Cultivating Multicultural Competence Through Active Participation: Extracurricular Activities and...

NASPA Journal, 2006, Vol. 44, no. 1

13

David X. Cheng is the assistant dean for research and planning, Columbia Collegeand the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science; and adjunctassociate professor, Department of Organization and Leadership, Teachers College,Columbia University in New York, New York. Chun-Mei Zhao is a research scholarat the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in Stanford,California.

Cultivating Multicultural CompetenceThrough Active Participation: Extracurricular Activities and

Multicultural Learning

David X. ChengChun-Mei Zhao

vThis study examined the relevance of higher educationinstitutions’ existing student activity programming and itseffectiveness in promoting students’ multicultural learn-ing. Employing path analysis, this study explored the levelof undergraduates’ participation in selected college orga-nizations and activities and its linkage to multiculturalcompetence development. Findings show significant posi-tive effect of extracurricular activities on multiculturallearning. This study taps into a timely topic and hasimportant implications for institutions’ day-to-day policyand practice in sustaining a continued commitment tomulticulturalism.

Over the past 2 decades, a growing number of studies have demon-strated that a multicultural environment on campus has positive


impact on various student outcomes (Appel, Cartwright, Smith &Wolf, 1996; Chang, 1999; Hurtado, Engberg, Ponjuan, & Landreman,2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Villalpando, 2002). Examiningresearch evidence from a major national study of undergraduate stu-dents, Astin (1993) identified a clear pattern that emphasizing diver-sity as an institutional policy and providing curricular and extracur-ricular opportunities to address multicultural issues are associatedwith “widespread beneficial effects on a student’s cognitive and affec-tive development” (p. 48). Educating students with multiculturalcompetence and preparing them to participate in a diverse democracyare indispensable components of institutional mission (AACU, 1995;Antonio, Astin, & Cress, 2000). Given the general acceptance of diver-sity and multiculturalism in today’s higher education community,Howard-Hamilton, Richardson, and Shuford (1998) maintain that theissue is no longer “what should be done to prepare for or enhancemulticulturalism—the issue is what has been done thus far and can acontinued commitment to multiculturalism be achieved?” (p. 6).

Responding to the call for identifying and understanding the impactof multiculturalism on campus life, researchers have developed sur-veys and other instrumentation to assess multicultural competence ofteachers (Pettus & Allain, 1999; Ponterotto, Baluch, Greig, & Rivera,1998), counselors (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Hernandez, 1991;Ponterotto, Sanchez, & Magids, 1991; D’Andrea, Daniels, & Heck,1991), and student affairs professionals (Pope & Reynolds, 1997;Pope, Jordan, Stern, & Mueller, 1997; Pope & Mueller, 2000). Forinstance, the multicultural competence concept developed by Popeand Reynolds (1997) consists of three components: awareness, knowl-edge, and skills. Using this approach as the theoretical framework,King and Howard-Hamilton (2003) studied multicultural experiencesand competence levels of student affairs staff and graduate studentspreparing to enter the profession. The idea is that, once we can eval-uate individuals’ multicultural competence levels rather accurately atvarious educational stages, we can find out the value-added effect ofan institution or a program.

While the conceptual dissection of multicultural competence and theeffort to gauge the concept have been valuable, there are gaps to befilled by further studies, especially in the area of undergraduate edu-cation. Most studies have focused on skilled professionals and few, if

14


any, are available to measure multicultural competence of undergrad-uate students (Sheridan, Sheridan, & Anderson, 2002). With respectto the instruments developed to assess multicultural competence, twoproblems exist. First, multicultural instrumentation is still “in itsinfancy with regard to empirical validation” (Ponterotto, Rieger,Barrett, & Sparks, 1994, p. 321), as concluded by the authors afterreviewing four multicultural-focused instruments in counseling.Second, even if institutions want to use professionally developedinstruments to measure student outcomes in the area of multicultur-alism, the instruments tend to be too lengthy and complicated toadminister to a general student population.

Considering the practical difficulties in studying the static competencelevels and the interwoven nature of student learning experiences,researchers have developed a different line of research on diversity andmulticulturalism in recent years. The research in this line focuses on amore contextualized inquiry—i.e., studying the effect of various mul-ticultural activities and experiences on students’ learning and under-standing of diversity, as well as how actively an institution committedto such diversity-related activities. For example, using data from thenational longitudinal survey of first-time freshmen (CooperativeInstitutional Research Program), Villalpando (2002) examined theimpact of student involvement in such activities as campusprotests/demonstrations, racial/cultural awareness workshops, volun-teer activities, and socializing with people of different race/ethnicbackgrounds on their overall college experience. Employing readilyavailable institutional research data, the author captured the dynamicinterplay between undergraduate students’ experience and its multi-cultural outcomes.

A Conceptual FrameworkIn studying student learning, scholars now concur that “out-of-classexperiences influence student learning and personal development”(Astin, 1985, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Kuh, 1995; Tinto,1987). Two simple but powerful theoretical frameworks have beenguiding research in this area. The first is Tinto’s (1987) theory of stu-dent departure, which states that social integration, in parallel withacademic integration, represents an intermediate stage when students

15


become committed to the normative attitudes and values of their peersand feel accepted in the campus community. Ultimately, this satisfyingand rewarding social experience presumably leads to student reten-tion. In its subsequent applications to other student outcomes, Tinto’smodel has successfully explained how integration can attribute to aca-demic achievements, personal growth, and many positive changes(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 53). The second is Astin’s theory ofinvolvement, which offers a more elaborate explanation of the power-ful educational function of student involvement. According to Astin(1985, 1991), students learn by actively seeking involvement in col-lege life. If integration is seen more as an intermediate stage that leadsto some larger purposes in Tinto’s model, Astin’s theory places stu-dents in the center stage where they actively exploit the opportunitiesoffered by an institution, and the amount of growth depends on thequality and quantity of their involvement effort.

Building upon the two theoretical models, Kuh (1995) sought to fur-ther explore which out-of-class activities (for example, volunteerism,student government, on-campus job) are linked with what outcomes(for example, social competence, reflective thought, knowledge appli-cation). Different from the outcomes-oriented assessment models,which overemphasize the capacities or accomplishments of graduates,this conceptual framework sheds light on the practices and processeswithin a college or university (Pascarella, 2001).

This line of thinking provides a conceptual framework for under-standing students’ multicultural competence development. While it isvaluable to sever the concept of multiculturalism into such distinctunits as knowledge, awareness, attitudes, and skills, we should neverlose sight of the fact that multicultural competence is after all one ofmany skills a college experience is designed to offer. Before reallocat-ing resources to create new programs with fancy labels of multicultur-alism, college administrators need to justify their decision throughresearch in at least two areas: first, to assess the campus environmentso as to better understand the extent to which diversity is accepted andopportunities are available for interactions among diverse groups; andsecond, to measure the extent to which existing programs, organiza-tions, and activities contribute to students’ multicultural competence.

16


Purpose of the StudyThis study is to explore the relationship between students’ participa-tion in various organizations and activities and their self-perceivedgains in multicultural competence. The findings will also shed light onhigher education institutions’ existing student activity programmingand its effectiveness in promoting multicultural learning. The institu-tional setting for the study was a private residential college within alarge research university in an urban area. The institution admits tra-ditional-aged, highly motivated, and academically competitive stu-dents. With selective admissions criteria and high graduation rates,the hallmark of student achievement at this type of institutions goesbeyond such common outcome measures as degree completion.

After spending institutional resources on extracurricular activities topromote student organizations, teach leadership and multiculturalskills, and enhance student social life on campus, administrators andresearchers wanted to account for what has happened to the studentsas participants of college organizations and activities and how theyperceive their gains in multicultural competence in the context of theircollege environment. Specifically, three research questions guide thisstudy: (a) To what organizations and activities do students attributetheir gains in multicultural competence?, (b) Does participation in dif-ferent organizations with different levels of involvement lead to differ-entiated perceptions of multicultural environment on campus?, and(c) What is the propensity for students of different characteristics (e.g.,gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, grades, level of class) toparticipate in these activities?

Methodology

Sample

The data in this study were collected through a Web-based survey, andthe questionnaire was sent to all 5,417 undergraduate studentsenrolled in spring 2004. The survey solicited students’ opinions aboutcampus life in several dimensions: from instruction and academicadvising to residential programs and student clubs and activities.

17


Fifty-four percent of the target population, or 2,921 students,responded to the survey. Among the respondents, 51% were femaleand 49% male; 18% were first-year students, 30% sophomore, 20%junior, and 21% seniors; 57.6% were White, 21.4% Asian, 5.3%Hispanic, 4.3% Black, and 4.2% biracial/multiple racial students.Most students lived on campus and entered as first-time freshmen.

An excerpt of the survey instrument appears in Appendix A. Threesets of questions in the survey are of particular interest—degree ofparticipation in a series of campus extracurricular activities, students’perceptions on their campus social environment, and student gains inmultiple aspects as a result of participating in college activities.

The degree of student participation in various extracurricular activi-ties, such as political groups, social action groups, cultural organiza-tion, student government, volunteer and community service groups,and so on, is measured at three levels: if students participated, were anactive member, or played a leadership role. For the respondents whodid not answer the question, we treated the missing values as no par-ticipation. Survey questions on college environment solicited studentopinions on nine statements about the campus’ social environment.Examples of the statements included “my college provides an envi-ronment for free and open expression of ideas, opinions, and beliefs”and “I feel accepted as a member of several college communities,” etc.The survey also sought students’ opinion on the extent to which stu-dents gained from involvement in activities and student groups inmultiple aspects, such as working in a diverse community, problemsolving, conflict resolution, advocacy and coalition building, andmore. In addition, the survey also asked a set of information aboutstudent characteristics, including class level, gender, race/ethnicity,cumulative GPA, family income, and citizenship. The survey questionsand descriptive statistics are presented in Appendixes B, C, and D.

Analytic Strategy

Like many statistical studies, we began our study with an overallhypothesis. Specifically, based on the student involvement and inte-gration framework, we composed a path model that represented thehypothetic relationships among the four groups of variables related tothe research questions. That is, students’ characteristics affect their

18


level of involvement in college activities; the level of participation inthese activities and events, in turn, affects their perception of the col-lege diversity environment. Taken together, the perception of campusenvironment and the level of involvement in these campus activitiesboth have a direct impact on student gains in multicultural compe-tence (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Path Analysis Diagram

A path model is advantageous in that it is not only able to examine thedirect effect of a variable (represented by the immediate starting pointof an arrow in a path diagram) but also the indirect effect (represent-ed by the influence of a variable prior to the immediate starting pointof an arrow in a path diagram). For example, in this study, studentcharacteristics may have a direct effect on students’ multicultural com-petence gains, but they may also have an indirect effect on the multi-cultural competence development through their influence on level ofstudents’ participation in extracurricular activities or through stu-dents’ perceptions of campus diversity environment. The path modelis able to detect which path is statistically significant and which is not,and it therefore informs the strength of direct and indirect effects ofstudied variables.

Embedded in the path model are a few submodels. Each submodel isa multiple regression model. In this study, three of them directly relate

19


to the research questions we explore. To address research question (a),the first submodel, path model A, treats the multicultural competencegain as the dependent variable; and college activities, students’ per-ceptions of campus environment, and student characteristics as theindependent variables. To address research question (b), the secondsubmodel, path model B, specifies student perceptions of campusdiversity environment as the dependent variable and students’ partic-ipation of extracurricular activities and student characteristics as theindependent variables. To address research question (c), the third sub-model, path model C, identifies the level of participation in extracur-ricular activities as the dependent variable and student characteristicsas the sole independent variables.

This study involved a large number of variables. To simplify the dataanalysis without compromising the quality, we resorted to a datareduction technique: the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). PCA isable to extract a major common component from a number of corre-lated variables. It is a convenient tool to develop a scale (or an index)of a common concept that is not easily measured directly from a sin-gle measure. Such a concept is also called a “latent” construct. Themulticultural competence concept in this study is a good example ofa latent construct.

To prepare for the data for path analysis, first, we developed a multi-cultural competence scale. We selected four aspects of skills based ontheir face value; i.e., their conceptual relevancy to multicultural com-petence. The four sets of skills are: “abilities in working in a diversecommunity, problem solving, conflict resolution, and advocacy andcoalition building.” These four dimensions of gains are significantlycorrelated, and the correlation coefficients among the four items rangefrom .414 to .549. As illustrated in Table 1, a principle componentanalysis (with Varimax rotation) was followed based on the four itemsand one single component was derived. We created the multiculturalcompetence gain index by calculating a weighted summated scale;that is, we weighted the scores of each of the four gains based on theirfactor loadings, or their relative importance in contributing to themulticultural competence concept, and summed up all the weightedscores. The internal consistency of the scale (Cronbach’s alpha) is .781.

20


Table 1 Principle Component Analysis on Multicultural Competence Gain

Next, we examined the eight survey questions on student perceptionson the campus social environment. As the eight variables are still cum-bersome to analyze and interpret, we again employed the principlecomponent analysis to reduce the complexity. Two major componentswere extracted: (a) the social environment that is diversity friendly;and (b) the social environment that provides ample opportunities tofoster intercultural communication. The environment variables andtheir factor loadings on each component are presented in Table 2.Again we created two weighted summated scores for the two studentperception scales. The internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) of thetwo environment scales are .81 and .73 respectively.

In the next step, we conducted a scan of the bi-variate relationshipsamong the three blocks of variables that are of particular interest—col-lege activities, student perceptions of campus social environment, andthe multicultural competence scale. This step gave us more detailedand in-depth understanding in terms of which particular college activ-ities have stronger connections with students’ perceptions on campusenvironments and multicultural competence gains.

The correlation coefficients are listed in Table 3. From this table, wecan see several activities and student groups are particularly associat-ed with gains in multicultural competence — cultural organization (r= .14), political group (r = .13), social action group (r = .16), studentgovernment (r = .18), social organizations (r = .13), and

21


volunteer/community service group (r = .18). Student perceptions ofcampus environment, especially with respect to students’ favorableview of the campus diversity atmosphere, are correlated rather strong-ly with multicultural competence gains (r = .40). All of the correlationcoefficients are significant at the .01 level.

Based on the strength of correlations between various extracurricularactivities and the multicultural competence gain, we focused furtheron six college activities with relatively strong associations. The sixactivities are participation in political groups, social action groups,cultural organizations, student government, social organizations, andvolunteer/community service activities.

At this point, we had largely finished the data preparation by simpli-fying, selecting, and organizing variables (i.e., survey questions) in amore concise and efficient way. We were ready to run the path model.

22

Table 2 Principle Component Analysis on Student Perceptions

of Campus Social Environment Variables


FindingsThe path analysis showed the direct and indirect effects of studentcharacteristics, their participation in selected college activities, andtheir perception of campus social environment on student gains in

23

Table 3 Correlation Coefficients Between Students’ College Activities, Perceptions of

Campus Social Environment, and their Multicultural Competence Gains


multicultural competence. Figure 2 illustrates the path coefficients,and only statistically significant paths (p < .01) are included in thepath diagram. A path coefficient is a standardized regression coeffi-cient (beta) representing the direct effect of an independent variableon a dependent variable in the path model. In the following discus-sion, we used “b” to represent the values of path coefficients.

Addressing research question (a), the results of the path model Ashowed that actively participating in various college activities isstrongly linked to students’ gains in multicultural competence—inthis study, active membership in student government (b = .118), cul-tural organizations (b = .119), social action (b = .115), and volun-teer/community service groups (b = .114) has a significantly positiveeffect on students’ multicultural gains. We did not find a significanteffect of two extracurricular activities—student political groups andsocial organizations.

We found mixed connections between students’ participation in thesecollege activities and their perceptions of college environment.Involvement in social action groups, cultural organizations, and socialorganizations does not have a significant influence on students’ per-ception of their campus social environment. On the other hand, par-ticipation in student government (b = .067) or volunteer and commu-nity service groups (b = .055) contributes moderately to students’ affir-mative opinion that their campus social environment is open anddiversity friendly. Getting involved in student government (b = .086)also positively associates with the perception that a campus providesprograms and opportunities to foster intercultural communication. Incontrast, students involved in political groups (b = -.113) perceivetheir campus not offering enough opportunities to bridge intercultur-al communications.

