Academic Affairs Diversity Action Team (AADAT)

Academic Affairs Diversity Action Team (AADAT)

Diversity Classes and the Experience of Minority Students on Campus

EricAmsel

Department of Psychology

AADAT Committee Member

WeberStateUniversity

As part of its mission, AADAT began a discussionof whether WSU is a hospitable and inviting environment for the 1100 self-identified ethnic minority students on campus (Services for Multicultural Students web site, and unknown others whose religious practices, sexual preferences, and/ornationality sets them apart from the majority on campus. Over the course of the year, it became increasingly clearto the members of the AADAT committee that this question is a core outcome by which to assess the effectiveness of various university-wide initiatives promoting the value of diversity. Of particular interest to the committee was the impact and effectiveness of the diversity class requirement in sensitizing the students and faculty alike to the experiences of minorities.

Limiting our discussion was a paucity of data regarding minority students’ experience at WSU. The data which were available includeBettySimon’s M.Ed. study of the attitudes and beliefs of students who visited the MulticulturalCenter in 2000. That questionnaire is being redistributed by JeffSimon to assess the change over 5 years in ethnic minority students’ attitudes and beliefs.

The committee decided on the collection and analysis of two data sets to further inform the discussion about the experience of minorities at WSU. The first was an analysisof student and faculty evaluations of Diversity (DV) Classes. The second was a reanalysis of the Noel-Levitz satisfaction survey to compare minority and majority students’responses. The results of these analyses are reported below. The general finding is that majority students (defined in term of European-American ethnicity and Caucasian racial profile) and minority students (everyone else) are having different experiences at WSU. In the Noel-Levitz satisfaction survey, majority students showed increased satisfaction with their experience at WSU from 2000 to 2003 whereas minority students remained stable. With regard to the student evaluations of diversity courses, there was atrend reflecting minority students being more satisfied with the diversity coursesthan majority students. Together these finding point to a difference in perception and experiences between the groups. The nature of these differences will be further explored in the 2005-2006 academic year, in a series of planned interviews with minority students

1. Noel-Levitz Survey

The Noel-Levitz Inventory measures students' satisfaction with 11 domains of university services, academic life, and campus climate including Academic Advising, Campus Climate, Campus Life, Campus Support Services, Concern for the Individual, Instructional Effectiveness, Recruitment and Financial Aid, Registration Effectiveness, Safety and Security, Service Excellence, andStudent Centeredness, Students rated multiple questions in each domain on a scale from 1 (not satisfied) to 7 (very satisfied) (for more details of the N-L instrument go to The present analysis was based on the responses from 1158 students (1053 majority students and 105 minority students) who took the questionnaire in 2000 or 2003.

The Noel-Levitz data were analyzed by ethnicity (majority vs. minority) and Year (2000 vs. 2003). Students’ responses to questions were averaged for each of the 11 domains and subjected to a factor analysis to assess whether students’ evaluations reflect 11 independent dimensions or some smaller subset. The factor analysis (with varimax rotation) produced a single dimension or factor which accounted for 63.5% of the variance. A factor score, scaled to reflect a sample-based (not normative) average (0), above average (+), or below average (-) level of satisfaction,was computed and assigned to each student

A 2 (Year: 2000, 2003) by 2 (Ethnicity: Majority vs. Minority) ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) was run on the factor score. The Analysis of Covariance allows the influence of a variety of extraneous variables to be equalized or equated between groups. In this analysis, the groups equated were Gender, Age, Current Enrollment, Current Class Load, Class Level, Current GPA, Educational Goal, Employment, Current, Residence, Residence Classification, Disability, and Primacy of Choosing of WSU. The resultsrevealed an interaction effect of Year and Ethnicity which follow-up analyses revealed was due to majority students being more positive towards WSU over time, while minority students remained the same (see Figure 1). Although it looks like the minority students were becoming more negative, that difference was not significant because of the large variance associated with the minority students (likely due to the small sample size).

FIGURE 1:

Year by Ethnic Status Interaction Effect on the Noel-Levitz Factor Scores

2. Diversity Class Assessment

The Weber State University Diversity (DV) Course Requirement was designed to promote three student outcomes: 1) acquiring knowledge of and appreciating the significance of similarities and differences between groups, 2) practicing behaviors which assist in getting along with others, and 3)understanding the relevance of diversity throughout one’s life. The Diversity Class Student Evaluation Questionnaire is a quantitative measure of5 aspects of students' diversity class experience, based on the outcome goals. The first question assessed students’ acquisition of knowledge of diversity (i.e., how effective was this course in helping you AQUIRE KNOWLEDGE of the similarities and differences among the groups discussed in this DV course?). The second question addressed whether students actively use such knowledge and consider all of its ramifications and implications (i.e., how effective was this course in helping you REALLY THINK ABOUT the similarities and differences among the groups discussed in this DV course?) The third questionfocused on whether students become morecompassionate towards the groups studied in their diversity class (i.e., how effective was this course in helping you DEVELOP EMPATHY (i.e., sensitivity to the feelings of others) for the similarities and differences among the groups discussed in this DV course?) The fourth question explored whether students challenged their prior beliefs, attitudes and behavior (i.e., how effective was this course in MOTIVATING YOU TO QUESTION your beliefs, attitudes, feelings, or behavior towards others?) Finally, the fifth question measured whether the classroom atmosphere promoted an honest dialogue (i.e., how effective was this course in CREATING A CLASSROOM where you feel comfortable talking about your own beliefs, attitudes, feelings, or behaviors toward other people?). Students answered each question on a 7-point scale (1=low and 7=high) reflecting their opinion regarding the extent to which each outcome was realized.

