Pedagogical Practices That Contribute to Social ...

3 downloads 0 Views 625KB Size Report
Aug 12, 2015 - Expert Report of Patricia Gurin in Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. and Grutter et al. v. Bollinger et al. In The compelling need for diversity in.
3HGDJRJLFDO3UDFWLFHV7KDW&RQWULEXWHWR6RFLDO-XVWLFH 2XWFRPHV 0DWWKHZ-0D\KHZ6RQLD'HOXFD)HUQ£QGH] The Review of Higher Education, Volume 31, Number 1, Fall 2007, pp. 55-80 (Article) 3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV DOI: 10.1353/rhe.2007.0055

For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhe/summary/v031/31.1mayhew.html

Access provided by New York University (12 Aug 2015 20:29 GMT)

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes

55

The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007, Volume 31, No. 1, pp. 55–80 Copyright © 2007 Association for the Study of Higher Education All Rights Reserved (ISSN 0162-5748)

Pedagogical Practices That Contribute to Social Justice Outcomes Matthew J. Mayhew and Sonia DeLuca Fernández Institutions should foster intellectual honesty, responsibility for society’s moral health and for social justice, active participation as a citizen of a diverse democracy, discernment of the ethical consequences of decisions and action, and a deep understanding of one’s self and respect for the complex identities of others, their histories and their cultures (The Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002, p. xii). Increasingly, institutions are being charged with cultivating students’ commitment to issues related to social justice. Just what constitutes the “citizen committed to issues of social justice” is debatable among scholars and educators. How are social justice outcomes positioned within higher education research and literature? Do they serve as operational proxies for diversity-related outcomes or for outcomes related to citizenship, leadership, or civic engagement? Once a social justice outcome is identified, how do we understand those pedagogical practices that contribute to its development? In this exploratory study, we investigate these questions by examining the pedagogical practices of five courses that influence social justice learning. It MATTHEW J. MAYHEW is Assistant Professor of Higher Education in the Department of Adminiistration, Leadership, and Technology at New York University. SONIA DELUCA FERNÁNDEZ is a doctoral candidate in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Center for Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College for funding this study and to Dr. Deborah Faye Carter for reviewing an early draft. Address queries to Matthew J. Mayhew, New York University, 239 Greene Street, Suite 300, New York 10003; telephone: (212) 998-5068; fax: (212) 995-4041; email: [email protected].

56

The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007

is our hope that this study will not only contribute to our understanding of social justice as a construct of inquiry in higher education contexts but also that it will empower educators. Based on our findings, we discuss classroom practices that help students learn about prejudice and expressions of discrimination, their power and position in society, and ultimately their role and responsibility for contributing to the betterment of humanity.

Theoretical Foundations In this section we summarize the theories that informed the creation of our framework. Though it is beyond this paper’s scope to explore these theories in any significant depth, we have included the salient components of each for its explanatory power and insights for the investigation of social justice outcomes. Social Cognitive Theory Bandura (1986) advanced a social cognitive theory of behavioral change and maintained that the development of self-efficacy or self-confidence in interpersonal interactions promotes increased levels of (behavioral) change. This social learning theory provides insight into effective methods for developing social justice competencies. Increased self-confidence can be facilitated by providing balanced amounts of challenge and support (Sanford, 1966) and ample opportunities for the practice and rehearsal of skills. Additionally, Bandura suggested that people anticipate actions and their consequences based on past experience and knowledge (Bhawuk, 1998). Therefore, improving knowledge and practicing the application of new knowledge can improve self-efficacy which can then result in improved behavioral choices and actions. The application of social cognitive theory to developing pedagogical practices suggests an increased use of strategies that facilitate peer interaction and role playing, for example, along with ample feedback mechanisms. The application of these strategies requires a facilitated instruction method and considerable teacher-student interaction. For example, Black and Mendenhall (1990) applied Bandura’s social cognitive theory in mapping cross-cultural training, classifying the rigor of a program and its capacity to change behavior and implement new skills. Rigor can be categorized by the extent to which cognitive involvement is maximized (e.g., through interactive exercises and role playing) and the extent to which symbolic modeling or observation (e.g., through lectures and films) is minimized. The more cognitively rigorous a particular exercise, “the more effectively [students] will be able to reproduce any learned behaviors because . . . rigor increases . . . [the] level of attention and retention” (Gannon & Poon, 1997, p. 432). Black and Mendenhall applied this emphasis on practice and rehearsal to the development of cognitive skills and concluded