Student characteristics in general do not have a significant direct effecton multicultural competence gain, one exception being lower classlevel (first-year and sophomore) students (b = -.146), who are lesslikely to report gains in multicultural competence than their upperlevel counterparts. As shown in Table 4, student characteristics do nothave a statistically significant indirect effect on their multiculturalcompetence gains.

24


25

Figu

re 2

Pa

th C

oeff

icie

nts


Table 4 Direct and Indirect Effects of Selected College Activities and Student

Characteristics on Multicultural Competence Gain

26


Path model B answers research question (b). How students perceivetheir campus diversity environment is closely related to their gains inmulticultural competence. When students perceive their campus to beopen, nurturing, and friendly to students from very different back-grounds, they are more likely to experience and report gains withrespect to their multicultural competence. Some student characteris-tics have significant effect on perceptions of the campus. For example,Black (b = -.097) and Asian (b = -.079) students tend to hold less pos-itive views on their campus environment in terms of its friendliness tostudents from diverse backgrounds; in contrast, students from wealth-ier families (b = .078) tend to favorably perceive the campus environ-ment to be diversity friendly. In addition, first-year and sophomorestudents (b = .095) tend to report that the campus provided moreopportunities for fostering intercultural communication than juniorand senior students, while African American (b = -.165), female (b = -.052), and biracial students (b = -.054) feel that the campus is lackingopportunities for such activities.

Path Model C examines research question (c). Participating in variouscollege activities is a very important step for students to understanddiversity, develop essential competence needed in an increasingly het-erogeneous society, and become well-rounded future citizens.Students of different characteristics may vary in their propensity toparticipate in different types of college activities. This study revealsthat minority students, especially Asian (b = .343) and Black students(b = .210) are more likely than their White counterparts to participatein cultural organizations; students who are U.S. citizens (b = -.069) areless likely to participate in cultural organizations than noncitizen stu-dents. Students with higher GPA (b = .082), female (b = .070), andBlack students (b = .082) are more likely to be actively involved insocial action groups. Students with higher GPA (b = .054), female (b =.134), Asian (b = .069), and U.S. citizens (b = .071) are more likely toparticipate in volunteer and community service groups than theirrespective counterparts. Asian students (b = .063) and students fromwealthy family backgrounds (b = .052) are more inclined to getinvolved in student government.

27


DiscussionAlthough today’s higher education community has been receptive tothe ideas of diversity and multiculturalism, and institutional resourceshave been allocated to enhance campus social environment and stu-dent multicultural learning, “the process of achieving this goal is typ-ically perplexing” (Howard-Hamilton, Richardson, & Shuford, 1998,p. 9). This study, therefore, represents an exploratory effort to seekempirical evidence of students’ participation in various organizationsand activities and its association with their self-perceived gains in mul-ticultural competence. Four tentative conclusions are offered toexplain this association.

First, student involvement in various activities and organizations hasthe potential to contribute to their multicultural learning, and thedegree of their participation matters. Among different types of activi-ties, participating in cultural organizations, social action groups, stu-dent government, and volunteer/community service groups seems tohave led directly to student gains in multicultural competence.Moreover, the significant connections between participation in theseactivities and gains in multicultural competence emphasize the neces-sary commitment of students to these organizations: active involve-ment in student organizations and activities can maximize students’learning in multicultural competence.

Second, students’ perception of campus environment being diversityfriendly is most positively associated with their self-perceived gains inmulticultural competence. Their satisfaction with the opportunities tointeract with people of other racial/ethnic backgrounds also con-tributes to the level of self-perceived gains. Framed in the Tinto-Astin-Kuh conceptual model, these findings have provided strong testimo-ny to the principle that students learn through active involvement inactivities so as to become socially integrated.

Third, the weak, in some cases negative (e.g., political and culturalgroups), relationship between student participation in activities andtheir perceptions of campus social environment points to the possibil-ity that student group leaders and activists become more critical ofinstitutional social environment than their peers. Given their extensiveknowledge of and exposure to issues and problems on campus, stu-

28


dent leaders may also be motivated to actively involved in studentorganizations to change and improve the campus environment.

