P d l Pr t Th t ntr b t t l J tttth J. h , n D l F rn nd z
The Review of Higher Education, Volume 31, Number 1, Fall 2007,pp. 55-80 (Article)
P bl h d b J hn H p n n v r t PrDOI: 10.1353/rhe.2007.0055
For additional information about this article
Access provided by New York University (12 Aug 2015 20:29 GMT)
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/rhe/summary/v031/31.1mayhew.html
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 OutcomesMatthew 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 di-verse 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 develop-ment?
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 Postsecond-ary Education at the University of Michigan. The authors gratefully acknowledge the sup-port 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 dis-crimination, 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 facili-tated 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 ex-tent 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” (Gan-non & 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. Tradi-tional 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 knowl-edge. 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 behav-ioral 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 regard-ing 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 out-comes 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, develop-ing 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 cul-tural 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 con-sidered 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 struc-turing 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 un-derstood 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 ther-apy-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., anti-racist 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 ow-ing 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 develop-ment 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)
1Interactional 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 ex-tent 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 obvi-ously, 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 compe-tency: 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 con-cluded 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 com-munication), 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-dedi-cated 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, John-son, & 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 interac-tive, 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 signifi-cant 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 end-of-course evaluations and students’ self-assessment to measure course ef-fectiveness 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 knowl-edge, 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 par-ticular 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 emphasiz-ing social justice content contribute to social justice learning?” The courses investigated for this study approach social justice from a variety of perspec-tives 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
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, In-tergroup 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-justice-influenced 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.
Figure 1. Model for investigating pedagogical practices and social justice learning.
64 The Review of higheR educaTion FaLL 2007
1. Moral Choice in Context. This course was team-taught by a psy-chologist-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 instruc-tors. 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, oppres-sion, and discrimination. This course was pedagogically distinctive in that students participated in dialogues facilitated by other undergraduate col-lege 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.
Moral Choice Residential College 280 23 Social ScienceContemporary Moral Problems Philosophy 355 212Intergroup Dialogue Psychology/sociology 122 242Project Community Sociology 389 90Introduction to Sociology Sociology 100 204
Table 1
courses included in The sTudy
Course Name Department Course Total number enrollment
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.
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-learn-ing 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 en-rolled 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,
66 The Review of higheR educaTion FaLL 2007
Gen
der
M
ale
40.0
13.3
55.2
38.2
28.6
29.5
Fe
mal
e
60
.0
86
.7
44
.8
61
.8
71
.4
70
.5
Rac
e W
hit
e
70
.4
93
.3
68
.8
67
.4
65
.7
75
.8
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an
8
.0
0
.0
7
.8
13
.5
8
.6
4
.2
Asi
an A
mer
ican
9.2
0.0
9.7
13.5
10.0
5.3
H
ispa
nic
/Lat
ino(
a)
3.8
0.0
4.5
0.0
5.7
5.3
N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
B
irac
ial
4.5
6.7
5.2
2.2
7.1
3.2
N
o ra
ce g
iven
4.0
0.0
3.9
3.4
2.9
6.3
Year
in
Firs
t ye
ar
30
.0
40
.0
15
.6
15
.7
7
.1
82
.2Sc
hoo
l So
phom
ore
29
.1
46
.7
37
.0
33
.7
18
.6
16
.8
Jun
ior
20.8
6.7
26.6
20.8
38.6
1.1
Se
nio
r
20
.1
6
.7
20
.8
30
.3
35
.7
0
.0
Maj
or
Hu
man
itie
s
18.0
13.3
27.9
14.6
10.0
11.6
So
cial
sci
ence
s
43.5
53.3
37.0
47.2
67.1
31.6
H
ealt
h s
cien
ces
1
.9
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
8
.4
Nat
ura
l/en
gin
eeri
ng
Sc
ien
ces
13.7
0.0
17.5
6.7
11.4
17.9
Ta
bl
e 2
sTu
de
nT
ba
ck
gr
ou
nd
ch
ar
ac
Te
ris
Tic
s a
nd
c
ol
le
gia
Te e
xP
er
ien
ce
s b
y c
ou
rse
en
ro
ll
Me
nT
Mor
al
M
oral
I
nter
grou
p
P
roje
ct
Int
ro to
Tota
l
Cho
ice
Pro
blem
s
D
ialo
gue
C
omm
unit
y
Soc.
(n
=42
3)
(n=
15)
(n=
154)
(
n=89
)
(n=
70)
(n=
95)
Mayhew & DeLuca FernánDez / Social Justice Outcomes 67
B
usi
nes
s
14
.7
26
.7
8.
