Culture and the classroom
Choose an article related to cultural competency in higher education teaching.
*** Article: I have uploaded the article chosen to write about ***
Once you have chosen an article, complete the following:
- Summarize the article using professional citations to support your work.
- Given the topic of the article, analyze your biases and cultural assumptions (white, female, jewish) . Consider your strengths and challenges toward becoming a more culturally competent teaching professional.
The focus of this assignment should be self-exploration. When appropriate, cite specific examples from your personal history and professional experience. Also, cite the article to support your analysis.
3-4 pages
4-5 references
References
Alvarez, M. de la C., & Domenech Rodríguez, M. M. (2020). Cultural competence shifts in multicultural psychology: Online versus face-to-face. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 6(2), 160–174. https://doi-org.library.capella.edu/10.1037/tps0000229
<!–Additional Information: End of citation–>
Cultural Competence Shifts in Multicultural Psychology: Online Versus Face-to-Face
By: María de la Caridad Alvarez Department of Psychology, Utah State University Melanie M. Domenech Rodríguez Department of Psychology, Utah State University;
Acknowledgement: This research is part of María de la Caridad Alvarez’s requirements for the completion of the doctoral degree in clinical/counseling psychology. The authors are grateful to the students who, every term, teach us to be better teachers.
Cultural and ethnic borders are quickly vanishing (Koriakina, 2018), creating a natural demand for multicultural education and a culturally competent society. The definition of cultural competence can be somewhat elusive, yet there is evidence that the tripartite model of cultural competence provides a common understanding (Tehee, Isaacs, & Domenech Rodríguez, 2020). The tripartite model (D. W. Sue, 2001; S. Sue, 1998) outlines the three dimensions of cultural competence: self-awareness, knowledge, and skills. We used the tripartite model as the theoretical foundation for the development and implementation of the face-to-face and online courses discussed in this article. Assignments such as reflections, readings, and participation in cultural events were designed to develop self-awareness, knowledge, and/or skills, respectively. We then selected measures used to assess key concepts of cultural competence related to self-awareness (e.g., reduction of color-blind attitudes), understanding of others (e.g., multicultural experiences), and the development of skills (e.g., empathy; Patterson, Papa, Reveles, & Domenech Rodríguez, 2018). Color-blindness is the general attitude that color does not matter (Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000). Color-blindness could be considered an ideal to strive for but is problematic in today’s world because it can serve to artificially erase or ignore existing inequities (Neville et al., 2000). Multicultural experiences reflect intergroup contact, an important component of successful intercultural relationships (Allport, 1979). Finally, empathy is central to cultural competence (Kodjo, 2009) and a foundational skill for successful intercultural communication (Zhu, 2011).
For many youths in the United States, college may be the first experience in a truly diverse multicultural setting (Jayakumar, 2008). Many institutions of higher education open the door to diversity through exposure to varying ethnic and socioeconomic groups, gender identities, sexual orientations, and intersecting identities (Lawyer, 2018). Colleges and universities have responded to the need for integration by creating curriculums aimed at preparing students for their adult environments (Rudge, 2015). In parallel form, institutions of higher education have increased accessibility to college engagement and completion through online course offerings. Indeed, were it not for online offerings, college enrollments would be declining (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018). Over 15% of all college students are enrolled exclusively online, and nearly a third (33.1%) of all college students have taken at least one online course. While the need for diversity content remains, the context for instruction is shifting, yet relatively little is known about the degree to which diversity courses facilitate the learning of multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills in general and in online instruction. As a whole, there is little pedagogical support for evidence-based teaching approaches where the aim is not only knowledge transfer but also a shift in mindsets (Paluck & Green, 2009). The purpose of this article is to extend prior work examining shifts in cultural competence from the traditional face-to-face realm (Patterson et al., 2018) into the online arena. We compared students’ shifts in various cultural competence measures in online and face-to-face multicultural psychology courses.
College campuses are increasingly diverse. In 2015, 7.7 of 17.0 million undergraduate degrees in the United States were awarded to racial and ethnically diverse students (NCES, 2018). Universities have a special role in the evolution of cultural practices as education facilitates the transmission of culture (Banerjee & Firtell, 2017). Diversity on campuses presents both benefits and challenges. Benefits are heightened critical thinking, increased academic skill, and greater counts of leadership and civic engagement (Haslerig et al., 2013; Ward & Zarate, 2015). Challenges are increased conflict and less efficient coordination (Gündemir, Homan, Usova, & Galinsky, 2017). Due to the specific opportunities and concerns, educators must be prepared to manage diversity effectively in their classes.
Cross-racial exchanges in and out of the classroom provide students lasting competencies needed to successfully transition into their diverse work and/or personal contexts (Jayakumar, 2008). Recognition of the importance of this topic has been given by organizations like the American Psychological Association, who commissioned the Multicultural Guidelines (Clauss-Ehlers, Chiriboga, Hunter, Roysircar, & Tummala-Narra, 2019), and by universities who name diversity and inclusion within their mission and vision statements (Torres-Harding, Siers, & Olson, 2012). Diversity refers to the representation of diverse people within groups, while inclusion refers to the practices within groups to ensure that all people participate productively and equitably (Martinez-Acosta & Favero, 2018). Cultural competence can serve to advance both diversity (e.g., by noting disparities or inequities and prompting greater representation) and inclusion (e.g., by engaging in practices that facilitate equitable participation from all group members).
