This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 17 November 2014, At: 07:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Continuing HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujch20

Perceptions of Diversity in HigherEducationRhea Miles a , Ran Hu b & Kaye Dotson ca Department of Mathematics , Science, and InstructionalTechnology Education, East Carolina University , Greenville , NCb Department of Literacy Studies , English Education, and HistoryEducation, East Carolina University , Greenville , NCc Department of Library Science , East Carolina University ,Greenville , NCPublished online: 18 Jun 2013.

To cite this article: Rhea Miles , Ran Hu & Kaye Dotson (2013) Perceptions of Diversityin Higher Education, The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61:2, 74-82, DOI:10.1080/07377363.2013.796244

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2013.796244

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

Rhea Miles is an associate professor in the Department of Mathematics, Science, and Instructional Technology Education; Ran Hu is an assistant professor in the Department of Literacy Studies, English Education, and History Education; and Kaye Dotson is an assistant professor in the Department of Library Science at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.Address correspondence to Rhea Miles, PhD, Associate Professor, East Carolina University, Department of Mathematics, Science, and Instructional Technology Education, 313 Flanagan Building, Greenville, NC 27858, USA (E-mail: milesr@ecu.edu).

The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61:74–82, 2013Copyright © 2013, Association for Con tinu ing Higher EducationISSN 0737-7363DOI: 10.1080/07377363.2013.796244

Introduction

Educational institutions across the nation believe that diversity-related studies foster cognitive growth that will serve students beyond their classroom experience (Diaz & Gilchrist, 2010; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002; Hur-tado, 2005). At the university level, where there are highly

structured and focused programs and courses, a critical look at diversity through an integrative, collegewide lens offers an avenue for students’ continued growth and success. Altering student values through personal growth in order to impact lifelong interactions has been a strong common focus and intention of the foundational mission statements of many colleges and universities. Gurin and colleagues (2002) report evidence supporting the lasting impact of

diversity infused programs and found that students, through

learning and interactions with diverse peers, continue to embody an awareness of diversity long after their experi-ences at college.

Commitment to diversity by institutions of higher edu-cation is signifi cant. This pervasive, national commitment

attests to how deeply institutionalized the issue has become in 21st century higher education. In particular, many undergraduate and graduate programs at colleges and universities require students to enroll in courses that align with university and college mission statements related to diversity to foster the personal and professional develop-ment of students. The extent to which an appreciation of diversity, as a common student-learning goal, exists within universities has been investigated (Kezar & Kinzie, 2006; Meacham & Barrett, 2003). A high proportion of insti tutions, according to Meacham and Barrett’s (2003) study of the mission statements of institutions listed in 2002 edition of The Princeton Review’s: The Best 331 Colleges, endorsed diversity as a goal both for student learning and for changing students’ values.

Students are required to enroll in diversity courses in most teacher preparation and school administra-tion programs in higher education. It is hoped that courses that discuss diversity will have a positive impact on classroom instruction and leadership. The discussion that follows focuses on understanding the

Perceptions of Diversity in Higher EducationRhea MilesRan HuKaye Dotson

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to evaluate student perceptions of diversity in higher education and continuing educational settings. Students in teacher preparation and school administration programs were administered a survey and signifi cant differences related to attitudes toward diversity were found. Results of this study indicate that enrollment in more than one course that discusses diversity can impact students’ personal and professional lives.

Keywords. diversity; higher education; perceptions; attitudes toward diversity; teacher preparation; school administration

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Continuing Higher Education • 75

affect of diversity coursework on the professional and personal lives of prospective educators and school administrators.

School Leadership and Administration ProgramsAdministrators, supervisors, professors, K–12

teachers, and teacher specialists are persons in school leadership positions who can significantly influence student views about diversity. Lumby and Coleman (2007) argue that diversity should be a holistic issue that touches every aspect of education and that it is vital to ensure effective and appropriate leadership is present in pluralist societies. Faculty and student leaders must come to understand their own sociopolitical identities and professional contexts, and how these shape their view on issues of diversity and the implications for their leadership (Evans, 2007). Bustamante, Nelson, and On-wuegbuzie (2009) further suggest a need to focus school leadership (school administration) preparation on an examination of personal biases, privileges, and beliefs about others who are different as well as on knowledge and guidance about how to assess schoolwide cultural competence. Educational leadership preparation pro-grams have a responsibility to support equity-based education and the development of policies that strate-gically support multicultural curricula. In addition, a series of leadership learning sessions with a diversity experience focus has to be part of coursework (Henze, 2005; Rayner, 2009).

