In keeping with the idea of limitations to the study, the literature review, although by no means truncated, was limited by the universe of discourse. Kerlinger and Lee (2000, p. 74) define the universe of discourse as the set of areas of research studied that are related to the research questions. In this case, that set encompasses the areas of culture, motivation, and learning. While that may still seem a large set, rules determine if an object belongs to the
universe and therefore what literature was and was not surveyed (Rothstein, 2012). For example, one rule was to emphasize cognitive and affective aspects of culture rather than linguistic
aspects. Another rule was to include only three motivational, or psychosocial factors: self- concept, family obligation, and ethnocentrism. Another rule was that studies with culture should have a dependent variable related to academic achievement. Other rules were to focus on studies with a cross-cultural perspective, and with a sample of adolescents, or middle school students. The universe of discourse did not include studies that used adults (unless findings were relevant to adolescents). In short, the universe of discourse included studies on biculturalism,
multiculturalism, immigration, acculturation, diversity, socioeconomic status, and knowledge activation, but for the most part, only in the context of education. For example, studies on immigration policy, which shape the experience of some immigrant groups, or studies of health issues for immigrants, are of secondary interest and not generally included, and studies on diversity in college through affirmative action admissions are mostly excluded as they miss the target population's age.
Although determining the universe of discourse helps restrict the literature review, there is still a need to make the process more efficient. One way to do this is to limit the review to the context of my study. This context includes the learning environment, learner characteristics, and
learner processes. The learning environment is diverse and multicultural. Learner characteristics include the effects of familistic beliefs, immigrant status, and socioeconomic status (SES). Learner processes entail social and psychological mechanisms including acculturation, biculturalism, knowledge activation, and psychosocial variables—academic self-concept, and ethnocentrism. While an attempt was made to restrict the studies reviewed to those with
Hispanic participants, from time to time, a study with a different ethnic group was reviewed due to its relevance for the intervention or the outcome. For example the study by Amundsen, Rossow, and Skurtveit (2005) on Muslims immigrants in Norway was reviewed because it had findings in support of hypotheses about acculturation and minority influence on the dominant group. Studies of African American or Asian students were largely not included.
Learning Environment
Literature was reviewed on two key aspects of the learning environment that are related to culture: diversity and multicultural education. Diversity in classrooms sprang from federal requirements for desegregated schools beginning in the early 1970’s, legal arguments for diversity included claims that there were cognitive benefits for individual students from greater diversity in classrooms. Multicultural education was a response to that diversity. It was a reform movement whose goal was to change the structure of educational institutions to be more
equitable. Greater equity in schools meant they attended to the cultural background of students, including their unique language and learning styles, and it necessitated a more inclusive
curriculum (Banks & Banks, 1999, p. 3)
Diversity
Diversity is a part of the learning environment in schools in the United States. A review of the literature on diversity is important because the central motivation underlying my
dissertation is that the advantages of student diversity are not being realized in our schools. The literature on diversity examines its impact on a number of outcomes, including psychosocial and cognitive ones. The two key questions most studies address are a) what are the kinds of diversity experiences that lead to desired outcomes, and b) what are the conditions needed for them? In particular, does diversity primarily impact students through formal experiences in classes, or through informal experiences outside of class? And since most research on diversity has been done to examine the impact of college, rather than the k-12 level that I am interested in, are those types of experiences possible in k-12 schools? In terms of conditions, the question is whether or not these effects are developmental, in the sense that college students are developmentally ready to benefit from them, but k-12 students may not be. The literature also details how diversity in education is a legal issue. The motivation to find empirical evidence of the benefits of diversity sprang from the general legal argument made in cases before the United States Supreme Court that there were educational benefits to diversity which justified policies to ensure diversity such as affirmative action (Amar & Katyal, 1996; Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Rudenstine, 2001).
At the college level.
Astin (1993) is a seminal work on diversity and its impact on many desired outcomes at the college level. The author finds support for informal diversity experiences such as socializing with people from different racial/ethnic groups, and discussions about racial issues, as having a positive impact on psychosocial variables such as self-esteem and academic self-concept as well as on cognitive outcomes. Lesser effects were found for more formal diversity experiences such
as attending workshops on race. Other studies supporting psychosocial and cognitive effects include Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) who conclude stronger effects were for social activism development than for cognitive, and that diversity may primarily impact a college student's sense of social justice and related outcomes. In another study by Cruce, Wolniak, Seifert, and
Pascarella (2006), the authors found small but significant effects of good practices (effective teaching and interaction with faculty, interactions with peers, and challenge, or high
expectations) on cognitive development, on orientation to learning (including a construct similar to academic self-concept), and on educational aspirations (p. 369). Greater effects were found on orientation to learning than cognitive gains (math, reading, and critical thinking skills). Of note is that diversity was found to affect self-concept and achievement.