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes

57

that behavioral change requires interactive learning environments. Traditional didactic classroom trainings that involve lectures, class presentations, and research projects are thought to be less rigorous and therefore less likely to facilitate behavioral change in individuals. These didactic methods have been proven effective for the transfer of knowledge and development of awareness, but they may be insufficient for the development of affective and behavioral goals (Bhawuk, 1990; Young, 1993). In applying Bandura’s work (1986) to the development of social justice outcomes, Combs (2002) concluded that operationalizing the self-efficacy principle required encouraging reflection in the application of new knowledge. Specifically, Combs (2002) emphasized developing self-direction because “an individual’s judgment of ability to perform a certain task can positively affect motivation and behavior with respect to diversity” (p. 2). Therefore we can conclude that cultivating new knowledge and awareness by traditional pedagogical means is necessary but insufficient to effect behavioral change for social justice outcomes because it offers few opportunities to apply new knowledge. To facilitate attitude and behavioral change for social justice outcomes, courses should incorporate pedagogical practices intended to develop individual’s self-efficacy by the application of new knowledge and awareness. Culture Theories and Social Justice Outcomes Bhawuk (1998) supports our contention that a research agenda regarding social justice outcomes should investigate the effectiveness of particular pedagogical practices for cultivating particular outcomes such as cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Cross-cultural and intercultural training programs designed specifically for sojourners in international contexts have seemingly moved beyond a preoccupation with asking “Can educational interventions affect cultural knowledge and awareness?” to “How should educational interventions be delivered to affect cultural knowledge and awareness?” Bhawuk (1998) concluded that the relevant questions in the field were no longer those of program or training effectiveness (these outcomes have already been established and supported) but rather those of the effectiveness of particular training methods. A culture theory promoted by Bhawuk and Triandis (1996) was instructive for our organization of pedagogical practices for social justice outcomes. According to Bhawuk (1998), culture theory “postulated that experts are different from novices in that they use theory to organize knowledge as well as to retrieve information to solve problems” (p. 633). Therefore, developing expertise requires opportunities for the application and integration of theory with practice. For example, Anderson (1990) used the work of Fitts and Posner (1967) to further explain a three-stage theory of expertise development. In the

58

The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007

first stage, knowledge is acquired (e.g., procedures, jargon/labels, concepts) and as such has been labeled a cognitive stage. In the second, or associative, stage, knowledge is applied with less rehearsal or deliberation than in the cognitive phase. A more instinctive interplay of knowledge and behavior is being developed. During the third, or autonomous, stage, knowledge and behaviors are integrated. For the development of social justice outcomes, then, students should first acquire necessary knowledge (e.g., develop cultural awareness) and have ample opportunity to practice and apply this new knowledge in contexts supportive of desired behavioral outcomes. Social Relations Staub (1990) foregrounded a theory of moral exclusion as a cognitive, affective, and behavioral phenomenon, proposing that individuals categorize people and groups to exclude them from the “realm of acceptable norms and/or values,” make them appear “expendable or undeserving” with the result that “harming them appears acceptable, appropriate, or just” (Van Soest, 1994, p. 24). This theory built on Bandura’s (1986) work, which considered why “otherwise considerate people [engage] in self-serving behavior or inaction in everyday situations in order to gain benefits to themselves even at injurious costs to others” (p. 24). The work of both Staub and Bandura is instructive as we consider structuring educational opportunities for promoting social justice outcomes and responding to students’ resistance strategies. Resistance to social justice content knowledge (e.g., cultural awareness, power dynamics) can be understood and then offset by considering Staub’s theory of moral exclusion. For example, if White students are able to assimilate the similarities between Whites and African Americans, they will be less likely to categorize African Americans as an inferior and undeserving group. Therefore, to counteract the extent to which students exclude particular groups of people from thoughtful consideration and to facilitate attitude and behavior change, students should be provided with opportunities for self-reflection to explore and interrogate assumptions and bias. Pedagogical practices that focus on sensitivity and/or consciousness raising are examples of how this theory has influenced teaching methods in the pursuit of social justice outcomes. This attention to “personal work” is common to counseling- and therapy-influenced education models. Counseling courses and training often use formats in which participants have opportunities to reflect on their personal orientations, behaviors, and attitudes, for example, regarding race and racism. As suggested by Mueller and Pope (2003), the focus on personal exploration gives students an opportunity to explore their own attitudes—an opportunity that may not be available when simply discussing course content material. Especially for Whites, exploring these more personal and individual-identified issues (e.g., identity and identity development) is

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes

59

a crucial component of developing some social justice outcomes (e.g., antiracist attitudes and behaviors) (Mueller & Pope, 2001; Sabnani, Ponterotto, & Borodovsky, 1991). Baxter Magolda (2003) concluded similarly, “Complex appreciation of [social justice and] diversity is not possible without attention to the development of an internal sense of self ” (p. 234). Structuring Learning Environments Allport (1954) forwarded a theory of interpersonal contact, or contact theory, that has supported student development and change in college owing to interactions across difference. He suggested that significant cognitive and affective change can be evidenced as a result of interpersonal contact with diverse peers when four facilitating conditions have been satisfied. These conditions for positive gains include: (a) The individuals are of equal status, (b) They work cooperatively; (c) They pursue a common goal, and (d) Higher authority endorses the (cross-cultural, for example) interaction (Allport, 1954). Antonio (2001) posits that contact theory has been used with some regularity in assessing informal interactional diversity among college students owing to the assumption that the four aforementioned conditions are satisfied as a result of students’ being members of the same college or university.1 Additionally, other researchers (e.g., Hurtado, 2001) cite the work of Piaget (1975) for support of the educational benefits of interactions with diverse peers. (We say more about cross-race interactions below.) Piaget (1975) maintains that individual social and cognitive development is a function of disequilibrium and the extent to which an individual can reconcile one’s own perspectives with those of another. In scaffolding the acquisition of new (self) knowledge, courses rely on the extent to which disequilibrium can be balanced with support (Sanford, 1966). Furthermore, these interactions across differences among members who are variously advantaged or disadvantaged (e.g., race) can be useful for developing specific social justice outcomes—for example, awareness in dominant group members—and can therefore reduce conflict (Cook, 1990). Interactionist theories have also been advanced by Pettigrew (1985, 1998) and Globetti, Globetti, Brown, and Smith (1993) for their particular application in examining race-related personal development (e.g., tolerance). Pettigrew (1998) suggested four processes that operate through contact to mediate change: learning about the outgroup, changing behavior, generating affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal (p. 88). Each of the aforementioned theories maintains that “development occurs as a result of an on-going exchange between the self and multiple collectives” (Taylor, 1998, p. 282) 1 Interactional diversity can capture the quality and quantity with which students interact across race.

60

The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007

and that an interrelational view of understanding the complexities of race is necessary in conceptualizing the development of tolerance. Intergroup contact theories can be helpful in structuring pedagogical practices toward the goal of social justice outcomes. These theories suggest that personal development can be facilitated by increased and interactive contact with diverse others. Structural Diversity Extending the work of Allport (1954), researchers have explored the extent to which interpersonal interactions contribute to learning outcomes. In particular, the educational benefits of a racially diverse academic community have been well documented by Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) and others (e.g., Gurin, 1999; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004). Although structural diversity (i.e., the racial composition of a student community) is necessary for realizing certain outcomes, it is insufficient in and of itself. Specifically, these scholars have emphasized the importance of interactions with diverse peers (Maruyama, Moreno, Gudeman, & Marin, 2000)—and, quite obviously, interactions across race are not possible without a diverse studentbody. Additionally, faculty play a critical role in facilitating interactions in the classroom. In both curricular and extracurricular contexts, institutions of higher education must construct opportunities to “bring diverse students together in meaningful, civil discourse to learn from each other” (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004, p. 32). Social Justice Education and Multiculturalism Multiculturalism as an approach to educational endeavors (e.g., teaching, learning) has influenced pedagogical practices in colleges and universities (Warring, Keim, & Rau, 1998). This approach “is based on democratic values and beliefs, and seeks to foster cultural pluralism within culturally diverse societies and an interdependent world” (Bennett, 1995, p. 5). It is this pluralistic, justice orientation that has shaped the decidedly normative approach of some social justice education models. For example, regarding the preparation of graduate students, Wallace (2000) emphasized the need for a comprehensive multiculturalism and educational program to address the “systematic conditioning of cognitions, or systematic learning of thoughts that may produce certain attitudes and lead to particular forms of behavior, including discrimination and hate crimes” (p. 1100). In the field of counseling psychology, Sue, Bernier, and colleagues (1982) were instrumental in defining three dimensions of multicultural competency: beliefs/attitudes/awareness, knowledge, and skills. Investigation and assessments of these dimensions appear in some of the most influential evaluations in counseling psychology and social work (e.g., D’Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991; Ponterotto, Reiger, Barrett, & Sparks, 1994; Sue, Ar-

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes

61

redondo, & McDavis, 1992). This model addresses the role and situation of the individual in the pursuit of social change. For example, increases in knowledge coupled with individuals’ personal exploration of their identities contribute to changes in attitude, and these changes presumably translate into culturally appropriate behaviors (Van Soest, 1994). Emphasizing a linear progression, several researchers concluded that increases in cultural knowledge and awareness are precursors and prerequisites for attitude change (e.g., prejudice reduction), behavioral change (e.g., increased interactional diversity, improved cross-cultural communication), and the development of new skills (e.g., critical thinking) (e.g., Adams & Marchesani, 1992; Chang, 2001). Examining multicultural competence in higher education often takes the form of social justice education (SJE). As an example of a justice-dedicated course, intergroup dialogues assimilate an SJE approach that requires the recognition of inequity on many levels (e.g., individual, institutional, systemic) (Alimo, Kelly, & Clark, 2002; Schoem, 2003; Zúñiga, 2003). This model extends the work of Bell (1997) and others (e.g., Hackman, 2000), in the application of Freire’s (1970/1993) liberatory pedagogy. SJE centers the intersections of theory and practice (i.e., praxis) to intentionally consider process (e.g., teaching) and product (e.g., content, community action) in concert. Several studies examined a student’s experience in a “diversity course” (e.g., Heppner & O’Brien, 1994; McCain-Reid, 1994; Peterson, Cross, Johnson, & Howell, 2000) with little regard for the context. Complicating the study of a single course, Brown (2004) examined the impact of pedagogical practices on developing the social justice outcomes of cultural awareness and sensitivity. She studied two sections of the same multicultural education course using quantitative and qualitative methods. To examine the effect of this teaching method, both sections of the same course employed identical goals/objectives and reading materials, but one section employed an interactive, student-centered pedagogy, and the second utilized a more traditional didactic, instructor-centered pedagogy. Based on the completed pre- and post-tests of the Cultural Diversity Awareness Inventory (Henry, 1995), Brown (2004) concluded that the students in the interactive section exhibited significant gains compared to students in the traditional section. Courses of different disciplines and/or fields have been used to assess the development of social justice outcomes. Kernahan and Wolfgram (2003) compared students in a “diversity” course (the psychology of prejudice and racism) to students in two non-diversity-centered psychology courses (child development and social psychology). And although the results showed that, from pre- to post-testing, students in the diversity course evidenced significant improvement in “attitudes,” the researchers failed to analyze whether

62

The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007

these gains differed significantly from the gains of the students enrolled in the other courses. One reason why evaluating such courses remains difficult is the varied methodologies researchers have used. Several researchers have used endof-course evaluations and students’ self-assessment to measure course effectiveness in realizing social justice outcomes (Heppner & O’Brien, 1994; Peterson et al., 2000). For example, in an examination of an undergraduate education course, Peterson et al. (2000) asked undergraduate students to record their retrospective assessment of the course’s impact on their knowledge, awareness, and behavior. These researchers administered an evaluation at semester’s end and asked students to register on a four-point scale “to what degree did the class change my views on intolerance and multicultural issues” (p. 34). Additionally, these researchers asked the students which particular instructional methods contributed to their attitude and/or awareness change. Based on the survey instrument of discrete and open-ended items, relating to social justice outcomes including prejudice and social inequity, Peterson et al. (2000) suggested using a qualified and confident instructor regarding diversity-related material, building trust in the classroom over time to help in investigating potentially controversial and sensitive topics, and employing a variety of instruction strategies.