4
22.5
4.3
23
.2
Oth
er
2.4
0.0
2.6
3
.4
4.
3
0.0
N
o m
ajor
giv
en
5
.9
6
.7
6.
5
5.6
2.9
7
.4
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 stu-dents enrolled in the philosophy course serving as the referent group.
Three of the four factors constituting the practice variables (i.e., discus-sions 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
DEPENDENT VARIABLESocial justice learninga .79 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 .89 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 .84 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 .73 Engaged in discussions about diversity-related issues .83 Was involved in discussions about diversity with differences of opinion or conflict .78
Table 3
iTeMs, FacTor loadings, and reliabiliTies For variables used in Final Model
Factor and Survey Items Factor Alpha Loading
70 The Review of higheR educaTion FaLL 2007
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 .73 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
Table 3, cont.
a Five-point scale: From 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree b Five-point scale: From 1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal
Factor and Survey Items Factor Alpha Loading
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 ex-tent 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 com-plete description of the standardized regression coefficients for each variable used in the model.
Mayhew & DeLuca FernánDez / Social Justice Outcomes 71
DEMOGRAPHICS Gender (male) .222*** .178*** .066* .073* African American (White) -.003 -.051 -.027 -.022 Asian American (White) .053 .026 .010 .013 Hispanic/Latino(a) (White) -.084 -.055 -.029 -.019
COURSE ENROLLMENT Introduction to sociology .016 .177*** .200*** Intergroup dialogue .468*** .261*** .333*** Service-learning .267*** .155*** .335*** Moral choices in context .064 .002 -.006
PRACTICES Discussions about diversity .145*** .139** Opportunities for reflection .607*** .628*** Collaborative work with peers .042 .032 Negative interaction with diverse peers .007 .057
COURSE BY PRACTICE INTERACTIONS Intro by discussions about diversity -.024 IGR by discussions about diversity .009 SL by discussions about diversity -.054 MC by discussions about diversity -.036 Intro by reflection .017 IGR by reflection -.022 SL by reflection -.017 MC by reflection .020 Intro by work with peers .041 IGR by work with peers .003 SL by work with peers -.062 MC by work with peers -.017 Intro by negative interactions w/ diverse peers .010 IGR by negative interactions w/ diverse peers -.102+ SL by negative interactions w/ diverse peers -.128* MC by negative interactions w/ diverse peers .059
MODEL STATISTICS Adjusted R2 .052 .262 .670 .670 Change in R2 .062*** .215*** .403*** .014
Table 4
sTandardized coeFFicienTs For blocked enTry regression on social JusTice learning
(N = 406)
Variable Name Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
+p . < 08 *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p <.001
72 The Review of higheR educaTion FaLL 2007
resulTs
The final model significantly predicts 67.0% of the variance in the social justice learning criterion, F(28, 405) = 10.265, p < .001. Three of the four blocks of variables (i.e., demographics, course selection, and practices) contributed significantly to the criterion.
The first block, which contains measures for gender and race, accounted for a significant 5.2% of the variance in the criterion. Women were more likely than men to increase their capacities for social justice learning (b = .222, p < .001). We found no differences between categories comprising race..
The second block of variables, course enrollment, explained a significant additional 21.5% of the variance in the criterion. Main effects were found for students enrolled in intergroup dialogue (b = .468, p < .001) and ser-vice-learning (b = .267, p < .001). Effects for gender remained statistically significant.
Controlling for demographics and course enrollment, the third block of variables significantly explained an additional 40.3% of variance in the criterion. We found main effects for discussions about diversity (b = .145, p<.001) and opportunities for reflection (b = .607, p < .001). Gender effects remained statistically significant, although the magnitude of significance decreased from p < .001 to p < .05. Course effects for intergroup dialogue and service-learning also remained statistically significant. In addition, upon adding these practice effects to the model, we observed a main effect for introduction to sociology (b = .180, p < .001).
We included a series of interaction variables in the remaining block, which explained an additional 1.4% of the variance in the criterion. Philosophy students with more negative interactions increase their capacities for social justice learning as much as those with fewer negative interactions; however, service-learning students with more negative interactions are significantly less likely to increase their capacities for social justice learning than service-learning students with fewer of these interactions. We found similar pat-terns of results for the effects of these negative interactions on social justice learning for philosophy students when compared to students enrolled in the course on intergroup dialogue, albeit to a less degree with significance levels reaching p < .08. Effects for gender, enrollment in Introduction to Sociology, Intergroup Dialogue, and service-learning stayed the same after adding this block of interaction variables to the model. (See Figure 2.)