Despite organizations and universities recognizing the need and importance of diversity, there has been an increase of hate crimes in many regions of the world (Chakraborti, 2018). Concerning trends in displays of overt discrimination were observed in the general population following the 2016 presidential campaign (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016). College students across the United States seemed to respond to the hostile climate with a parallel increase in hateful acts (Rasheed, 2018). Racist manifestations were documented at East Tennessee State University, where a White student joined a Black Lives Matter rally in a gorilla costume. A former Pennsylvania State University student, also White, pleaded guilty to grabbing a Middle Eastern student by the neck and threatening to put a bullet through his head. Students at Cornell University responded to the beating of a Black student, who had been assaulted and called racist slurs by a group of White students. With the safety and formative development of students at stake, it is crucial that we examine and advance best practices for the promotion of cultural competence. Established courses in multicultural and cross-cultural topics present a viable context from which to begin to meet this need on college campuses and perhaps in the broader public.
Distance education has transformed education, allowing institutions to exhaust fewer resources, improve accessibility, and expand both the courses offered as well as the reach of the faculty that teach them (Osho & Williams, 2018). Students have become increasingly diverse, including increased numbers of parents, working students, and those living in remote areas. Distance education allows for asynchronous courses that nontraditional students can fit to their particular context, schedules, and competing responsibilities (Arias, Swinton, & Anderson, 2018). Learners choose online education to work full-time and avoid compromising career advancement (Ilgaz & Gulbahar, 2017). Online education offers flexibility and freedom from restraints of time and location, and these freedoms promote autonomy (Ilgaz & Gulbahar, 2017).
The shift in teaching modality has prompted researchers to compare academic outcomes of online versus face-to-face classes. Results support the notion that the two are comparable in achieving knowledge transfer across academic content areas (Cavanaugh & Jacquemin, 2015; Fishman et al., 2013; McCutcheon, Lohan, Traynor, & Martin, 2015; Pereira & Wahi, 2018). Over the past two decades, online education has become a viable method for providing instruction globally, reducing inequities when it comes to quality and access of course content. Multicultural education seeks to eliminate inequalities between social classes, ethnicity, power, and privilege as well as discriminatory educational practices (Cho, 2017). Given the shared commitment of reducing gaps and promoting equal access, e-learning could be a viable delivery platform of multicultural education (Banerjee & Firtell, 2017).
The adoption of online education has not come without challenges or critiques. A commonly cited concern is student engagement and its impact on student learning and grades (Ginns & Ellis, 2007). Online students’ social presence and instructor presence is tied to learning outcomes (Joksimović, Gašević, Kovanović, Riecke, & Hatala, 2015). In the present study, our online courses had a strong emphasis on student engagement by way of weekly discussion board posts. Students were presented with prompts that required them to strategically engage with specific content within their community of peers. They were also required to respond to classmates’ posts, and those posts were closely monitored by the instructor and teaching assistant for depth and understanding. Instructor and teaching assistant presence was evidenced in regular announcements, in-depth weekly comments to individual assignments, and personalized e-mails as well as vigilance and commentary in the discussion forums.
When discussing effective strategies for multicultural education through an online format, scholars and students concur that online multicultural education is effective when managing certain pedagogical dimensions (Lee, 2011; Reeves & Reeves, 1997, as cited in Lee, 2011). The roles identified as critical for online multicultural education were pedagogical, material, technical, affective, and differentiating (Lee, 2011). The course discussed in this article adhered to these concepts (Lee, 2011) through the instructors’ fluent knowledge of the content, providing clear directions, being patient, using video tools/discussion forums effectively, giving affective support/establishing rapport, accommodating individual needs, and offering multiple perspectives.
Multicultural education embodies a power compromise to determine who defines problems and how they are addressed; it goes beyond awareness and helps to functionally define the role of education within diverse and unequal contexts (Sleeter, 2018). Similarly, social justice
is aimed at promoting a society which is just and equitable, valuing diversity, providing equal opportunities to all its members, irrespective of their ability status, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation or religion, and ensuring fair allocation of resources and support for their human rights. (Bhugra, 2016, p. 336)
Multicultural education and social justice are often used interchangeably in both theoretical and applied literature (Aldarondo, 2007; Pieterse, Carter, Evans, & Walter, 2010). We use the terms interchangeably as well; we understand multicultural education to be a specific enactment of social justice work. When educators actively work to change students’ attitudes and beliefs, they are engaging in social justice work. When students engage with material beyond the classroom (e.g., attendance to multicultural events), they are practicing important skills that educators shape in the context of the course.
