociology—As a sociology major, I feel that using sociological frameworks (ways to see society) may help better understand the relationship between immigrants and native-born Americans, in particular frameworks or theories involving power structures and perceived power/threat,.” Likewise, a psychology major explained: “Psychology would be helpful because it could facilitate better understanding of how people develop their perspectives toward immigrants/immigration, identify and study impacts of biases, and potentially help develop interventions to change people’s minds about immigration.” However, students’ average DPA scores (i.e., capturing the elaborativeness of their explanations of which domain perspectives constituted relevant lenses on immigration) did not differ according to whether students’ major overlapped with the domain perspectives they introduced or not, F(2, 131) = 2.27, p = 0.11. This is perhaps reflective of the breadth of courses that students are required to take in many undergraduate programs in US universities, exposing them to a variety of domain perspectives.

Appendix 2. Study texts

Examining Educational Attainment Among Immigrant Populations: A Pathway to Economic Prosperity

Dr. James Wilson, Professor of Economics

University of Maryland

A common concern among proponents and detractors of immigration, alike, is the economic impact of immigration and, in particular, whether immigrants are potentially taking native-born Americans’ jobs. Based on our analyses of the data, we find this not to be the case.

We used the Current Population Survey (CPS), from the U.S. Census Bureau, to analyze educational attainment among foreign-born and native-born U.S. residents.

CPS data allowed us to analyze educational attainment, for adults aged 25 and older, by immigration status (see Table 1). We found foreign-born individuals to be disproportionately represented among those obtaining particularly low levels of education. Specifically, while only 13% of the native-born population in the United States had earned less than a high school diploma, this was the case for 25% of foreign-born individuals. This means that foreign-born individuals likely take the lowest level jobs, unappealing to native-born Americans. Moreover, native-born status likely allows individuals, with even the lowest levels of education, to capitalize on their language and cultural skills when finding a job.

At the same time, foreign-born individuals held advanced degrees (e.g., PhDs) at a slightly higher rate than their native-born counterparts. While 13% of the foreign-born population held advanced degrees, this was the case for only 11% of native-born individuals. This further indicates the dual-role of foreign-born individuals in the U.S. economy. On the one hand, these immigrants fill essential jobs that many native-born Americans do not want; on the other hand, immigrants, with high levels of education, drive discovery and innovation.

Setting the Record Straight: Examining Crime Rates Across Immigrant Groups

Dr. Robert Anderson, Professor of Criminology

University of Texas, Austin

Opponents of immigration in the United States have long alleged that immigrants are responsible for increased rates of crime. And, for a long time, the challenges of studying immigrant populations, generally, and undocumented immigrants, more specifically, have left these allegations unchallenged. But new data suggest that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born individuals.

In a unique analysis, the Texas Department of Public Safety allowed us access to their complete arrest records through the Texas Computerized Criminal History (CCH) Database.

The CCH Database allowed us to compare the felony arrest rates of US-born citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants. Across crime types, undocumented immigrants committed significantly fewer offenses than both US-born citizens and legal immigrants (see Fig. 1).

For instance, while the arrest rate for drug violations among US born citizens was 337.2 for every 100,000 people, it was less than half that for undocumented immigrants, who were arrested at a rate of only 136.0 people per 100,000. Legal immigrants’ arrest rate for drug violations was 185.3 people, per 100,00, higher than that of undocumented immigrants, but still lower than that of US-born citizens. These findings are perhaps indicative of undocumented immigrants’ fear of contact with law enforcement, contributing to their more cautious and law-abiding behavior. Undocumented immigrants’ lower propensity to commit crimes may have ancillary benefits, making neighborhoods with dense immigrant populations more safe and secure.

Understanding Trends in U.S. Public Opinion on Immigration

Dr. Oscar Hernandez, Professor of Political Science

University of Michigan

As with many public policy issues, Americans’ attitudes toward immigration have changed over time.

We examined changes in American’s attitudes toward immigration using public opinion polling data from Gallup and Pew.