Limitations
This sample of students and courses is not necessarily representative of the students on any single campus or of the type of institution involved. Similarly, given the exploratory nature of the study, we could not account for selection effects.
Mayhew & DeLuca FernánDez / Social Justice Outcomes 73
In addition, we would have liked to have used multilevel modeling for ad-dressing the issue of nested effects. However, due to sampling constraints, we were limited in our ability to employ multilevel modeling strategies because of our small sample of only five classes with restricted samples in each class. Thus, we did not satisfy standard conventions designated for either number of classes investigated in the institution or numbers of students per class; these are discussed in Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) in their section outlining power considerations in designing two-level organizational effects.
Figure 2. Graphic display of significant course by practice interaction effects.
74 The Review of higheR educaTion FaLL 2007
Finally, because this study is not longitudinal in nature, we cannot draw any conclusions about the development of social justice learning outcomes; we present the practices that affected their self-reported achievement. In part, our choices are theoretically grounded. Specifically, we wonder if the developmental approach to studying student learning is appropriate for cap-turing social justice outcomes (Freire, 1970/1993). And in part our choices address analytical and methodological concerns. How does investigating the student as the unit of analysis influence our understanding of social justice? Is there a better choice for understanding this outcome and the practices that lead to its achievement? We recommend that future research efforts address some of these questions.
discussion and iMPlicaTions
How do educators create classroom environments conducive to social justice learning? This study attempts to answer this question by investigat-ing the effects of course enrollment and pedagogical practices on learning related to how students make meaning of social justice issues; how they construct their social identities in light of their power, position, prejudices, and expressions of discrimination; and how they make sense of both as they consider their roles in a diverse democratic society.
We found that students were more likely to report achieving social justice outcomes when the course content included a societal systemic approach. More specifically, students exposed to course content dealing with systematic oppression, the societal structures and inequalities that cause and sustain it, and how individuals perpetuate and/or discourage its reproduction were more likely to achieve social justice-related outcomes than students enrolled in courses with less sociologic approaches to understanding contemporary societal problems.
Intergroup Dialogue, Project Community, and Introduction to Sociology were designed to teach students the sociological skills needed to critically analyze structural sources of oppression and inequality and to emphasize the individual’s roles and responsibilities for reproducing such structural conditions. Apparently this focus helped students learn social-justice-related lessons.
This approach to addressing contemporary social issues differed dramati-cally from the psychological and philosophical approaches of the other two courses—Moral Choice and Contemporary Moral Problems. While the latter course broached topics of social justice from a critical societal framework, presenting and describing phenomena “out there,” the former positioned social justice issues in more individualistic relations. We suggest that such a nuance in approach affected students’ capacities for social justice learn-
Mayhew & DeLuca FernánDez / Social Justice Outcomes 75
ing. Although instructors of these courses differed in how they presented social justice material to their students, some practices were consistent in both classes.
Regardless of course content, pedagogical practices related to discussions of diversity and opportunities for reflection significantly contributed to explaining how students understood issues related to social justice. Students who reflected on material, examined the material from different perspec-tives, and applied this knowledge to analyzing societal problems consistently gained a better understanding of themselves and issues related to diversity, regardless of course content. Similar patterns of results emerged for students who engaged in discussions about diversity-related issues, differences of opinion or conflict around these issues, and issues related to social justice such as power and oppression.
These findings echo those theoretical assertions posited by Adams (1997), Sleeter and McLaren (1995), Shor (1993), and others. Social justice learning requires simultaneous attention to personal and systemic levels of power, privilege and inequity. Because “the experiences of students and teachers are important sites for constructing a pedagogy of transformation and social justice” (Sleeter & McLaren, 1995, p. 20), approaching students as individual agents of change and giving them opportunities for inserting themselves into the fabric and narratives of contemporary society facilitates their acquisition of social justice knowledge, skills, and behaviors. As our results indicate, to foster this orientation within the classroom, instructors should attend “to social relations within the classroom; and [use] reflection and experiences as tools for student-centered learning” (Adams, 1997, pp. 42–43). Implica-tions for these findings are far-reaching for instructors and teaching faculty: Over and above course content, student learning about social justice-related issues can be enhanced by providing structured opportunities for them to reflect on and engage in discussions related to diversity in and outside of the classroom.