Teacher Preparation and Multicultural Education Programs

Multicultural education teacher and leadership

preparation courses have a clear impact on many student

lives and should be designed to not only help students understand or tolerate those who are different but to en-able them to learn how to accept, embrace, and celebrate differences among human beings (Molto, Florian, Rouse, & Stough, 2010). Multicultural classes should create an awareness of racism, an appreciation of cultural and gender differences, and challenge current perceptions of how to live in our global community (Bowman, 2010; Gurin et al., 2002). A positive outcome of teacher educa-tion curricula at the college or university level is to reduce prejudices and stereotypes to promote working in a civil society (Hussey, Fleck, & Warner, 2010; Longerbeam & Sedlacek, 2006). To accomplish these goals, student coursework has to involve association and interaction with a diverse group of individuals, preferably peers, who are from different cultures and ethnicities (Gurin et al.,

2002). Even though college and university students are exposed to many multicultural activities that are often not a required part of major coursework, teacher preparation programs cannot rely on chance or past experiences for students to learn about people different from themselves (Akiba, 2011; Okpokodu, 2010).

Akiba (2011) recommends that teacher education curricula include multicultural courses that focus on providing a learning community both in and outside the classroom that fosters cultural responsive teaching. Colbert (2010) further acknowledges that family, gender, religion, education, politics, life experiences, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status are all infl uential factors in cultur-ally responsive teaching. Furthermore, undergraduate and graduate students need to learn a variety of teaching strategies in education to implement lessons to diverse student populations during fi eld experiences (Akiba, 2011; Molto et al., 2010).

According to Rivera (2010), to encourage diversity in higher education, instructors have to serve as role models advocating for inclusive rather than exclusive behavior when implementing lessons in a multicultural class. This involves disabling uncomfortable behavior around those who are different and encompassing a universal, diverse orientation (UDO) defi ned by Longerbeam and Sedlacek (2006) as an appreciation of both differences and similari-ties between people. Students should participate in events or sessions that result in a respect for people of different ethnicities and cultures.

Student and Teacher Refl ectionAnother key component of any multicultural course

is for the instructor to have the students to refl ect on their attitudes toward others (Bowman, 2010; Haj-Broussard & Henny, 2009). Students expressed awareness that their lives and relationships impact, infl uence, and also enmesh them on all levels (Rose & Bylander, 2003). Rose and Bylander (2003) reported one student response as, “I feel more con-fi dent with myself and with people I don’t know. I’m much more likely to reach out to others and be open. It’s eerie how well this process worked—and it is a process—it’s still going on” (p. 263). Rose and Bylander’s study (2003) provides evidence of the lasting impact of coursework framed around an appreciation of diversity.

Stroud (2010) points out the power of using refl ec-tion to improve teaching when diversity and differences are involved. She stated that through refl ection professionals can also build a better understanding of their own culture and can understand differences better. Through a refl ec-tive journal and open discussions, teachers can develop

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

76 • Perceptions of Diversity in Higher Education

a profound understanding of their own culture and can provide better instruction to students.

Context of Evaluating Student Perceptions of Diversity

A large public university in southeastern United States is one of the largest producers of certified teach-ers in North Carolina (University of North Carolina, 2010). The mission of this university is to prepare professional educators and promote effective teaching and staff participation in the improvement of schools in the state. The purpose of this study was to analyze written reflections of students in teacher preparation and school administration programs by addressing the following three research questions: (a) What are stu-dent perceptions about diversity? (b) How did student courses affect perceptions about diversity? (c) How has an understanding of diversity impacted student personal and professional lives?