The effects of multicultural psychology education have been investigated, and reports document that taking one multicultural psychology course can increase cultural competencies (Patterson et al., 2018; Reyna, Keller-Margulis, & Burridge, 2017). However, the assessment effectiveness has been criticized because of the numerous ways in which competencies are defined and taught and the ways in which outcomes are measured (Gorski, 2009; Paul-Binyamin & Reingold, 2014). Also, more information is needed on the direct pathways, coursework, and delivery method in which individuals develop said competencies (Vega, Tabbah, & Monserrate, 2018). Although measures such as the Multicultural School Psychology Counseling Competency, Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory (Reyna et al., 2017), and self-reported measures of change (Tomlinson-Clarke, 2000) are arguably different, their results are discussed in the same way when defining, assessing, and reporting aims of cultural competencies and multicultural coursework. The development and evaluation of competencies transmitted through courses are critical given that one multicultural psychology course is often the only required mechanism that universities utilize to promote and develop students’ cultural competencies (Mena & Rogers, 2017).
Despite limitations, multicultural psychology courses serve an instrumental role in expanding the educational experiences of university students, allowing learners to engage in the unmasking of social and institutional contexts that can create or perpetuate systems of oppression. Campuses often have a wealth of diversity events (e.g., speakers, advocacy events, cultural celebrations) and student clubs. These events often have the ideal characteristics for successful intergroup contact advanced by Allport (1979) and supported meta-analyses (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). However, these campus events and experiences are not connected to important theories and/or research findings in a manner that allows for a deliberate and guided intellectual exploration of social processes as part of students’ professional development. A stand-alone multicultural psychology course can be fundamental in integrating experiences with theories and research findings to provide a substantive academic experience. That said, multicultural educators would stress that cultural competence training must be integrated throughout program curricula in order to have optimal impact on the social and academic development of students (Bezrukova, Spell, Perry, & Jehn, 2016).
Ethics in Educational Research
Faculty who conduct research within their classroom encounter particular ethical dilemmas as they embody both the role of researchers and instructors. Conducting research within the classroom affords institutions and instructors the opportunity to assess and evaluate educational practices/strategies, students’ formative learning, and policies (Burman & Kleinsasser, 2004). Publishing these findings allows for the expansion of research in the subject area, promotion of best practices, as well as cautioning against ineffective ones (Burman & Kleinsasser, 2004). Consultation with institutional review boards could assist in the promotion of early engagement of ethical considerations (Smith, 2016); however, criticisms focus on the idea that ethics is not a process that is checked off at the initial stages of a project but, rather, is an ongoing moral obligation to recognize, address, and resolve ethical dilemmas (Head, 2020). Teaching a course with the intent of publishing the findings requires that instructors/researchers are mindful of making the distinction between students and research participants, obtaining proper consent, avoiding coercion, and properly acknowledging students’ contributions (Burman & Kleinsasser, 2004). The conceptualization and evaluation of education research should also include considerations and discussions of who is benefiting from the work and in what ways (Head, 2020; Henderson & Esposito, 2017; Kumashiro, 2014).
Social justice is the twine that purposefully ties this particular project together by connecting multicultural education and online learning. The values and mission of many of the leading organizations in this country closely resemble the tenets of multicultural education (Gündemir et al., 2017). In order for these organizations and our nation to reach their aspirations of equity, professionals are tasked with finding effective ways and platforms for the promotion and transfer of these important principles. A viable way to carry out this training is through a virtual teaching modality. Online education gives the opportunity to participate in instruction to those who are not able to meet the time and location constraints of traditional face-to-face education. This makes it possible for those who have mobility issues (e.g., people with disabilities, elderly), financial or structural limitations (e.g., full-time employment), transportation limitations, or access limitations (e.g., students in rural locations) to obtain quality education (Ilgaz & Gulbahar, 2017). Online education also lends itself to the promotion of diversity because it is not regionally bound; rather, it allows students from all over the world to interact. As the literature shows, interactions with cultural others are a critical component for increasing cultural competence and diversity awareness; thus, online teaching modalities could greatly facilitate the transference of multicultural principles (Aldrich & Johansson, 2015).
Participants
Data were collected from undergraduate students enrolled in a semester-long, upper-division multicultural psychology class at a Western, predominantly White university. A total of 167 students were enrolled in the two courses. Of those, 157 had complete data; however, two were identified as severe outliers through the use of Mahalanobi procedure. The final sample consisted of 155 students that had completed data; 71 of them completed the course on campus and 84 online. Students ranged in age between 19 and 49 years (M = 24.54, SD = 6.155). University records showed that 134 identified as White, non-Hispanic, and 21 students identified as Latinx (n = 9), Asian American (n = 5), African American (n = 1), or as having mixed ethnic heritage (n = 6). Students were 45 men and 110 women. We examined open-ended gender data to explore gender outside of the binary identification, but only eight students provided data, and their gender identification was consistent with their binary sex report. Students self-selected into either the online or in-person modality through the independent registration process. The upper-division multicultural psychology course is one of two classes offered to students in order to meet the Department of Psychology’s social cultural course requirement for the completion of the undergraduate degree in psychology. The other course is psychology of gender. Students in our sample were those that took one of two in-person courses (Fall 2013; Fall 2014) or one of two online courses (Fall 2018; Spring 2019). About two thirds of the sample (n = 94, 60.6%) identified as psychology majors, and the remainder had other majors or were undeclared.
Power
In order to understand if we had sufficient data to detect group differences, we conducted a power analysis for a multivariate analysis of variance (within-between groups) with the effect size set at a .25 alpha at .05 and power at .80 for two groups (online, face-to-face) and two repeated measures (pre, post). We used G*Power to conduct analyses (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). The analysis returned a needed sample size of 128, suggesting we had sufficient power to conduct planned analyses.
Procedure
Data were collected as part of course activities and not for generalizable research. The institutional review board reviewed and approved this project as an analysis of existing data. Students completed a battery of self-report measures during the start of the course and prior to completion that covered important cultural competence constructs. Pre- and postscores were tabulated and returned to students. Completion of the assessment was worth 10 points each out of 450 total points for the class. After receiving their scores for the last assessment, students were asked to complete an assignment that included reflection on their pre- and postscores; this assignment was worth 20 points. All course sections were taught by the same professor (second author), utilizing the same lesson plans, syllabus, and materials, with only minor modifications typical of course updates. Course syllabi for each semester may be found on Open Science Framework (OSF; https://osf.io/ny6u2/).
Materials
All course materials were developed based on the tripartite model of cultural competence (D. W. Sue, 2001; S. Sue, 1998). Development of the online course was intentionally modeled after the face-to-face class (see Supplemental Table 1 for specific modifications: https://osf.io/y3v9g/). The textbook, syllabus, quizzes, assignments, participation in cultural events, structure, rationale, and assessments were consistent across the four classes compared in this study (see syllabi in OSF). There were necessary changes made to accommodate the change in format (e.g., in-person discussions were switched to online discussion boards) and changes associated with expected course improvements (see Table 1). For mean across times for all variables see Table 2. The gap between the in-person (2013, 2014) and online (2018, 2019) years analyzed in this study is due to our desire to compare the courses while holding the instructor constant. The course was developed and taught by that same person all four semesters with attention to maintaining fidelity to the course goals. The instructor obtained her PhD in 1999 and attained full professor status in 2013. Her career has focused on advancing diversity and inclusion in research, teaching, and clinical practice. Differences in Key Components of In-Person and Online Instruction
Estimated Marginal Means for Main and Interaction Effects
Measures
Empathy
The Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy (SEE) measures empathy toward diverse others (Wang et al., 2003). The SEE is a 31-item, 6-point self-report scale with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree that it describes me) to 6 (strongly agree that it describes me). The original scale was tested with undergraduate students, the majority of whom were White women. The authors reported acceptable reliability with Cronbach alphas in the .76–.91 range for the SEE scale total. The total scale reliability was .906 at Time 1 and .914 at Time 2 in our sample.
Color-blindness
Students completed the 20-item Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (Neville et al., 2000) to measure their racial color-blindness. The 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree) sums all the items for a final score of 20–120. Higher scores reflect higher color-blind racial attitudes. The scale was originally tested and validated with a sample of college students consisting of predominantly White women, and the authors reported Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities ranging from .68 to .91. For the present sample, reliability estimates were .909 and .925 at Time 1 and Time 2, respectively.
Beliefs about diversity
The Personal Beliefs About Diversity Scale (Pohan & Aguilar, 2001) measures beliefs and knowledge of diversity through a 15-item scale. Scoring of the items consisted of a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagreeto 5 = strongly agree) with total scores ranging from 15–75, where higher scores indicated openness or acceptance of diversity issues. In the literature, the scale showed good reliability (range = .82–.84) and strong test–retest reliability. For the present sample, reliability estimates were .816 at Time 1 and .832 at Time 2.
Multicultural experiences
Respondents’ actual and desired multicultural experiences were measured using the Multicultural Experiences Questionnaire (MEQ; Narvaez & Hill, 2010). The 15-item self-report measure utilizes various scale ranges (e.g., 1 = never to 4 = regularly, 1 = never to 5 = always, 1 = not true at all to 5 = very true, 1 = no discrimination and very negative to 5 = lots of discrimination and very positive). Total scores range from 19–70, with higher scores indicating a higher number of experiences and desire for experiences in multicultural contexts. Acceptable alphas were reported in the literature at .75 and .80 (Narvaez & Hill, 2010). For the present sample, reliability estimates were acceptable at Time 1 (.700) and Time 2 (.687).
Perceptions of discrimination
The Discrimination Perceptions scale was developed as a companion to the MEQ (Narvaez & Hill, 2010) and with the purpose of measuring respondents’ overall perception of discrimination toward members of groups with marginalized social identities. This is a 16-item questionnaire with a scale ranging from 1 (no discrimination) to 5 (lots of discrimination). The scale is calculated as a sum of items, with higher scores indicating a higher likelihood that an individual perceives discrimination toward the targeted group. Total scores range from 5–80. In the present sample, the scale had strong reliability at Time 1 (.910) and Time 2 (.908).
Social group impressions
The Social Group Impressions Scale was developed as a companion to the MEQ (Narvaez & Hill, 2010) and with the purpose of measuring respondents’ overall attitudes toward special groups. The 16-item survey is calculated as a sum of items with a range from 5 to 80. Single items are rated from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive), with higher scores indicating more positive group impressions. In the present sample, the scale had strong reliability at Time 1 (.910) and Time 2 (.911).