Research Questions We position our central research question at the intersection of these aforesaid theories: “How do the pedagogical practices of courses emphasizing social justice content contribute to social justice learning?” The courses investigated for this study approach social justice from a variety of perspectives and to differing degrees. We borrow from Pedersen (1988) and Shor (1992) by conceptualizing that social justice learning is reflected in the development of awareness, knowledge, and skills centering the relationships among agency, society, power, and inequality, with particular attention to race and gender. (See Figure 1.) Influenced by findings reported in the literature, the pedagogical practices we investigated included opportunities for reflection, perspective-taking, the application of knowledge, interactions with diverse peers, collaborative work with peers, and discussions about diversity. We intentionally selected five courses with varying approaches to the delivery of social justice content and with differing pedagogical emphases as the contexts for responding to our central research question.

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes

63

Figure 1. Model for investigating pedagogical practices and social justice learning.

Methodology Course Selection We selected five courses at a large Midwestern university for our study. Selection was based on three criteria: the instructor’s willingness to allow his or her students to participate in the study, the incorporation of social justice content, and the instructor’s pedagogical practices. The five courses analyzed for this study included: Moral Psychology, Moral Philosophy, Intergroup Dialogue, a service-learning course, and Introduction to Sociology. See Table 1 for an overview of the courses selected for this study. (Course syllabi are available from the first author.) We present the following course descriptions to provide insight into the contexts in which the students in the study were exposed to social-justiceinfluenced pedagogies and distinct curricular content. Understanding these contexts is important in unpacking the relationships between curricular content, the educational practices faculty use, and various student outcomes. In our discussion of the study’s findings, we provide some speculation about these relationships. However, we do not intend for descriptions of these contexts to substitute for nor detract from the study’s central purpose: to understand how educational practices affect social justice learning.

64

The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007

Table 1 Courses Included in the study Course Name

Moral Choice Contemporary Moral Problems Intergroup Dialogue Project Community Introduction to Sociology

Department

Residential College Social Science Philosophy Psychology/sociology Sociology Sociology

Course number

Total enrollment

280

23

355 122 389 100

212 242 90 204

Note: Originally, “Introduction to Sociology” was meant to serve as a comparison group for the study, as nothing in the original syllabus indicated the inclusion of social justice content. However, as the course progressed, the instructor decided to include some readings and discussions pertaining to social inequalities, urban poverty, and social reproduction. As such, for the purposes of this study, it is not considered a “comparison group.” Instead, we position it as another type of learning environment with the explicit potential of helping students achieve social justice outcomes.

1. Moral Choice in Context. This course was team-taught by a psychologist-playwright and a sociologist-political scientist. Through course papers, projects, and discussions, students could engage in active learning, guided reflection, and activities that facilitated cognitive disequilibrium while exploring moral dilemmas. Additionally, this course provided students with frequent opportunities to engage in meaningful interactions with each other and with faculty members, both in and outside of the classroom. 2. Contemporary Moral Problems. This philosophy course attracted primarily sophomores and juniors majoring in philosophy or political science. The lecture for this course enrolled more than 200 students and accompanying discussion sections were led by graduate student instructors. The course was designed with an explicit moral content—examining different conceptions of morality and justice, and the presuppositions about human nature, society, and the values that underlie them. 3. Intergroup Dialogue. This course, cross-listed in psychology and sociology, focused on social justice issues related to social identities, oppression, and discrimination. This course was pedagogically distinctive in that students participated in dialogues facilitated by other undergraduate college students trained specifically for this course and role. The sections were constructed with intentional bifurcations by a social identity characteristic or characteristics. For example, one section could be half Asian American women and the other half Asian American men. Students participated in exercises that encouraged active engagement and reflection.

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes

65

4. Project Community. The Center for Community Service and Learning and the Department of Sociology co-created this service-learning experience. Readings and lectures for this course had an explicit social justice focus, addressing such topics as social justice, power, privilege, and inequity in criminal justice systems. Additionally, students were required to participate in a service project throughout the course, spending between three and five hours per week at their service sites (e.g., hospitals, soup kitchens). And, as with Intergroup Dialogue, student facilitators guided class discussions. 5. Introduction to Sociology. This large lecture-structured course was designed to teach students about research methodologies by framing lines of inquiry in the context of scholarship related to sociology. It provided students with a broad introduction to sociology as both a mode of inquiry and field of scholarship. Sample The population for this study consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in one of the five courses described above. Participation in the study was voluntary and involved completing a multi-part survey at the end of one term of study. The response rate for the analytical sample was 55% (n = 423). This sample was 60% female, and 21% identified themselves as students of color. By class year, the distribution of first-year, sophomore, junior, and senior students (by percentage) was 32, 29, 21, and 20, respectively. For a complete description of the sample analyzed for this study, see Table 2.