Methods

Study DesignInformation was obtained from student partici-

pants’ written reflections from a survey instrument, and there were no classroom observations of courses that students listed as sources of diversity discussion. Survey data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Content validity was used in the development of survey questions to measure the language and construction of the questions. Through content validity and a thorough analysis of literature relative to student perceptions of diversity, researchers were aided in developing and measuring appropriate language and construction of survey questions for validity. A panel of professional educators outside of this university and members of the College of Education Diversity Committee of the univer-sity generated questions and reviewed the questions on the survey for relevance.

In addition, to further assess the validity of the instru-ment, a pilot study was conducted with a group of students from the university. The pilot study provided information researchers used for further analysis of the survey. The pilot study included the validation of the survey instrument and an exploratory examination of student refl ection about their perceptions of diversity. Adjustments to the instrument were made based on feedback from pilot study participants and a panel of professional educators.

Researchers used information gained from the pilot study in analyzing the data set for the larger study. The

original questions were reworded based on the feedback from the panel. The survey instrument used in this study consisted of 11 items. Seven items asked respondents demographic information about their gender, age, clas-sifi cation, ethnicity, major, identifi cation, and enrollment in course(s) that discussed diversity (item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9a). A copy of the instrument may be seen in Appendix A at the following Web site: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9hAe9aseYeyTW82NTFHZnFLd3M. Interrater consistency was used to determine the degree of agreement among researchers for analysis of a particular category.

All of the words, phrases, and sentences to the open-ended questions were read. Students’ responses to the four open-ended question survey items were broken down into units. Three researchers analyzed these units independently. Segments that contained one piece of information relevant to the research questions and that retained their meaning as a stand-alone segment con-stituted the units. The units consisted of nonrepetitive, nonoverlapping signifi cant statements or words (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

ParticipantsParticipation in the study was voluntary and partici-

pants were not randomly selected. The 211 participants in this study were undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in the College of Education at the university dur-ing the spring semester of the 2008–2009 academic year, and 58% were enrolled in a course that the participants self-described as discussing diversity. Seventy-three percent (n � 153) of the participants were female, 69% (n � 146) were White, 25% (n � 53) were African American, 2% (n � 4) were Hispanic, 2% (n � 4) were Native Ameri-can, 1% (n � 2) Asian, and the remaining 1% (n � 2) of participants categorized themselves as other. The majority of the participants (75%, n � 153) were graduate, with ages ranging from 22–59, and undergraduate participants were between the ages of 18–53. Four percent (n � 8) did not indicate their undergraduate or graduate classifi cation. Participant demographics can be seen in Table 1

Approximately 42% (n � 89) of the respondents indicated on the survey that they had not enrolled in a course that discussed diversity. This corresponded to the number of respondents who did not answer this question. Participants had enrolled in 33 different courses that they reported had discussed diversity. Participant responses could have been placed in more than one category, and only those units in which the researchers agreed were subjected to further data analysis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Continuing Higher Education • 77

Results

Three themes emerged from analysis of data. Responses to questions supported themes related to understanding, attitude, and the infl uence of diversity courses.

The theme understanding of diversity emerged when the students were asked to defi ne diversity. The university defi nition of diversity in a broad context includes the representation, integration, and interaction of different races, genders, ages, ethnicities, cultures, national origins, abilities, religions, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, socioeconomic status, intellectual posi-tions, and perspectives. The university desired a pluralistic academic community in which teaching, learning, and living/lifestyle occurs in an atmosphere of mutual respect in pursuit of excellence. The frequency of specifi c words

used in participant responses was recorded as shown in Figure 1. Words used by the participants were compared to words used in the university defi nition of diversity. The words most often used to defi ne diversity were different and difference(s) (n � 95 and n � 79, respectively) and cultures (n � 70) and races (n � 70). Very few respon-dents mentioned nationality (n � 2), integration (n � 1), or interaction (n � 1). None of the respondents included veteran status or made reference to the military. However, student responses did indicate an overall understanding of the term diversity.

Another theme, attitude, was evident from the re-sponses to the question “What issues do you think about when it comes to diversity?” Similar responses were organized into analyzable units of three main categories; responses were labeled using resulting categories that emerged from the study. Participant responses could have been placed in more than one category. Categories were named aspects of difference (AOD), attitudes toward difference (ATD), and issues of equity (IOE). Seventeen (8.1%) of the 211 participants did not provide a re-sponse to this question. The interrater consistency was 89.5%. Only those units in which the researchers agreed were subjected to further data analysis. The majority (n � 82) of the participant responses were categorized as ATD (see Table 2).