We conducted a mixed repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance with one between-subjects factor for class modality (in-person, online) and one within-subjects factor of time (beginning of semester, end of semester). Binary covariates were created for gender (man, woman) and ethnicity (White, student of color). The outcomes were variables related to cultural competence; specifically: multicultural experiences, perceptions of discrimination, social group perceptions, ethnocultural empathy, personal beliefs about diversity, and color-blind racial attitudes. Prior to running analyses, we examined baseline differences across all four sections and found no significant between-group differences; that is, students’ baseline levels of ethnocultural empathy, color-blindness, multicultural experiences, personal beliefs about diversity, social group perceptions, and perceptions of discrimination were similar across all course sections.
It is important to note that we created binary covariates for gender and ethnicity due to the nature of our sample. For the gender variable, we understand that gender is on a spectrum; however, the university provided measurements on a binary scale for “sex.” All students provided data on this binary. In terms of ethnicity, we only had 21 students of color across all groups. Dividing these students into ethnic groups resulted in cells far too small for meaningful analyses. Furthermore, in an ethnically homogenous and primarily White American area, we hypothesized that people of color across groups may have common experiences that warranted grouping based on the common group identity model (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993). The model suggests that identities shift depending on context.
Primary Analyses
Between-group differences analyses revealed a significant main effect for gender, Wilks’ Λ = .821, F(6, 146) = 5.291, p < .001, ηp2 = .179. Generally speaking, women had more favorable scores across measures than men. Main effects for ethnicity and class modality were not statistically significant. The results for ethnicity, Wilks’ Λ = .925, F(6, 146) = 1.982, p = .072, ηp2 = .075, suggest that we may have been underpowered to detect differences; nonetheless, these differences were not statistically significant. The results for class modality were unequivocal, Wilks’ Λ = .988, F(6, 146) = 0.291, p = .940, ηp2 = .012, indicating that there were no differences between in-person and online modalities in dependent measures scores.
Within-group differences reflected main effects for time, Wilks’ Λ = .726, F(6, 146) = 9.203, p < .001, ηp2 = .274, showing significant overall movement in measures from Time 1 to Time 2 toward more favorable scores across measures. We also found a significant time by class modality interaction, Wilks’ Λ = .888, F(6, 146) = 3.063, p = .007, ηp2 = .112, indicating that while students in both class modalities moved, they moved at different rates. There were no significant time by gender interactions, Wilks’ Λ = .970, F(6, 146) = 0.753, p = .608, ηp2 = .030, or time by ethnicity interactions, Wilks’ Λ = .928, F(6, 146) = 1.893, p = .086, ηp2 = .072.
Post Hoc Analyses
When examining the main effect for time across six cultural competence outcomes, significant effects were observed, specifically for ethnocultural empathy, F(1, 151) = 26.895, p < .001, ηp2 = .151, color-blind racial attitudes, F(1, 151) = 27.043, p < .001, ηp2 = .152, and multicultural experiences, F(1, 151) = 17.305, p < .001, ηp2 = .103, suggesting that shifts in these three variables were strongest. When examining the time by class modality interaction across six cultural competence outcomes, two significant differences emerge: ethnocultural empathy, F(1, 151) = 4.895, p = .028, ηp2 = .031, and color-blind racial attitudes, F(1, 151) = 13.345, p < .001, ηp2 = .081. In both cases, in-person students evidenced larger gains than online students. See Figure 1 for a visual display of these relationships. Levene’s test for equality of error variances were nonsignificant for color-blindness (.797, .516), ethnocultural empathy (.866, .709), multicultural experiences (.919, .550), and social groups perceptions (.408, .111) at both Time 1 and Time 2. They were significant for personal beliefs about diversity (.042, .043) and perceptions of discrimination (.013, .100). Figure 1. Interactions between time and outcome for colorblindness (CoBRAS), multicultural experiences (MEQ), and ethnocultural empathy (SEE). CoBRAS = Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale; MEQ = Multicultural Experiences Questionnaire; SEE = Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy.
Available evidence suggests that characteristics of cultural competence, such as ethnocultural empathy and color-blind attitudes, shift over the course of a semester-long, in-person multicultural psychology course (Patterson et al., 2018). Whether it was possible to observe these shifts in students enrolled in an online course remained an empirical question and was confirmed in this study. Our results reflect what is already evident in the literature: that women tend to have higher ratings across variables related to cultural competence (Cundiff & Komarraju, 2008; Neville, Poteat, Lewis, & Spanierman, 2014). The most salient finding was the nonsignificant main effect for modality, suggesting that students moved in a favorable direction across cultural competence domains both online and in-person. This is relevant because it suggests that students online can benefit as in-person students do in terms of shift in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. The within-group analyses, however, showed that there was a time by modality interaction, suggesting that our excitement should be somewhat tempered as in-person students seemed to have greater gains in ethnocultural empathy (increased) and color-blindness (decreased)—two very important constructs in cultural competence. The greater gains in the traditional face-to-face modality was in spite of the online class being a close replica of the face-to-face, holding the instructor constant, and meaningfully engaging with the students through intensive weekly feedback on assignments, which has been documented to have positive impacts on student learning (Morgan, 2015; Weaver, 2006).