Faculty teaching diversity courses also completed asimilar questionnaire tomeasure their belief that DV course outcome goals were achieved in their courses. The above questions were rewritten in the faculty questionnaire to refer to students (substituting “students” for “you’) and what they got out of the course. Additionally, faculty were asked three other questions: Whether they thought the diversity course outcome goals were worthwhile (i.e.,in your opinion are these worthwhile student outcomes for diversity classes?) and whether they developed and taught their DV courses in a manner that is different than they taught other classes (i.e., are there differences in how you developed / taughta DV and non-DV course?). The latter two questions were designed to assess the extent to which faculty conceive ofDV courses differently than other courses, reflecting their different goals. If faculty don’t think of DV courses as having unique goals, it is likely students will not abstract the goals. These questions were answered with a “Yes” or a “No” and a request for an explanation.

In Fall 2004, all faculty members teaching diversity classes were contacted and asked to distribute diversity course questionnaires to students and to complete the Faculty questionnaire themselves. Seventeen faculty members agreed, reflecting 18 courses and 441 students. Of the 17 faculty, 15 completed some part of the faculty questionnaire for each their classes. Most students (42%) were in Social and Behavioral Science DV courses, followed by Education (25%), Arts and Humanities (15%), Health Professions (11%), and Science (6%). This distribution roughly parallels the distribution of DV courses, wherethe most DV courses are offered in SBS (71%), the fewest in Science (1%), and more are offered in Arts & Humanities and Health Professions (12% and 11%) than in Education (4%).

The results are presented separately for student and faculty responses.

2.1 Faculty Responses

The 15 faculty members who answered the “worthwhile” question, responded affirmatively. They generally saw the value of teaching diversity, a theme which also emerged at anAADAT-sponsored focus group for faculty teaching diversity courses. A majority (60%) of faculty members teach their DV courses differently than they teach other courses (typically because they promote more discussion and invite outside speakers), but only a minority (36%) develop their courses differently. There was a relation between uniquely developing and teaching DV as opposed to other courses, such that those (5/15) who uniquely develop their DV courses also uniquely teach them, whereas those (6/14) who do not uniquely develop such courses also do not uniquely teach them. Reasons for not uniquely teaching a DV is that the other courses the faculty members teach are also DV courses (N=3). These results suggest that faculty who teach DV course take their charge very seriously and focus the course on DV course goals, which makesit unique in the curriculum.

Faculty members’ commitment to creating a unique academic experience for students in DV courses is further evidenced by their assessment of whether specific student outcomes for DV courses were achieved. Table 1 reports students’ and faculty members’ average scores and standard deviations in response to DV course evaluation questions. Faculty members were generally more positive than were students regarding student attainment of DV course outcome goals.

TABLE 1: Average Responses (and standard deviations) by Faculty and Students to DV CoursesQuestions.

QUESTION / STUDENTS / FACULTY
Acquire Knowledge / 5.85 (1.29) / 5.88 (1.13)
Really Think About / 5.86 (1.29) / 5.62(1.67)
Develop Empathy / 5.74 (1.40) / 5.86 (.69)
Motivating You To Question / 5.43 (1.58) / 5.63 (.38)
Creating A Classroom / 5.50 (1.58) / 5.86 (.38)

2.2 Student Responses

As shown in Table 1, students were also very positive about their DV course experiencebut there was more variability in their responses than in the faculty members’responses. A factor analysis (with varimax rotation) revealed that responses to the five questions tapped a single factor which accounted for 72% of the variance in responses. To test whether some of the student variability reflected the systematic influence of particular variables, a stepwise multiple regression analysis was run to assess whether Age, Sex, Ethnicity (majority vs. minority), and College of DV Course predicted student DV evaluation factor score. The multiple regression revealed the impact of Age such that older students were had more positive scores (Standardized Beta = .147, t= 2.91, p.004). The next best predictor was Ethnicity which was not significant but revealed a trend (Standardized Beta = .076, t = 1.51, p= .13), suggesting that minority students were more positive than majority students about their DV experience. A series of follow-up analyses revealed that for each of the 5 DV course evaluation questions, minority students were more positive than majority students, a result that is difficult to attribute to chance alone, Sign test = .063. Also, there was an effect of Ethnicity which approached significance for the “Motivating You To Question” question (i.e., how effective was this course in MOTIVATING YOU TO QUESTION your beliefs, attitudes, feelings, or behavior towards others?), F(1,403) = 3.40, p = .066.

These results suggest that despite the general positive evaluation of DV courses, there are factors associated with students experiencing more or less positive outcomes. Older and (perhaps) minority students rate themselves as having more positive outcomesin their DV courses than do younger and majority students.

Overall Discussion

These data shed some light on minority students experiences at WSU. Notably, majority and minority students perceive many elements of their WSU experience differently. There is a trend to suggest that minority students are more positive about their WSU diversity courses and solid evidence that are not becoming as satisfied with other elements of their WSU experience compared to majority students. AADAT members agreed to initiate more qualitative interviews with minority students in the 2005-2006 academic year to further explore minority students’ reactions to and comments about these data and solicit their beliefs and opinions about being a minority on campus.