Many studies found conditional effects. This supports my hypothesis that culture’s impact on achievement is moderated by other variables. Specifically, a diverse learning environment affected outcomes through its impact on learner characteristics such as
race/ethnicity, or pre-college academic preparation. In addition, diversity did not consistently have a positive impact on cognitive or academic outcomes important for school success. For example, Pascarella, Palmer, Moye, and Pierson (2001) found that diversity experiences in college had a significant effect on a standardized test of critical thinking, but effects were conditional on ethnicity and gender, and occurring at different times in one's college career. Types of diversity experiences also were found to have different effects depending on the ethnicity of the student. For example, formal diversity experiences such as taking a course on diversity had no impact on critical thinking for any group, but taking a cultural awareness workshop benefited White students' scores on a measure of critical thinking, and having discussions with students about different lifestyles or customs positively impacted critical
thinking for men of color (p. 264). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) also found the impact of diversity experiences on both standardized tests and self-report measures of critical thinking was stronger for Whites, than for non-Whites. Loes, Pascarella, and Umbach (2012) found that as the level of pre-college academic preparation increased, the positive impact of interactional diversity on critical thinking skills decreased. Looking at race, interactional diversity had a marginally significant positive impact on the critical thinking of White students, but for students of color the effect was statistically non-significant, but trending towards being negative. These findings suggest diversity may have little to do with critical thinking skills for students of color.
Because school success can be measured as high performance in academic achievement outcomes, arguments in favor of diversity should be based on their impact on such outcomes. These outcomes include critical thinking, cognitive growth, reading and math achievement, academic self-concept, and they are distinct from more social outcomes such as social activism, cultural awareness, acceptance of people from different cultures, etc. Unfortunately, much of the literature did not find diversity consistently predicted those achievement outcomes, but, instead, primarily benefited social-oriented outcomes. For example, Chang's (2001) study found
socializing with someone of another race affected satisfaction with college, and social self- confidence, but not intellectual self-confidence. Chang, Denson, Saenz, and Misa (2006) found diversity had a stronger impact on a social outcome than on a cognitive one. The authors found diversity had a significant correlation (.17) with openness to diversity, cognitive development (.05), and (intellectual and social) self-confidence (.04) (pp. 445-446). Hurtado (2001) found the strongest effects of studying with someone from a different racial/ethnic group than oneself were on civic outcomes (.18), and the weakest was on academic self-concept (.04) (p. 197).
Some research on diversity at the college level is directly relevant to my dissertation because it enlists theories of developmental psychology to explain effects and highlights the impact of diversity on identity. This allows for a more complex analysis of how the learning environment may affect outcomes through its impact on self-concept. For example, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) state that “the interactions that seem to lead to enhanced academic self- concept all involve encounter with people different from themselves or those with different knowledge, ideas, or beliefs...[and] lead to new ways of thinking about and understanding the world and others” (p. 242). Although this is not quite an axiom, it still does not specify the psychological processes or mechanisms involved in such effects from diversity.
Such specificity may be possible through theories on the impact of college. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) explain that there are two basic types of theories on the impact of college- psychosocial, or cognitive-that deal with the origins of student change, such as students'
experiences. Psychosocial development refers to changes in the self system comprised of identity and ego stage development, academic self-concept, social self-concept, and general self- esteem, as well as relational systems, or the ways one interprets and responds to people,
conditions, and institutions in one's external world (p. 213). The authors state that individuals develop through stages containing unique dilemmas that involve the interaction of biological and psychological changes and environmental demands. Resolving these dilemmas affects
development. Of most relevance is that the stage of identity development characterized by conflict predominates during the time youth are traditionally enrolled in college. Citing the work by Phinney (e.g., 1992) there are two basic conflicts faced by members of ethnic minorities: how one's self-concept develops in an environment of prejudice and discrimination, and how one finds a balance between the values of minority and majority cultures, i.e., acculturation.
While Pascarella and Terenzini's (2005) treatment of psychosocial theory is brief, Gurin and colleagues provide a more substantive investigation of psychosocial development in the college learning environment. For example, Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) believe diversity in college introduces relational discontinuities essential to identity construction and as a result fosters cognitive growth. In other words, diversity influences cognition through its impact on identity, consistent with my hypotheses about academic self-concept. The authors argue that developmental change occurs during life transitions and college is designed as a place where transitions can occur, primarily because it is an environment that differs significantly from the home environment. As a result, the individual must seek information about the environment to make sense of it, which leads to cognitive change. The authors cited Erik Erikson (1956) as describing the late adolescent period of traditional college students as one of “psychosocial moratorium” in which one's identity is not yet solidified and one can experiment with different social roles before committing to a particular philosophy of life, social and political groups and ideas, intimate relationships, and occupation (p. 334). They believe ideally this moratorium should involve a “confrontation with diversity and complexity” (p. 334) in order to actively engage in identity formation rather than to form it based on past experiences.