Our findings suggest that a simple transfer of content may not suffice to achieve the same magnitude of changes in cultural competence constructs. The material the students were exposed to was virtually identical in the in-person and online courses (see Supplemental Table 1). A published review of graduate syllabi (Pieterse et al., 2010) showed significant overlap between our course content and required graduate-level clinical and counseling psychology courses. Our class is not unique but, rather, appears to adhere to consistent practices for multicultural educators. What is unique about our pedagogical practice is the evaluation of attitude shifts in addition to content knowledge. We understand academic benchmarks (e.g., participation, quiz performance, homework completion) to be related but different from shifts in attitudes that are desirable but cannot be required for grading. We believe that this combined approach to course evaluation may result in a more useful assessment of the benefits that students acquire as a result of participating in courses that aim to produce both knowledge gains and attitude shifts.
We hypothesized that greater shifts online could be achieved through higher contact with the instructors (in the form of written or verbal feedback), augmenting the requirements for attendance at diversity events and creating spaces for experiential learning and contact with diverse others (Neville et al., 2014). The present data helped inform changes that we made. In the two semesters (Summer 2019; Fall 2019) following our evaluation, we added a group project to the online course and flexibilized the cultural activities to increase the probability of more meaningful contact for students through those activities. Making changes while continuing to evaluate outcomes will allow us to understand the impact of these changes. Ongoing assessment of specific attitudinal constructs that are tied to course goals can allow for experimentation pedagogical practices and adjustments that are based on evidence rather than instructor impressions, consistent with scholarship on teaching and learning.
Limitations
As with many interventions, it is difficult to elucidate the active ingredients of an effective evidence-based program (Nock, 2007). We are unsure of the exact process/coursework that facilitated pre- and postchanges in ethnocultural empathy, color-blind racial attitudes, and multicultural experiences. Given that students self-selected into the online modality, there could have been components that contributed to the differences in scores but were not measured. The fact that students had an option between multicultural psychology and psychology of gender could have had a priming effect, where students who were initially interested in the subject could have also had prior knowledge and experienced greater motivation and engagement, which translates into more positive learning outcomes (Hidi, 1990; Tobias, 1994). Regarding the diversity of the sample, the campus location in an ethnically homogenous area resulted in a primarily White American sample. Our sample was also not diverse in terms of gender identity. Thus, findings are not generalizable to ethnically or gender diverse students.
The time lapse between the two class modalities could be relevant to findings. The 2016 presidential election was an important historical event between the two time periods and could have introduced a confound. The election has been identified as an important turning point toward a return to overt discrimination and an increase in the acceptability of expressions of prejudicial attitudes (Crandall, Miller, & White, 2018; Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016). Although the hostile political climate post-2016 may be implicated in the attenuated attitude shifts for the online group, we did not find differences in students’ attitudes at the beginning of the courses.
Conclusion
The course objective of shifting key cultural competence domains through the promotion of self-awareness, knowledge, and skills in an online course was auspicious given the wealth of variables that could have interfered with our goal. The course is one of two department-wide options to fulfill a degree requirement; thus, there is great variability in students’ field of study, age, experience, and exposure to course content. Teaching what many would deem a sensitive or political topic without the ability to leverage the social presence of instructors or peers presents unique challenges. Learners can find the interactions and instruction impersonal due to lack of factors such as tone of voice, eye contact, or familiarity with the instructor, which are lacking in text-based interactions such as discussion forums and are exacerbated by the delay in responses (Kear, Chetwynd, & Jefferis, 2014). The lack of social presence and kinship could have been a key factor that interfered with desired course outcomes. We believe that the significantly positive change in scores was possible due to (a) a dedicated adherence to a theoretical framework (Jackson, 2015)—namely, the tripartite model (D. W. Sue, 2001; S. Sue, 1998); (b) the instructor’s extensive expertise in the content area; and (c) close alignment to the face-to-face section of the course, which had previously suggested evidence of effectiveness (Patterson et al., 2018).
This study contributes to the literature by providing evidence of attitude shifts in important domains of cultural competence. Students can both acquire knowledge and shift attitudes in ways that are consistent with institutional and professional values. We have provided evidence that these shifts in attitudes can be possible both in-person and online, possibly creating important social change during the class and also addressing possible structural inequities by making the benefits of education equitable across students whether they are attending in-person or online. Finally, we provided course syllabi and materials that may be useful to educators seeking to replicate the course on their college campuses.