Interestingly, diverse peer interactions did not have as dramatic an ef-fect on social justice learning as the other two practices. However, they did exert some influence on students in Intergroup Dialogue and Project Community.
Although the number of negative interactions with diverse peers was small, their impact was profound, as demonstrated by the significant inter-action effects in the model. When compared to students in the philosophy course, students in the dialogue and service-learning courses were less likely to achieve social justice learning if they had negative interactions with di-verse classmates. Perhaps they had greater opportunities for interactions with diverse peers than philosophy students. Increased opportunities for diverse interactions brought increased opportunities for negative experi-
76 The Review of higheR educaTion FaLL 2007
ences. Alternatively, they may have enrolled in these courses with greater expectations for positive diverse peer interactions than students in the phi-losophy course. If these greater expectations remained unmet, the students may have been discouraged from learning more about their role in society or worse, may have found reinforcement for existing forms of prejudice and discrimination. In either case, it is imperative for educators to create spaces for students from differing social identities to have healthy, positive interactions with each other. Not doing so may jeopardize the very outcomes instructors want to achieve.
conclusion
Embedded in the mission of U.S. higher education is the ideal that colleges and universities are responsible for graduating students with the capaci-ties and skills needed to be tolerant and responsible citizens in a diverse democracy. This study marks an important step toward understanding the theoretical and practical means to this end. This study bridges theories of social cognition and social learning with those of social identity development and change process to facilitate an understanding of what constitutes social justice outcomes and how colleges can create conditions and experiences for students to facilitate these outcomes.
Common to both bodies of research is the idea that learning occurs in the context of exposing individuals to challenging new ways of thinking about themselves and the society in which they live. Mechanisms for learn-ing include creating opportunities for individuals to reflect, to form plu-ralistic worldviews through perspective taking, and to experience cognitive disequilibrium, either through pedagogies that facilitate active learning or by creating opportunities for students to interact with diverse peers. Our findings support these concepts. We challenge educators interested in pro-viding contexts that help students develop their capacities for social justice learning to engage students in activities involving role-taking, reflection, community service, and dialogues with diverse peers.
reFerences
Adams, M. (1997). Pedagogical frameworks for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 30–43). New York: Routledge.
Adams, M., & Marchesani, L. S. (1992). Dynamics of diversity in the teaching-learning process: A faculty development model for analysis and action. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 52, 9–17.
Alimo, C., Kelly, R., & Clark, C. (2002). Diversity initiatives in higher education: Intergroup Dialogue Program student outcomes and implications for campus racial climate: A case study. Multicultural Education, 10(1), 49–54.
Mayhew & DeLuca FernánDez / Social Justice Outcomes 77
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New
York: Freeman.antonio, a. l. (2001). The role of interracial interaction in the development of lead-
ership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 593–617.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2003). Identity and learning: Student affairs’ role in trans-forming higher education [Electronic version]. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1), 231–247.
Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In P. Griffin (Ed.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 3–15). New York: Routledge.
Bennett, C. E. (1995). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1990). Cross-cultural orientation programs. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 325–346). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Bhawuk, D. P. S. (1998). The role of culture theory in cross-cultural training: A multimethod study of culture-specific, culture-general, and culture theory-based assimilators [Electronic version]. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(5), 630–655.
Bhawuk, D. P. S., & Triandis, H. C. (1996). The role of culture theory in the study of culture and intercultural training. In D. Landis & R. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (pp. 17–34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Black, J. S., & Mendenhall, M. (1990). Cross-cultural training effectiveness: A review and a theoretical framework for future research. Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 113–136.
Brown, E. L. (2004). What precipitates change in cultural diversity awareness dur-ing a multicultural course: The message or the method? [Electronic version]. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 325–340.
Chang, M. J. (2001). Is it more than about getting along? The broader educational relevance of reducing students’ racial biases. Journal of College Student De-velopment, 42(2), 93–105.
Combs, G. M. (2002). Meeting the leadership challenge of a diverse and pluralistic workplace: Implications for self-efficacy for diversity training. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 8(4), 1–16.
Cook, S. W. (1990). Toward a psychology of improving justice: Research on extend-ing the equality principle to victims of social injustice. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 147–161.
D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of multicultural counseling training [Electronic version]. Journal of Counseling and Develop-ment, 70, 143–150.
78 The Review of higheR educaTion FaLL 2007
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Freire, P. (1970/1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gannon, M. J., & Poon, J. M. L. (1997). Effects of alternative instructional approaches
on cross-cultural training outcomes [Electronic version]. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(4), 429–446.