Survey Tool: The Measure of Classroom Moral Practices We used a measure of pedagogical practices, The Measure of Classroom Moral Practices (MCMP) (Mayhew, 2005) to assess student attitudes toward and perceptions of educational practices most conducive to facilitating the development of moral reasoning and social justice learning in a classroom context. (For more information on the MCMP, contact the first author.) Consistent with our theory and research-derived conceptual framework, we developed four scales for investigating contributions to social justice learning. These scales include: discussions about diversity, collaborative work with other students, opportunities for reflection, and negative interactions with diverse peers. Variables We conducted an exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring and orthogonal rotation methods for the dependent variable and many of the independent variables used for this study (i.e., the four scales designed to measure the practices related to social justice outcomes). When necessary,

70.4 8.0 9.2 3.8 0.0 4.5 4.0

White African American Asian American Hispanic/Latino(a) Native American Biracial No race given

First year Sophomore Junior Senior

Humanities Social sciences Health sciences Natural/engineering Sciences

Race

Year in School

Major 13.3 53.3 0.0 0.0

13.7

40.0 46.7 6.7 6.7

93.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0

13.3 86.7

Moral Choice (n=15)

18.0 43.5 1.9

30.0 29.1 20.8 20.1

40.0 60.0

Gender Male Female

Total (n=423)

17.5

27.9 37.0 0.0

15.6 37.0 26.6 20.8

68.8 7.8 9.7 4.5 0.0 5.2 3.9

55.2 44.8

Moral Problems (n=154)

6.7

14.6 47.2 0.0

15.7 33.7 20.8 30.3

67.4 13.5 13.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.4

38.2 61.8

Intergroup Dialogue (n=89)

Table 2 Student Background Characteristics and Collegiate Experiences By Course Enrollment

11.4

10.0 67.1 0.0

7.1 18.6 38.6 35.7

65.7 8.6 10.0 5.7 0.0 7.1 2.9

28.6 71.4

Project Community (n=70)

17.9

11.6 31.6 8.4

82.2 16.8 1.1 0.0

75.8 4.2 5.3 5.3 0.0 3.2 6.3

29.5 70.5

Intro to Soc. (n= 95)

66 The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007



Business Other No major given

14.7 2.4 5.9

26.7 0.0 6.7

8.4 2.6 6.5

22.5 3.4 5.6

4.3 4.3 2.9

23.2 0.0 7.4

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes 67

68

The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007

we reverse-coded items for ease in interpretation. We included only factors with Eigen values greater than “1” in the final model. We used factor loadings of at least .43 in developing the subsequent summed scales. The internal validity for each of these scales was moderate to high, with Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities ranging from .73 to .89. (See Table 3.) The social justice learning scale included items that reflected our use of the knowledge-awareness-skills model illuminated earlier. For example, the “knowledge” construct was captured by the students’ perceptions of their increased understanding of racial diversity and discrimination; and the “skills” construct was captured by the development of culturally specific critical thinking. Based on the theoretical framework of the study, we wanted to include a series of demographic variables for consideration in our model. These included gender, race, year in school, and major. Initial analyses indicated high correlations between year in school and course enrollment, and major and course enrollment, respectively. For this reason, we excluded year in school and major variables from consideration in the final model. Also, we analyzed “race” in a series of dummy-coded variables, including African American, Hispanic/Latino/a, and Asian American, using White students as the referent; biracial and Native American categories were dropped from the study due to small sample sizes. We originally included students enrolled in the introduction to sociology course as a comparison group since, at the time of recruitment, the syllabus included no discernible social justice content. However, due to unexpected class discussions on theories of systematic oppression toward the course’s end, it no longer served a comparison function. For this reason, we followed standard statistical practices and used students enrolled in the philosophy course as the referent group for this study because it enrolled the greatest number of students. We dummy-coded the enrollment variables with students enrolled in the philosophy course serving as the referent group. Three of the four factors constituting the practice variables (i.e., discussions about diversity, opportunities for reflection, collaborative work with peers) were normally distributed. We dichotomized the factor “negative interaction with diverse peers” through a median split due to a non-normal distribution. The original distribution of this variable was negatively skewed (very few students reported negative interactions with diverse peers), with an overall mean score of 1.32 on a five-point scale. In an effort to correct for this non-normal distribution, we performed a series of transformations, namely square root, log, and exponential: each of these transformations still resulted in non-normal distributions. As a result, we dichotomized this variable, splitting it into two relatively equal groups. The cut point for these two groups was the median score of the distribution, Mdn = 1.1336. This