Aldarondo, E. (Ed.). (2007). Advancing social justice through clinical practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 10.4324/9780203936689
Aldrich, R. M., & Johansson, K. E. (2015). U.S. and Swedish student learning through online synchronous international interactions. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 1–5. 10.5014/ajot.2015.018424
Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Arias, J. J., Swinton, J., & Anderson, K. (2018). Online vs. face-to-face: A comparison of student outcomes with random assignment. E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 12, 1–23. Retrieved from http://www.ejbest.org
Banerjee, S., & Firtell, J. (2017). Pedagogical models for enhancing the cross-cultural online public health learning environment. Health Education Journal, 76, 622–631. 10.1177/0017896917710970
Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1227–1274. 10.1037/bul0000067
Bhugra, D. (2016). Social discrimination and social justice. International Review of Psychiatry, 28, 336–341. 10.1080/09540261.2016.1210359
Burman, M. E., & Kleinsasser, A. (2004). Ethical guidelines for use of student work: Moving from teaching’s invisibility to inquiry’s visibility in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Journal of General Education, 53, 59–79. 10.1353/jge.2004.0018
Cavanaugh, J. K., & Jacquemin, S. J. (2015). A large sample comparison of grade based student learning outcomes in online vs. face-to-face courses. Online Learning, 19(2), 1–8. 10.24059/olj.v19i2.454
Chakraborti, N. (2018). Responding to hate crime: Escalating problems, continued failings. Criminology & Criminal Justice: An International Journal, 18, 387–404. 10.1177/1748895817736096
Cho, H. (2017). Navigating the meanings of social justice, teaching for social justice, and multicultural education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 19, 1–19. 10.18251/ijme.v19i2.1307
Clauss-Ehlers, C. S., Chiriboga, D. A., Hunter, S. J., Roysircar, G., & Tummala-Narra, P. (2019). APA multicultural guidelines executive summary: Ecological approach to context, identity, and intersectionality. American Psychologist, 74, 232–244. 10.1037/amp0000382
Crandall, C. S., Miller, J. M., & White, M. H., II. (2018). Changing norms following the 2016 U.S. presidential election: The Trump effect on prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 186–192. 10.1177/1948550617750735
Cundiff, N. L., & Komarraju, M. (2008). Gender differences in ethnocultural empathy and attitudes toward men and women in authority. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 5–15. 10.1177/1548051808318000
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Fishman, B., Konstantopoulos, S., Kubitskey, B. W., Vath, R., Park, G., Johnson, H., & Edelson, D. C. (2013). Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional development in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 426–438. 10.1177/0022487113494413
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1–26. 10.1080/14792779343000004
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 53–64. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.003
Gorski, P. C. (2009). What we’re teaching teachers: An analysis of multicultural teacher education coursework syllabi. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 309–318. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.07.008
Gündemir, S., Homan, A. C., Usova, A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2017). Multicultural meritocracy: The synergistic benefits of valuing diversity and merit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 34–41. 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.002
Haslerig, S., Bernhard, L. M., Fuentes, M. V., Panter, A. T., Daye, C. E., & Allen, W. R. (2013). A compelling interest: Activating the benefits of classroom-level diversity. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6, 158–173. 10.1037/a0034065
Head, G. (2020). Ethics in educational research: Review boards, ethical issues and researcher development. European Educational Research Journal, 19, 72–83. 10.1177/1474904118796315
Henderson, K. L.-T., & Esposito, J. (2017). Using others in the nicest possible way: On colonial and academic practice(s), and an ethic of humility. Qualitative Inquiry, 25(9–10), 876–889. 10.1177/1077800417743528
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571. 10.3102/00346543060004549
Ilgaz, H., & Gulbahar, Y. (2017). Why do learners choose online learning: The learners’ voices. Proceedings of the International Conference on E-Learning. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED579379
Jackson, J. (2015). Becoming interculturally competent: Theory to practice in international education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 91–107. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.012
Jayakumar, U. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and global society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforce competencies. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 615–651. 10.17763/haer.78.4.b60031p350276699
Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 638–654. 10.1111/jcal.12107
Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., & Jefferis, H. (2014). Social presence in online learning communities: The role of personal profiles. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 19710. 10.3402/rlt.v22.19710
Kodjo, C. (2009). Cultural competence in clinician communication. Pediatrics in Review: An Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 30, 57–64. 10.1542/pir.30-2-57
Koriakina, A. (2018). Realization of multicultural education in the aspect of intercultural communication. Pedagogy, 90, 700–705. Retrieved from https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=672333
Kumashiro, K. K. (2014). Troubling the politics of engagement, ethics and educational research: Reframing our work. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 8, 44–54. 10.1080/15595692.2013.803467
Lawyer, G. (2018). The dangers of separating social justice from multicultural education: Applications in higher education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20, 86–101. 10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1538
Lee, D. Y. (2011). Korean and foreign students’ perceptions of the teacher’s role in a multicultural online learning environment in Korea. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 913–935. 10.1007/s11423-011-9219-0
Martinez-Acosta, V. G., & Favero, C. B. (2018). A discussion of diversity and inclusivity at the institutional level: The need for a strategic plan. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 16(3), A252–A260. Retrieved from www.funjournal.org
McCutcheon, K., Lohan, M., Traynor, M., & Martin, D. (2015). A systematic review evaluating the impact of online or blended learning vs. face-to-face learning of clinical skills in undergraduate nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71, 255–270. 10.1111/jan.12509
Mena, J. A., & Rogers, M. R. (2017). Factors associated with multicultural teaching competence: Social justice orientation and multicultural environment. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 11, 61–68. 10.1037/tep0000143
Morgan, S. (2015). ‘What I learnt from you’ – Supportive written feedback for GP trainees after clinical teaching visits. Medical Teacher, 37, 700–700. 10.3109/0142159X.2015.1041472
Narvaez, D., & Hill, P. L. (2010). The relation of multicultural experiences to moral judgment and mindsets. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 43–55. 10.1037/a0018780
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Digest of education statistics, 2017. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_311.15.asp?current=yes
Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 59–70. 10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59
Neville, H. A., Poteat, V. P., Lewis, J. A., & Spanierman, L. B. (2014). Changes in White college students’ color-blind racial ideology over 4 years: Do diversity experiences make a difference?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 179–190. 10.1037/a0035168
Nock, M. K. (2007). Conceptual and design essentials for evaluating mechanisms of change. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 31, 4s–12s. 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2007.00488.x
Osho, G. S., & Williams, F. (2018). An empirical investigation of the impacts of web-based distance education: Evidence for justice studies. Journal of Educational Issues, 4, 15–26. 10.5296/jei.v4i2.13049
Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607
Patterson, C. A., Papa, L. A., Reveles, A. K., & Domenech Rodríguez, M. M. (2018). Undergraduate student change in cultural competence: Impact of a multicultural psychology course. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4, 81–92. 10.1037/stl0000108
Paul-Binyamin, I., & Reingold, R. (2014). Multiculturalism in teacher education institutes—The relationship between formulated official policies and grassroots initiatives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 42, 47–57. 10.1016/j.tate.2014.04.008
Pereira, A. S., & Wahi, M. M. (2018). Comparison of didactic, technical, role modeling, and ethics learning acquisition in undergraduate online versus face-to-face modalities. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 18, 56–69. 10.33423/jhetp.v18i5.586
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Pieterse, A. L., Carter, R. T., Evans, S. A., & Walter, R. A. (2010). An exploratory examination of the associations among racial and ethnic discrimination, racial climate, and trauma-related symptoms in a college student population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 255–263. 10.1037/a0020040
Pohan, C. A., & Aguilar, T. E. (2001). Measuring educators’ beliefs about diversity in personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 159–182. 10.3102/00028312038001159
Rasheed, S. (2018). From hostility to hospitality: Teaching about race and privilege in a post-election climate. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 37, 231–245. 10.1007/s11217-018-9607-6
Reeves, T., & Reeves, P. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. H.Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Reyna, R. S., Keller-Margulis, M. A., & Burridge, A. B. (2017). Culturally responsive school psychology practice: A study of practitioners’ self-reported skills. Contemporary School Psychology, 21, 28–37. 10.1007/s40688-016-0102-1
Rudge, L. T. (2015). Teaching critical multicultural education online and face- to-face: A cross-case analysis of students’ transformative learning. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 19, 60–74. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1176996
Sleeter, C. (2018). Multicultural education past, present, and future: Struggles for dialog and power-sharing. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 20, 5–20. 10.18251/ijme.v20i1.1663
Smith, J. (2016). Reflections on teaching research ethics in education for international postgraduate students in the U. K. Teaching in Higher Education, 21, 94–105. 10.1080/13562517.2015.1115968
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2016). The Trump effect: The impact of the 2016 presidential election on our nation’s schools. Retrieved from https://www.splcenter.org/20161128/trump-effect-impact-2016-presidential-election-our-nations-schools
Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 790–821. 10.1177/0011000001296002
Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling. American Psychologist, 53, 440–448. 10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.440
Tehee, M., Isaacs, D., & Domenech Rodríguez, M. M. (2020). The elusive construct of cultural competence. In L. T.Benuto, F.Gonzalez, & J.Singer (Eds.), Handbook for cultural factors in behavioral health: A guide for the helping professional (pp. 11–24). New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-32229-8_2
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64, 37–54. 10.3102/00346543064001037
Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2000). Assessing outcomes in a multicultural training course: A qualitative study. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13, 221–231. 10.1080/713658487
Torres-Harding, S. R., Siers, B., & Olson, B. D. (2012). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Social Justice Scale (SJS). American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(1–2), 77–88. 10.1007/s10464-011-9478-2
Vega, D., Tabbah, R., & Monserrate, M. (2018). Multicultural school psychology training: An examination of students’ self-reported course outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 449–463. 10.1002/pits.22123
Wang, Y.-W., Davidson, M. M., Yakushko, O. F., Savoy, H. B., Tan, J. A., & Bleier, J. K. (2003). The Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy: Development, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 221–234. 10.1037/0022-0167.50.2.221
Ward, K. M., & Zarate, M. E. (2015). The influence of campus racial climate on graduate student attitudes about the benefits of diversity. Review of Higher Education, 38, 589–617. 10.1353/rhe.2015.0034
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 379–394. 10.1080/02602930500353061
Zhu, H. (2011). From intercultural awareness to intercultural empathy. English Language Teaching, 4, 116–119. 10.5539/elt.v4n1p116
Submitted: May 10, 2019 Revised: February 14, 2020 Accepted: February 21, 2020
This publication is protected by US and international copyright laws and its content may not be copied without the copyright holders express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user. Source: Translational Issues in Psychological Science. Vol. 6. (2), Jun, 2020 pp. 160-174) Accession Number: 2020-31789-007 Digital Object Identifier: 10.1037/tps0000229