Upon further analysis, ATD was divided into posi-tive ATD and negative ATD. The majority of respondents (n � 62) were categorized as negative ATD. For example, a participant wrote a response categorized as negative at-titude toward diversity, “Some people are easily judgmental. Stereotypes still exist. Some people are prejudice toward

Table 1. Participants’ Demographics or Characteristics.

Variable/Factor Levels/Conditions N %

Total = 211

Gender MaleFemale

58153

2773

Ethnicity African AmericanWhiteHispanicAsianNative American Other

53146 4 2 4 2

2569 2 1 2 1

Classifi cation GraduateUndergraduateDid not indicate

153 50 8

7324 4

Figure 1. Word frequency for defi nition of diversity (color fi gure available online).Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

78 • Perceptions of Diversity in Higher Education

Tab

le 2

. Ana

lysi

s of

Per

cept

ions

Tow

ard

Div

ersi

ty.

Cate

go

ryN

Perc

en

tag

e

Gen

der

Cla

ssifi

cati

on

Eth

nic

ity

Fem

ale

Male

�2

pG

rad

uate

Un

derg

rad

uate

�2

pB

lack

Wh

ite

�2

p

CA

A92

4576

161.

912

0.16

267

240.

270

0.60

319

671.

548

0.21

3

ATD

8239

6614

1.42

60.

232

5028

8.66

2*0

.003

1161

7.39

3*0

.007

AO

D71

3450

181.

323

0.25

055

131.

674

0.19

619

500.

055

0.81

4

SD

P49

2336

110.

095

0.75

836

100.

268

0.60

531

120.

054

0.81

7

IPT

3919

35 4

3.76

80.

052

2314

4.25

2*0

.039

727

0.74

50.

388

IOE

2813

19 8

1.12

60.

289

22 5

0.62

70.

429

1016

2.18

90.

139

IPA

16 8

15 1

2.46

00.

117

16 0

5.67

6*0

.017

312

0.35

50.

551

ITO

11 5

9 1

0.85

70.

355

6 3

0.12

10.

727

1 9

1.47

70.

244

ATD

P10

5 7

20.

001

0.97

4 8

20.

121

0.72

7 0

103.

805

0.05

1

CA

N 9

4 7

20.

001

0.97

4 6

30.

384

0.53

4 0

83.

012

0.08

3

CA

S 5

2 4

10.

010

0.92

2 5

01.

675

0.19

6 1

30.

005

0.94

4

Cate

go

ryN

Perc

en

tag

e

Co

urs

es

Majo

r

1

Co

urs

e

Mo

re

Th

an

1

Co

urs

e�

2p

Ed

.

Lead

ers

hip

No

n-E

d.

Lead

ers

hip

�2

p

CA

A92

4533

364.

233

0.17

645

492.

880

0.09

0

ATD

8239

1620

4.45

8*0

.035

4931

12.7

13*0

.000

AO

D71

3414

141.

000

0.31

745

254.

217

*0.0

40

SD

P49

2316

140.

353

0.55

225

230.

127

0.72

2

IPT

3919

1514

1.58

30.

208

1324

6.68

1*0

.010

IOE

2813

4 5

0.71

90.

397

1711

0.53

20.

486

IPA

16 8

6 5

0.50

00.

823

12 4

2.98

50.

084

ITO

11 5

4 5

0.71

90.

397

5 4

0.13

60.

712

ATD

P10

5 7

13.

224

0.07

3 4

60.

869

0.35

1

CA

N 9

4 4

11.

087

0.29

7 5

40.

006

0.94

0

CA

S 5

2 0

34.

233

*0.0

40

4 1

1.36

10.

243

Not

e: T

he *

and

val

ues

in b

old

are

deno

ting

sign

ifi ca

nt d

iffer

ence

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Continuing Higher Education • 79

others.” Student responses were more likely to refl ect a negative attitude toward diversity. Fewer responses (n � 37) were categorized as positive attitude toward diversity, which included responses such as respect and acceptance.