Fourth, the differential perceptions on campus social environmentand gains in multicultural learning associated with different charac-teristics of students highlight the challenges facing the higher educa-tion community aiming at achieving the noble goals of diversity andmulticulturalism on campus. For instance, since the study showed thepositive connection between perceptions on campus environment andgains in multicultural competence, the African American group’s lesspositive perceptions on the environment should raise concerns aboutthe outcomes of their multicultural learning. Also, while it is hearten-ing to see a strong female presence in volunteer and community ser-vice activities, educators should have every reason to be concernedwith the whereabouts of their male counterparts.

The major limitation of this study lies in its lack of control over stu-dents’ precollege disposition on participating in activities. Althoughwe controlled for an extensive set of student characteristics variablesand socioeconomic status, we do not have the information on studentpersonality types and their precollege experience regarding theirinvolvement in various activities. In addition, students at differentstages of college career might differ in terms of their perceptions, par-ticipation, multicultural attitudes, and behaviors. It would be valuableto replicate the path model at the different time points to furtherunderstand the connection between the college activities and multi-cultural learning. Another major area of limitation is that the multi-cultural learning gains are all based on students’ self-reporting, whichcan be subjective and capricious at times and subject to the influencesof undeterminable factors. Finally, this is a single institution study.Given the institutionally unique characteristics of private, residential,selective, and of the traditional-age student body, cautions need to beassumed to generalize the results to other institution settings.

ImplicationsWhile important strides have been made to develop inventories tomeasure multicultural competence, successful application of theseresearch designs to the undergraduate population is rare. Two possible

29


reasons contribute to the lack of empirical studies in this area: first,most extant inventories are designed to measure multicultural compe-tence of certain professionals rather than undergraduate students (seePonterotto, Rieger, Barrett, & Sparks, 1994); and second, the adapta-tion of these inventories is difficult due to both the length of theinstruments and their lack of institution-specific variables. To over-come these difficulties, we used institutional research data with itemsclearly identified as the core skills that students need to learn to com-petently participate in a diverse society. The institutional survey alsoallowed access to the status of student participation in college activi-ties and their perceptions of campus environment. Unlike most previ-ous studies that adopted binary yes/no questions or frequencies ofengagement in extracurricular activities as the proxy for the level ofinvolvement, this study examined various degrees of student involve-ment in certain college activities and how different levels of involve-ment linked to student satisfaction with institutional social environ-ment and gains related to multicultural competence.

The use of institutional data is not just methodological; it has greatpractical implications. Given the “dramatic evidence of the impact ofthe demographic landscape on university and college programmingfrom student activities to residential learning communities” (Howard-Hamilton, Richardson, & Shuford, 1998, p. 6), student affairs admin-istrators need to find a way to assess the relevance of their existing stu-dent activity programming and its effectiveness in promoting multi-cultural learning. The research design of this study demonstrates thefeasibility of this approach, and the findings provide guidance andsupport for the infusion of multicultural programs and other existingstudent groups and activities on campus.

Responding to the call for linking institutional practices and process-es to important cognitive and noncognitive outcomes (Pascarella,2001), the current study contributes to our understanding of multi-cultural competence from the action process of what students actual-ly do to learn. This study supports much of the previous research onthe educational value of college activities—for example, participatingin college activities hones students’ social and leadership skills,including multicultural competence, thus getting students involved inthe activities becomes an essential step. For groups of students who

30


are less prone to such involvement, institutions should craft programsto target those groups.

College social environment is a fertile ground that fosters studentdevelopment in many dimensions, including their skills in dealingwith people from diverse backgrounds. Therefore, to promote studentlearning and development in multicultural competence, educatorsneed to ensure a supportive, diversity-friendly environment that cre-ates opportunities to bring together students from different back-grounds. One lesson learned through this study is that, though par-ticipating in activities and having positive views on campus socialenvironment are both associated with multicultural learning, partici-pation does not necessarily lead to positive views on environment, andvice versa. This finding should serve as a reminder to the researchersand administrators who assume a necessary connection between thetwo. In other words, while advising student groups and providingfinancial support to their events, administrators should be realisticenough to know that certain activities do not directly lead to a bettermulticultural environment on campus. In addition, given that stu-dents of different characteristics vary in terms of their propensity toparticipate in certain college activities, educators should make con-scious efforts to encourage students to get involved in a wide range ofgroups and activities through policies and practices.