Globetti, E. C., Globetti, G., Brown, C. L., & Smith, R. E. (1993). Social interaction and multiculturalism. NASPA Journal, 30, 209–218.
Gurin, P. (1999). 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 higher education. Retrieved March 2007 from http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/expert/gurintoc.html.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher educa-tion: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 332–366.
Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). The benefits of diversity in education for democratic citizenship. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1), 17–34.
Hackman, H. W. (2000, October). Utilizing social justice pedagogy in everyday prac-tice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Multicultural Education, Orlando, FL.
Henry, G. B. (1995). Determining the reliability and validity of the cultural diversity awareness inventory (CDAI) [Electronic version]. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Heppner, M. J., & O’Brien, K. M. (1994). Multicultural counselor training: Stu-dents’ perceptions of helpful and hindering events. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 4–18.
Hurtado, S. (2001). 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: The University of Michigan Press.
Kernahan, C., & Wolfgram, H. (2003, Winter). Racial identity and attitude de-velopment among White undergraduates: The effects of a diversity course. Kaleidoscope II: Institute on Race and Ethnicity. Retrieved February 2, 2005, from http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/IRE/research/kaleidoscope.html.
Maruyama, G., Moreno, J. F., Gudeman, R. H., & Marin, P. (2000). Does diversity make a difference? Three research studies on diversity in college classrooms. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Mayhew, M. J. (2005). Curricular content and pedagogical practices that influence the development of moral reasoning in undergraduate students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(10): 3720. (AAT 3150033)
McCain-Reid, E. (1994). Seeds of change: A pilot study of senior pre-service teachers’ responses to issues of diversity in one university course [Electronic version]. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376227)
Mueller, J. A., & Pope. R. L. (2001). The relationship between multicultural com-petence and White racial consciousness among student affairs practitioners. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 133–144.
Mayhew & DeLuca FernánDez / Social Justice Outcomes 79
Mueller, J. A., & Pope, R. L. (2003). The relationship of demographic and experience variables to White racial consciousness among student affairs practitioners [Electronic version]. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 149–171.
Pedersen, P. B. (1988). Handbook for developing multicultural awareness. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Peterson, K. M., Cross, L. F., Johnson, E. J., & Howell, G. L. (2000). Diversity edu-cation for preservice teachers: Strategies and attitude outcomes [Electronic version]. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2), 33–38.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1985). New Black-White patterns: How to best conceptualize them. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 329–346.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory [Electronic version]. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(65), 85–103.
Piaget, J. (1975). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ponterotto, J. G., Reiger, B. P., Barrett, A., & Sparks, R. (1994). Assessing multicul-tural competence: A review of instrumentation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 316–322.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. (2nd. ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sabnani, H. B., Ponterotto, J. G., & Borodovsky, L. G. (1991). White racial identity development and cross-cultural counselor training: A stage model. The Coun-seling Psychologist, 19, 76–102.
Sanford, T. (1966). Self and society: Social change and individual development. New York: Atherton Press.
Schoem, D. (2003). Intergroup dialogue for a just and diverse democracy [Electronic version]. Sociological Inquiry, 73(2), 212–227.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Shor, I. (1993). Education is politics: Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy. In P. McLaren & P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire: A critical encounter (pp. 25–35). New York: Routledge.
Sleeter, C. E., & McLaren, P. L. (Eds.). (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Staub, E. (1990). Moral exclusion, extreme destructiveness, and personal goal theory. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 47–65.
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural counseling com-petencies and standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70(4), 477–486.
Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., Smith, E. J., & Vasquez-Nutall, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 45–52.
Taylor, S. H. (1998). The impact of college on the development of tolerance [Elec-tronic version]. NASPA Journal, 35(4), 281–295.
Van Soest, D. (1994). Social work education for multicultural practice and social justice advocacy: A field study of how students experience the learning process. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 3(1), 17–28.
80 The Review of higheR educaTion FaLL 2007
Wallace, B. C. (2000). A call for change in multicultural training at graduate schools of education: Educating to end oppression and for social justice [Electronic version]. Teachers College Record, 102(6), 1086–1111.
Warring, D. F., Keim, J., & Rau, R. (1998). Multicultural training for students and its impact [Electronic version]. Action in Teacher Education, 20(2), 56–63.
Young, R. L. (1993). Cross-cultural experiential learning for teacher trainees. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20, 67–76.
Zúñiga, X. (2003). Bridging differences through dialogue [Electronic version]. About Campus, 7(6), 8–16.