The major theme of influence was supported by responses to two questions: “How will you use what you learned about diversity from your class(es) in your future profession?” and “How has what you have learned about diversity from class(es) impacted your daily life outside of the classroom?” Responses to the fi rst question about future profession were categorized as impact on profession: administrative leadership (IPA), impact on profession: teach-ing (IPT), attitude toward difference in profession (ATDP), and self-development in profession (SDP). The interrater consistency was 95.7%. Many of the responses to this ques-tion were categorized as SDP (n � 49) (see Table 2). An example of student response categorized as SDP:

It has taught me to be open minded to those who differ from my background. It has also taught me that I need to take the time to view a situation from the perspective of those who are different from me. It has also taught me that I need to take the initiative to educate myself and interact with those from different backgrounds.

It is evident that enrollment in a diversity course infl uenced this student’s perception about diversity.

The same participants were asked to provide a response to the second question “How has what you have learned about diversity from class(es) impacted your daily life outside of the classroom?” These responses were grouped into four categories: no change in attitude (CAN), some change in attitude (CAS), change in attitude (CAA), and infl uence to others (ITO). Only those units in which the researchers agreed were subjected to further data analysis. The interrater consistency was 98.1%. These categories were also part of the recurrent theme infl uence. An overwhelming number of the participant responses were coded CAA (n � 92), as a student stated, “It has opened my eyes to other people’s situations and culture. I am more considerate and tolerate of their perspective.” This further supports the infl uence of diversity courses on students’ lives. Refer to Appendix B at the following Web site: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9hAe9aseYeyTm5YY18yX01hUkk.

Further categorized responses were compared be-tween the following:

Male and female (• gender)Undergraduate and graduate (• classifi cation)

Black and White (Asian, Native American, Hispanic • ethnic groups had fewer than five respondents) (ethnicity)One course and more than one course (• courses)Educational leadership (student seeking degrees • related to school administration only) and non-educational leadership (major) (see Table 2)

Since the majority of respondents were students in the Department of Educational Leadership (n � 113), stu-dent majoring in educational leadership (student seeking degrees related to school administration) were compared to students not majoring in educational leadership. There were no signifi cant differences found between gender (gender) among the emergent categories. Significant differences were found between the undergraduate and graduate student responses (classifi cation) (�2 � 8.662, p � 0.003). The graduate student responses were more likely to be categorized as ATD than the undergraduate student responses. Similarly, a signifi cant difference was found between White and Black students (ethnicity) (�2 � 7.393, p � 0.007). The White students were more likely to be categorized as ATD than the Black students. Students enrolled in one course that discussed diversity were compared to students enrolled in more than one course (courses), and a signifi cant difference was found (�2 � 4.458, p � 0.035). Students enrolled in more than one course that discussed diversity were more likely to be categorized as ATD than those students enrolled in one course that discussed diversity. The Educational leadership majors were more likely to be categorized as ATD than the non–Education Leadership majors (�2 � 12.713, p � 0.000). A signifi cant difference was found between students majoring in educational leadership and those students not majoring in educational leadership (major) (�2 � 4.217, p � 0.040). Students seeking a degree from the Department of Educational Leadership were more likely to be categorized as AOD than non–educational leadership majors. A signifi cant difference was also revealed between the classifi cation of undergraduate and graduate students categorized as IPA (�2 � 5.676, p � 0.017). All of the responses categorized as IPA were graduate students. There were also signifi cant differences between undergraduate and graduate students categorized as IPT (�2 � 4.252, p � 0.039). More undergraduate student responses were likely to be categorized as IPT than graduate students. Likewise, a signifi cant difference was found between those students categorized as IPT majoring in educational leader-ship and non–educational leadership majors (�2 � 6.681, p � .010). The non–educational leadership majors were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

80 • Perceptions of Diversity in Higher Education

more likely to be categorized as IPT than educational leadership majors. Students who had enrolled in more than one course that discussed diversity were more likely to be categorized as CAS (�2 � 4.233, p � .040) (see Table 2).

Discussion and Recommendations

From the written responses in this study, student vocabulary used to defi ne diversity aligns with the mission and goals of the university to prepare the best teacher edu-cators and leaders in the state. As a result of the absence of word(s) associated with veteran status, it is recommended that instructors of courses that discuss diversity address this area of concern by requiring students to interview members of the military. In addition, a variety of pedagogi-cal approaches that promote planning and implementing community programs should encompass all aspects of the university defi nition of diversity in all educational and continuing educational efforts. For example, students could be required to plan multicultural events for classmates and nonclassmates to participate in during the semester.

While students are aware of diversity-related issues, the majority of their views, as evident in this study, are not all positive. Only a small percentage of students associated diversity with descriptors such as welcoming or embrac-ing. Even though the majority of written descriptions of issues related to diversity were associated with the category ATD, more White students are likely to be categorized as negative ATD than Black students. Helm, Sedlacek, and Prieto (1998) reported that the more exposure White students have to diversity-related experiences correlates to raising their awareness of how their continuing education and on-campus cultural environment is designed more for White students and not for other ethnic groups. Thus, attitudes toward differences tend to worsen for White students—they are more likely to have negative perceptions of the multicultural climate at their institutions of higher education. African American students, in particular, may have been preconditioned to diversity-related issues and not perceive issues similarly to their White counterparts. It is recommended that instructors at majority White institutions of higher education be cognizant of this difference between ethnic groups when facilitating discussions and planning course assignments such as examining media portrayal of Black and White population in United States.

Enrollment in a course that discusses diversity can increase awareness about inequalities among ethnic groups and lead to positive changes in the work environment. Interethnic experiences were reported to increase comfort

levels of working with diverse individuals (Dickson, Jepson, & Barbee, 2008). Many written refl ections were categorized as SDP. Results of this study indicate that enrollment in more than one course that discusses diversity for undergraduate and graduate students in teacher education and school ad-ministration programs will have an impact on their work in schools. As suggested by the results this study, the graduate students, who were mostly in the educational leadership programs, reported the impact of diversity courses on their administrative leadership (IPA) while undergradu-ate students, who are mostly teachers, reported impact of diversity on their teaching (IPT). In addition, fi ndings of this study indicate that the majority of personal and profes-sional attitudes about diversity are affected.

A signifi cant difference was found between students majoring in educational leadership and those students not majoring in educational leadership. Students in the Depart-ment of Educational Leadership are graduate students seeking degrees related to school administration and are more likely to be categorized as AOD. Students’ personal backgrounds have contributed as one of the reasons to explain this differ-ence. Generally speaking, students who are pursuing a degree in educational leadership usually have richer prior experi-ences working with individuals from diverse backgrounds, which would lead them to think of various aspects of issues related to diversity (Lumby & Coleman, 2007). Educational leadership majors may also be exposed to legal mandates and policies focused on providing accessible services to stakeholders with diverse needs (Americans With Disabilities Act, 1991). These majors are often living off campus and working in private sector jobs, and these experiences, along with their coursework, have shaped their lives.

It can also be inferred that graduate students at this university have had more exposure to a university climate. Student perceptions of diversity are developed in and outside of the classroom, and the university climate pro-vides a place where students may interact with a diverse student body. These formal or informal interactions allow students to see beyond the surface of an individual through classroom experiences and during recreational activities on campus (Gurin et al., 2002).

Conclusion

There may be other factors that may infl uence stu-dent perceptions of diversity beyond the examination of this study, but enrollment in courses that discuss diversity has an impact on student personal attitudes and beliefs in higher and continuing education. It would be interest-ing to investigate the effects of the cumulative impact of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Continuing Higher Education • 81

enrollment in a course that discusses diversity. This study did not provide information about the date within a stu-dent’s curriculum as to when diversity became a subject of discussion. Therefore, longitudinal information may be warranted to show impact over time.

Although the population included a range of stu-dents in age, the majority of respondents were graduate students in the educational leadership program, and further research would have to be conducted with a larger population of undergraduate students to further assess their perspective about diversity. Undergraduate and graduate students at the university are aware of issues related to diversity, but these perceptions differ. Perhaps progress affecting opinions related to diversity has been overestimated, especially among students at majority White institutions. This study was limited to one public university with a majority White population, and future research would have to evaluate student perceptions of diversity from other universities of higher education, such as historically Black colleges or faith-based insti-tutions. Regardless, this study provides insights about how enrollment in more than one course that discusses diversity affects the personal and professional lives of students in teacher preparation and school administra-tion programs.

