Research in Higher Education

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 572–588 | Cite as

Measuring the Diversity Inclusivity of College Courses

Article

Abstract

Most studies of curricular diversity have focused on the effects of participation in diversity courses on student outcomes. Though the results have been positive, these studies have used limited measures of curricular diversity and there is a great need for a complimentary body of research demonstrating what faculty and what types of courses are more likely to include diversity. This study relies on 12 diversity inclusivity items derived from a comprehensive model of how diversity is included into a course to investigate how much diversity is being included in collegiate courses and what predicts diversity inclusivity, as measured by two scales: diverse grounding and inclusive learning. The results, based on 7,101 responses from faculty participating in the 2007 Faculty Survey of Student Engagement, suggest that most faculty are including diversity in their courses in some way, but that women and faculty of color tend to include diversity to a greater extent than their colleagues. Also, courses taught in the soft fields are more likely to be inclusive of diversity.

Keywords

Diversity inclusivity College teaching Faculty Survey of Student Engagement 

References

  1. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Astin, A. W., & Denson, N. (2009). Multi-campus studies of college impact: Which statistical method is appropriate? Research Higher Education, 50, 354–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks, J. A. (2005). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12–25.Google Scholar
  5. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 1204–1213.Google Scholar
  8. Bowman, N. A. (2009a). College diversity courses and cognitive development among students from privileged and marginalized groups. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 2(3), 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowman, N. A. (2009b). College diversity experiences and cognitive development: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 4–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1996) Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. XI, pp. 1–46) New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Braxton, J. M., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39, 299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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), 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of diversity-related student engagement and institutional context. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 322–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faculty Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). FSSE overview 2007. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  16. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.Google Scholar
  17. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Gaff, J. G., & Wilson, R. C. (1971). Faculty cultures and interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Higher Education, 42(3), 186–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  20. Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–365.Google Scholar
  21. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  23. Humphreys, D. (2000). National survey finds diversity requirements common around the country. Diversity Digest, 5(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  24. Hurtado, S. (2001a). 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.Google Scholar
  25. Hurtado, S. (2001b). Research and evaluation on intergroup dialogue. In D. Schoem & S. Hurtado (Eds.), Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative democracy in school, college, community, and workplace (pp. 22–36). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learning environments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. ASHE-ERIC higher education report (Vol. 26, No. 8) Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.Google Scholar
  27. King, P. M., & Shuford, B. C. (1996). A multicultural view is a more cognitively complex view. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kitano, M. K. (1997). What a course will look like after multicultural change. In A. I. Morey & M. K. Kitano (Eds.), Multicultural course transformation in higher education: A broader truth. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  29. Kokkelenberg, E. C., Dillon, M., & Christy, S. M. (2008). The effects of class size on student grades at a public university. Economics of Education Review, 27, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty activities and student behavior: Realizing the promise of greater expectations. Liberal Education, 90(4), 24–31.Google Scholar
  31. Lattuca, L., & Stark, J. (1994). Will disciplinary perspectives impede curricular reform? Journal of Higher Education, 65, 401–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Maher, F. A., & Tetrault, M. K. T. (1994). The feminist classroom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Maruyama, G., & Moreno, J. (2000). University faculty views about the value of diversity on campus and in the classroom. In American Council on Education, American Association of University Professors (Ed.), Does diversity matter? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms (pp. 9–36). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and American Association of University Professors.Google Scholar
  35. Mayhew, M. J., & Grunwald, H. E. (2006). Factors contributing to faculty incorporation of diversity-related course content. Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McIntosh, P. (1983). Interactive phases of curricular re-vision: A feminist perspective. Working paper #124. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.Google Scholar
  37. McKeachie, W. J. (1980). Class size, large classes, and multiple sections. Academe, 66(Feb.), 24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milem, J. F. (2001). Increasing diversity benefits: How campus climate and teaching methods affect student outcomes. In G. Orfield (Ed.), Diversity challenged: Evidences on the impact of affirmative action (pp. 233–249). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  39. 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, 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nelson Laird, T. F. (2010). Conceptualizing diversity inclusivity for college courses. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  41. 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. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 448–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49, 469–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reason, R. D., Cox, B. E., Lutovsky Quaye, B. R., & Terenzini, P. T. (2010). Faculty and institutional factors that promote student encounters with difference in first-year courses. Review of Higher Education, 33(3), 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schoem, D., Frankel, L., Zúñiga, X., & Lewis, E. (1993). The meaning of multicultural teaching: An introduction. In D. Schoem, L. Frankel, X. Zúñiga, & E. Lewis (Eds.), Multicultural teaching in the university. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  45. Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2008). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender (6th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  46. Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Smart, J. C., & Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty and academic environments: Using Holland’s theory to explore differences in how faculty structure undergraduate courses. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, D. G., & Associates. (1997). Diversity works: The emerging picture of how students benefit. Washington, DC: Association of American College and Universities.Google Scholar
  49. Stanley, C. A., & Porter, M. E. (2002). Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college faculty. Boston: Anker Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Umbach, P. D. (2006). The unique contribution of faculty of color to undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 47, 317–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Warren, K. J. (1998). Rewriting the future: The feminist challenge to the malestream curriculum. In G. E. Cohee, E. Daumer, T. D. Kemp, P. M. Krebs, S. Lafky, & S. Runzo (Eds.), The feminist teacher anthology: Pedagogies and classroom strategies. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations