Student Perceptions of Campus Cultural Climate by Race

Ancis, Julie R.; Sedlacek, William E.; Mohr, Jonathan J.

doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02576.x

Cited by 364 publications

(303 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

273

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, we examined the relationship between individual factors and cognitive process variables using undergraduate students as little attention has been devoted to their experiences of cognitive processes (Goto & Takeuchi 2002;Greenland & Brown 1999), particularly in an Australian context. We substantiated the findings of previous studies mostly conducted in the United States that gender is a predictor of anxiety & apprehension (Tsui, Egan & O'Reilly 1992) and nationality is a predictor of bias (Ancis, Sedlacek & Mohr 2000;Kessler, Michelson & Williams 1999;Kohatsu et al 2000;Pham & Dykstra 1994), stereotyping (Pham & Dykstra 1994) and anxiety & apprehension (Lau et al 2009;Okazaki 1997;Okazaki et al 2002). However, we found that the relationships between gender and bias, and gender and stereotyping were not statistically significant.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

The Influence of Individual Factors on Cognitive Process Variables within a Diverse Group Context

Soldan

Bowyer²

2009

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the study was to explore the relationship between individual factors (gender, language background (LB), nationality, English language proficiency (ELP), diverse group work experience (DGWE)) and cognitive processes (bias, stereotyping, anxiety & apprehension) and investigate the nature of any emerging differences, using the sample of 837 undergraduate students. Owing to the irregular distributions of the criterion variables we combined the sensitivity and versatility of parametric tests (t-tests, ANOVA) with the robustness of the equivalent non-parametric tests (Kruskall Wallis, Mann-Whitney). Strong conclusions were drawn where both groups of tests proved significant at the .01 level. The results revealed LB, nationality, ELP, and DGWE have a statistically significant impact on bias. LB, nationality, ELP and DGWE also appear to have an impact on stereotyping while anxiety & apprehension appear to be influenced by gender, LB, nationality, ELP and DGWE. The precise differences and implications for academics and researchers are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

The Influence of Individual Factors on Cognitive Process Variables within a Diverse Group Context

Soldan

Bowyer²

2009

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The following three blocks-institutional characteristics, student major field, and major field climate-reflect college environments. Based on the findings from research that students' field of study (Astin 1993;Astin and Holland 1961;Smart et al 2000) and perceptions of campus cultural environments (Ancis et al 2000;Colbeck et al 2001;Hurtado 1992;Hurtado et al 1996) may significantly affect their college experiences and outcomes, this study employed students' major fields and major field climate as part of college environment variables along with institutional characteristics. The last block of control variables includes college experiences and captures a student's direct experience and involvement during college.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Student–Faculty Interaction in Research Universities: Differences by Student Gender, Race, Social Class, and First-Generation Status

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether the effects of student-faculty interaction on a range of student outcomes-i.e., college GPA, degree aspiration, integration, critical thinking and communication, cultural appreciation and social awareness, and satisfaction with college experience-vary by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. The study utilized data on 58,281 students who participated in the 2006 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES). The findings reveal differences in the frequency of student-faculty interaction across student gender, race, social class and first-generation status, and differences in the effects of student-faculty interaction (i.e., conditional effects) that depended on each of these factors except first-generation status. The findings provide implications for educational practice on how to maximize the educational efficacy of student-faculty interaction by minimizing the gender, race, social class, and first-generation differences associated with it.Keywords Student-faculty interaction Á Research university Á Conditional effects Á Gender Á Race Á Social class Á First-generationInteracting with faculty-whether in the classroom, the laboratory, office hours, or other venue-is one of the key college experiences associated with student development. Positive and close interactions between undergraduates and their professors precipitate students' favorable educational experiences as well as their greater academic and personal development (Lau 2003;Pascarella and Terenzini 2005). Two higher education studies, Pascarella (1980) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), provide a comprehensive and 123Res High Educ (2009) 50:437-459 DOI 10.1007 critical literature review on student-faculty interaction and its relationship with college outcomes. Pascarella (1980) summarizes a number of studies, conducted prior to 1980, on the effects of informal (out-of-class) student-faculty interaction on various college student outcomes that are grouped into five categories: career plans and educational aspirations, satisfaction with college, intellectual and personal development, academic achievement, and college persistence. Based on his intensive analysis of the literature, Pascarella suggests that statistically significant positive associations exist between student contact with faculty and these five categories. He maintains that these associations are valid even after controlling for a broad range of student input characteristics and, in a few studies, other college experiences. In How College Affects Students, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reinforce Pascarella's early findings by including formal (in-class) student-faculty interaction, as well as the informal (out-of-class) interaction, and by adding a number of studies from the 1980s through 2000s. In line with Pascarella (1980), they demonstrate that the amount and quality of student-faculty interaction positively affect various student outcomes, including subject matter competence, cognitive skills and i...

show abstract

“…Researchers argue that the biased practices of many PWIs contribute to minority students' cultural shock and alienation (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000;Just, 1999;Lui & Lui, 2000Just (1999 argues that racial climate influences almost every aspect of minority students' college experience, leading to academic and social marginalization.…”

Section: Department Of Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship Between a Retention Program and the Persistence and Graduation Rates of First-Generation Low-Income Students at an Urban, Public University

Sawyers¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student Perceptions of Campus Cultural Climate by Race

Cited by 364 publications

References 25 publications

The Influence of Individual Factors on Cognitive Process Variables within a Diverse Group Context

The Influence of Individual Factors on Cognitive Process Variables within a Diverse Group Context

Student–Faculty Interaction in Research Universities: Differences by Student Gender, Race, Social Class, and First-Generation Status

The Relationship Between a Retention Program and the Persistence and Graduation Rates of First-Generation Low-Income Students at an Urban, Public University

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About