References

Akiba, M. (2011). Identifying program characteristics for preparing pre-service teachers for diversity. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 658–697.

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–336, § 2, 104 Stat. 328 (1991).

Bowman, N. (2010). Disequilibrium and resolution: The nonlinear effects of diversity courses on well-being and orientations toward diversity. The Review of Higher Education, 33(4), 543–568. doi: 10.1353/rhe.0.0172

Bustamante, R. M., Nelson, J. A., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). Assessing schoolwide cultural competence: Implications for school leadership preparation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 793–827.

Colbert, P. J. (2010, November). Developing a culturally responsive classroom collaborative of faculty, students, and institution. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(11), 15–24.

Diaz, A., & Gilchrist, S. (2010). Dialogue on campus: An overview of promising practices. Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(1). Retrieved from http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol6/iss1/art9

Dickson, G. L., Jepsen, D. A., & Barbee, P. W. (2008, April). Exploring the relationships among multicultural training experiences and attitudes toward diversity among counseling students. Multicultural Counseling and Development, 36, 113–126.

Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 159–188.

Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330–367.

Haj-Broussard, M., & Henny, R. (2009). Teacher candidate attitudes towards diversity: A pre-post course analysis. Retrieved from http://ncate.mcneese.edu/bitcache/12d25d1f194c14383b6f9842ac8af9fd2f74915c?vid=518&disposition=inline&op=view

Helm, E. G., Sedlacek, W. E., & Prieto, D. O. (1998, Fall). The relationship between attitudes toward diversity and overall satisfaction of university students by race. Journal of College Counseling, 1(2), 110–121.

Henze, R. C. (2005). Metaphors of diversity, intergroup relations, and equity in the discourse of educational leaders. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 4, 243–267.

Hurtado, S. (2005). The next generation of diversity and intergroup relations research. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 595–610. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00422.x

Hussey, H. D., Fleck, B. K., & Warner, R. M. (2010). Reducing student prejudice in diversity-infused core psychology classes. College Teaching, 58(3), 85–92.

Kezar, A., & Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: The role of mission. Journal of College Student Development, 47(2), 149–172. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/apac/roundtable/7-11-06_role_of_mission.pdf

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newburg Park, CA: Sage.

Longerbeam, S. D., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2006). Attitudes toward diversity and living–learning outcomes among fi rst-year and second-year college students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 43(1), 40–55.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

82 • Perceptions of Diversity in Higher Education

Lumby, J., & Coleman, M. (2007). Leadership and diversity: Challenging theory and practice in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Meacham, J., & Barrett, C. (2003). Commitment to diversity in institutional mission statements. Diversity Digest, 7(1/2), 6–9. Retrieved from http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/vol7no1-2/meacham-barrett.cfm

Molto, M. C. C., Florian, L., Rouse, M., & Stough, L. M. (2010). Attitudes to diversity: A cross-cultural study of education students in Spain, England and the United States. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 245–264.

Okpokodu, O. N. (2010, Winter). How a sustainable campus-wide diversity curriculum fosters academic success. Multicultural Education, 17(2), 27–36.

Rayner, S. (2009). Educational diversity and learning leadership: A proposition, some principles and a

model of inclusive leadership. Educational Review, 61, 433–447.

Rivera, D. (2010). A pilot of students’ perceptions and attitudes toward multicultural concepts: A pre-and post-course analysis. Journal of Teaching in Travel Tourism, 10(1), 42–58.

Rose, S., & Bylander, J. (2007). Border crossings: engaging students in diversity and intergroup relations [Electronic version]. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 251–264.

Stroud, B. (2010). Honoring diversity through a deeper refl ection: Increasing cultural understanding within refl ective supervision process. Zero to Three, 31, 46–50.

University of North Carolina. (2010). Top ten undergraduate degrees awarded by institution. Retrieved from http://fred.northcarolina.edu/quickfacts/topten20092010.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

08 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014