As noted earlier, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) state the other type of theory used when measuring the impact of college is cognitive theory. The authors describe what generally
happens for college students: “Encounters with new information or experiences that conflict with or challenge the validity of current cognitive structures trigger adaptive responses” (p. 34). Such adaptive responses are termed assimilation responses or accommodation responses. With
assimilation, the stimulus is altered to fit the current cognitive structure. It is interpreted in a way that fits prior knowledge. With accommodation, the person alters current cognitive
structures to be consistent with the new knowledge. Thus development is a series of constructions (assimilation), and reconstructions (accommodation). “The proposition that forward movement requires an encounter with conflict, or the awareness of a challenge to the integrity and stability of the current developmental stage or condition, is fundamental to virtually all developmental theories” (p. 49). These authors state assimilation is unlikely to lead to
developmental change. This may be because it is a process of making the new like the old. Higgins (1996) describes assimilation effects as assimilating new stimuli into prior knowledge. Instead, reconstruction of prior knowledge must take place for development, in other words, accommodation. In the context of the classroom, accommodation is needed for cognitive growth, or learning. Whites need to reconstruct their established cognitive categories in light of contact and resultant new information from Hispanics, and vice versa.
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) also state that cognitive growth comes from the capacity to detach from self and to empathize because this presumes understanding that knowledge is contextual and relative, and that one must differentiate alternatives. This suggests diversity tends to reduce ethnocentrism. Ideas about cognitive change are explored in the studies reviewed on knowledge activation theory below.
The study by Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, and Gurin (2002) also offers a cognitive theory to explain diversity's impact. Because the environment differs from home, one has to seek information to make sense of it, which leads to cognitive change. During the first year of college, one finds oneself in a situation characterized by new living conditions such as a
dormitory, sharing living space with non-family members for the first time, some of whom may come from very different backgrounds. One's daily routine is no doubt different from the period when one still lived at home and was in high school. In addition to attending class, one is free of
the constraints set by parents on the activities one can engage in, and new routines develop. These new routines spur cognitive growth. Learning outcomes are affected because students are forced to consciously consider different perspectives, whereas they had developed schemas and models to operate unconsciously for much of their old routine behavior. Prior knowledge is activated automatically once familiar stimuli are presented, but if unfamiliar stimuli are
presented, the person is unable to rely on those automatic responses. The person may attempt to classify or interpret the new stimuli based on prior knowledge. When this doesn't work, the person is forced to direct conscious attention to the stimuli. Categorization is no longer
automatic. What normally happens is something is perceived and automatically categorized into pre-existing categories (Bruner, 1957). What diversity does is force one to engage in active thinking rather than automatic, because one's chronically accessible (cultural) knowledge is inadequate to understand the new information.
Within the diversity literature, one study was found that directly examined the
relationship between diversity and academic self-concept, rather than identity. Antonio (2004) focused on diversity in friendship groups among college students, but found no statistically significant difference in intellectual self-confidence between friendship groups categorized as high in diversity (no ethnic group has a majority), and friendship groups categorized as low in diversity (homogeneous). He did find a relationship between diversity and a more social- oriented outcome, aspirations. More diverse groups had higher aspirations for educational attainment. When controlling for precollege characteristics, positive effects of friendship group diversity on intellectual self-confidence were found for students of color, but not for White students, and diversity had no effect on aspirations.
Legal arguments for diversity.
Affirmative action admissions in college as well as desegregation in public schools were supported and mandated by legal arguments citing cognitive benefits to diversity. Such claims of cognitive benefits have a long history. Amar and Katiyil (1996) describe the theory Supreme Court Justice Powell used in making his decision in the Bakke case (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978) to support affirmative action while rejecting a numerical quota. Powell argued that diversity benefited all students and therefore affirmative action to increase diversity was appropriate. The future leaders of our nation depend on the training they can receive in higher education through exposure to a wide variety of views. The judge cited Harvard's admissions, which allowed race to be included in admissions decisions because “diversity adds an essential ingredient to the educational process” but argued as well that race should not be the sole type of diversity used to decide otherwise the end result is a less diverse student body. For example, the diversity of rural- vs. urban-raised students is just as important as White vs. Black students (p. 1752). The court ruling was based on mutual benefit to members of the dominant group and to minorities. “Integrated education, on the other hand, does not just benefit minorities—it advantages all students in a distinctive way, by bringing rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural, together to teach and learn from each other as democratic equals” (p. 1749). This is the point of my project. Diversity does not simply remedy past discrimination, or make up for past injustice, but goes beyond that to allow Whites to benefit from what minorities have to offer, in other words to establish and facilitate true acculturation in its original sense. Here, the point of education in a diverse society is to teach students about how others think, about their views, which presupposes those ways of thinking and those views are important.
In terms of k-12, Gurin, Nagda, and Lopez (2004) note that one statement in the Supreme Court decision Brown v.The Board of Education (1954) was that desegregation would benefit both Black and White students. The authors state that certain conditions must exist if contact between groups is to lead to benefits. First there needs to be equality if diversity is to have positive effects for both majority and minority students. Second there needs to be common goals. Finally there needs to be sustained and close interactions. Equality may come from