Gallup asked respondents, “In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?” (see Figure 1). In 1965, when the question was first asked, just 7% of respondents reported that immigration rates should be increased, with 39% of respondents reporting that immigration levels should stay the same, and 33% of respondents saying that immigration levels should decrease (with the remaining 20% of respondents reporting that they had no opinion). As of 2020, 34% of respondents say that immigration levels should increase, 36% say that immigration rates should stay the same, and 28% of respondents say that immigration rates should decrease (with just 3% of respondents reporting that they have no opinion). These numbers represent the first time in recent history where more people support increasing, rather than decreasing, immigration.

Increased support for immigration may reflect changing attitudes about what it means to be truly American. Pew asked Republicans and Democrats which characteristics are important for being truly American. In 2016, 60% of Republicans and 50% of Democrats replied that “having been born in the U.S.” is very or somewhat important for truly being American. In 2020, being born in the U.S. was endorsed as being somewhat or very important to truly being American by only 46% of Republicans and 25% of Democrats.

Immigration and the Law: An Analysis of Local Pro- and Anti-Immigration Policies in the United States

Dr. Thomas Lee, Professor of Law

The University of Virginia

While much attention is focused on federal immigration policy, the day-to-day lives of immigrants are impacted by a variety of local-level policies, as well. To better understand these, we created a database of municipalities and the immigration policies they enacted.

Pro-immigration policies included sanctuary ordinances (i.e., specifying that police could not check the immigration status of those arrested) and allowances for alternative forms of identification (i.e., in addition to a driver’s license). Anti-immigration policies included exclusionary employment and housing laws or English-only mandates.

We found municipalities to more commonly enact anti-immigration policies, as compared to pro-immigration policies. While 69% of ordinances enacted were classified as anti-immigration, 31% were classified as pro-immigration. Moreover, pro- and anti-immigration policies were often enacted by localities, geographically close to one another. This geographic proximity in pro- and anti-immigration legislation is demonstrated by policies enacted by Takoma Park and Prince William County, both suburbs of Washington D.C. See Table 1.

Both the City of Takoma Park and Prince William County considered the health, safety, and welfare of their communities in the immigration policies that they introduced – what differed was who they considered a part of their communities to be. In Takoma Park, immigrants were considered a part of the community, who would be threatened by exclusionary policies. In Prince William County, illegal immigrants were perceived as a community threat. This difference is further evidenced by the terminology used in each policy. While Prince William County referred to the “hardship and lawlessness” caused by illegal immigration, Takoma Park referred to both native born and immigrants, as residents contributing to a “rich community.”

In Their Own Words: Immigrants’ Experiences in Rural and Urban Settlement Destinations in the United States

Dr. José Marínez, Professor of Anthropology

University of California, Los Angeles

Although immigrants to the United States are commonly treated as a monolithic group, immigrants’ experiences differ widely depending on the communities in which they settle.

Here, we use interviews to compare the assimilation experiences of Mexican immigrants settling in urban and rural locations in the United States.

The receiving communities in which Mexican immigrants resided crucially shaped how visible they felt and immigrants’ perceptions of belonging. For example, in Southern California immigrants mostly settled in Mexican-majority urban neighborhoods. As described by Enrique, “The people and things in this neighborhood are familiar to me. I thought living in California would be different, that I would be surrounded by big houses, fast cars, all that. … Around here, it’s all Mexicans like me. So in that sense, it’s comfortable.”

In Montana, by contrast, Mexican migrants were few. As described by Olga, who first immigrated from Texas, “I was the only Hispanic in town. There were hardly any Hispanics anywhere around. I wasn’t even able to buy corn tortillas.”

This means that in rural Montana, Mexican immigrants are constantly visible and perceived as “other”. This experience was described by Jose: “It is more difficult because sometimes you are buying something in Walmart or whatever store and then you realize that there is someone looking at you and they say ‘In America speak English.’ Or on the street, ‘In America speak English!’ So, for example, in Los Angeles … no one is going to say something to you if you’re speaking Spanish.”