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes

69

Table 3 Items, Factor Loadings, and Reliabilities For Variables used in Final Model Factor and Survey Items

Factor Loading

DEPENDENT VARIABLE Social justice learninga Learned to think critically about my role in society .76 Learned to think critically about issues related to diversity .75 Became aware of my own power and position in society .75 Gained understanding of people from racial/ethnic groups different than my own .73 Gained understanding of my own forms of prejudice, expressions of discrimination .71 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Collaborative work with peersa Worked cooperatively with other students on course assignments .93 Collaborated with other students on projects and assignments .93 Worked as a team with other students to do course assignments .86 Opportunities for reflection a Was encouraged to reflect on my role in society .75 Made me rethink issues concerning my role in society .73 Assignments encouraged me to reflect on the material and apply it .72 Instructors encouraged me to reflect on materials presented in this course .65 Made me rethink how I treated others in groups different than my own .64 Was forced to rethink my preexisting notions of morality and moral practice .60 Was encouraged to examine issues raised in class from multiple points of view .60 Experienced discomfort that resulted in a new way of looking at my role in society .56 Experienced discomfort that resulted in a new way of looking at society .55 Assignments covered material from multiple perspectives .54 Talked and listened to people with points of view different than my own .53 I prefer assignments where I have to reflect/apply rather than just summarize/report .43 Discussions about diversitya Engaged in discussions about diversity-related issues .83 Was involved in discussions about diversity with differences of opinion or conflict .78

Alpha

.79

.89

.84

.73

70

The Review of Higher Education Fall 2007

Table 3, cont.

Factor and Survey Items

Factor Loading

Discussed issues related to social justices, such as power and oppression .71 Engaged in discussions about social justice issues with classmates outside of class .69 Negative interaction with diverse peersb Had tense, somewhat hostile interactions .79 Had hurtful, unresolved interactions .77 Had guarded, cautious interactions .72 Felt silenced from sharing my own experiences with prejudice and discrimination .71 a b

Alpha

.73

Five-point scale: From 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree Five-point scale: From 1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal

procedure resulted in a new dichotomous variable for negative interaction with diverse peers with 0 = lowest possible score to 1.1336 and 1 = 1.1337 to the greatest possible score. The resulting distribution for this variable was 48.2% (n = 204) of respondents in the first category and 51.8% (n = 219) of respondents in the second category. To make these categories easier to interpret, we refer to respondents with lower scores as students with “fewer negative interactions with diverse peers,” and respondents with higher scores as those with “more negative interactions with diverse peers.”

Analysis We used hierarchical multiple regression analyses to determine the extent to which the four blocks of independent variables (i.e., gender, course enrollment, practices, and interactions of course enrollment and practices) predicted the dependent variable, a factor titled “social justice learning.” After reviewing the regression diagnostics, we determined that the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homogeneity were satisfied. In addition, we tested a series of interaction terms: course enrollment by each practice term. We used a structured, blocking approach to add variables to the model. This procedure yielded a four-construct solution. Table 4 contains a complete description of the standardized regression coefficients for each variable used in the model.

Mayhew & DeLuca Fernández / Social Justice Outcomes

71

Table 4 Standardized Coefficients For Blocked Entry Regression On Social Justice Learning (N = 406) Variable Name

Block 1

DEMOGRAPHICS Gender (male) African American (White) Asian American (White) Hispanic/Latino(a) (White)

.222*** -.003 .053 -.084

COURSE ENROLLMENT Introduction to sociology Intergroup dialogue Service-learning Moral choices in context

Block 2

Block 3

.178*** -.051 .026 -.055

.066* -.027 .010 -.029

.016 .468*** .267*** .064

PRACTICES Discussions about diversity Opportunities for reflection Collaborative work with peers Negative interaction with diverse peers

+p . < 08 *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p