31


32

Appendix ARelevant Items in the Survey Instrument


33

Appendix A (continued)


34

Appendix BDescriptive Statistics of Student Level of Involvement

in Extracurricular Activities


35

Appendix CDescriptive Statistics of Student Self-Reported Gains

and Perception of Campus Social Environment


36

Appendix DStudent Background Characteristics


ReferencesAACU. (1995). American pluralism and the college curriculum: Higher

education in a diverse democracy. Washington, DC: Author.Antonio, A. L., Astin, H. S., & Cress, C. M. (2000). Community ser-

vice in higher education: A look at the nation’s faculty. Review ofHigher Education, 23 (4), 373–398.

Appel, M., Cartwright, D., Smith, D., & Wolf, L. (1996). The impact ofdiversity on students: A preliminary review of the research literature.Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges andUniversities.

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and prac-tice of assessment and evaluation in higher education.Washington/New York: American Council on Education/Macmillan Publishing Co.

Astin, A. W. (1993). Diversity and multiculturalism on the campus:How are students affected? Change, 25 (2), 44–49.

Chang, M. J. (1999). Does racial diversity matter? The educationalimpact of a racially diverse undergraduate population. Journal ofCollege Student Development, 40 (4), 377–395.

D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impactof multicultural counseling training. Journal of Counseling &Development, 70, 143–150.

Howard-Hamilton, M. F., Richardson, B. J., & Shuford, B. (1998).Promoting multicultural education: A holistic approach. CollegeStudent Affairs Journal, 18 (1), 5–17.

Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L., & Landreman, L. (2002).Students’ precollege preparation for participation in a diversedemocracy. Research in Higher Education, 43 (2), 163–186.

King, P. M., & Howard-Hamilton, M. (2003). An assessment of multi-cultural competence. NASPA Journal, 40 (2), 119–133.

Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiencesassociated with student learning and personal development.Journal of Higher Education, 6, 123–155.

LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. L., & Hernandez, A. (1991).Development and factor structure off the cross-cultural counselinginventory—revised. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,22, 380–388.

37


Pascarella, E. T. (2001, May/June). Identifying excellence in under-graduate education: Are we even close? Change, 19–23.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students:Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Pettus, A. M., & Allain, V. A. (1999). Using a questionnaire to assessprospective teachers’ attitudes toward multicultural educationissues. Education, 119 (2), 651–657.

Ponterotto, J. G., Baluch, S., Greig, T., & Rivera, L. (1998).Development and initial score validation of the teacher multicul-tural attitude survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(6), 1002–1017.

Ponterotto, J. G., Rieger, B. P., Barrett, A., & Sparks, R. (1994).Assessing multicultural counseling competence: A review ofinstrumentation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72 (3),316–322.

Ponterotto, J. G., Sanchez, C. M., & Magids, D. M. (1991). Initialdevelopment and validation of the Multicultural Counseling AwarenessScale (MCAS). Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Pope, R. L., Jordan, R. L., Stern, D. W., & Mueller, J. A. (1997). Studentaffairs social attitudes survey. Unpublished instrument, availablefrom the senior author, Raechele Pope, Columbia University.

Pope, R. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2000). Development and initial valida-tion of the multicutural competence in student affairs—prelimi-nary 2 scales. Journal of College Student Development, 41 (6),599–607.

Pope, R. L., & Reynolds, A. L. (1997). Student affairs core competen-cies: Integrating multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills.Journal of College Student Development, 38 (3), 266–277.

Sheridan, D. A., Sheridan, P. M., & Anderson, H. (2002). Multiculturalcompetence: Challenging undergraduates to consider diverse voices. Aworkshop presented at the American College PersonnelAssociation National Convention, Long Beach, CA.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Villalpano, O. (2002). The impact of diversity and multiculturalism

on all students: Findings from a national study. NASPA Journal, 40(1), 124–144.

38

Cultivating Multicultural Competence Through Active Participation: Extracurricular Activities and...

Documents

Transcript of Cultivating Multicultural Competence Through Active Participation: Extracurricular Activities and...